Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
America has had plenty of experience buying territory - the Louisiana Purchase, Florida, Alaska. Indeed, the war with Mexico was one of those exceptions where they got with force far more than they probably would have achieved with a simple commercial transaction.
Now, you could argue. Florida aside, there weren't that many people involved (well, the Indians and the Eskimos didn't count then). In an era of self-determination, how much will money talk? Imagine if Argentina had been a country with the oil and GDP of Dubai and had offered every Falkland Islander £5 million to either leave the island or stay as Argentine citizens?
Essentially, Washington could make the Greenlanders an offer they'd find hard to refuse - the kind of money and investment of which they could dream but presumably backed with a 25 year guarantee of maintainign the existing social welfare and education systems.
How much is your national identity worth? We see many examples of people threatening to leave the UK if the wrong party gets elected and when you have a level of income sufficiently large, you can basically live almost anywhere and you have only an economic identity which is the size of your various accounts and investments. That's the true definition not so much of a citizen of nowhere but a citizen of everywhere.
Money talks, men walk. Why should anyone fight to preserve a identity which can be bought and sold like any other product?
Also, Trump and the Republicans are not known for their generosity with spending! They’re not going to offer Greenlanders wheelbarrows full of money.
Greenland has roughly 60,000 people so a sixth of the population of the London Borough of Newham.
Roughly 85% are Inuit - Danes make up most of the rest with very small numbers from other nationalities. To offer each of them $1 million would equal $60 billion - now, I got told off a couple of days ago for suggesting £2 billion for the British economy is a drop in the ocean - from a Conservative supporter by the way, whose perspective is strange given his party wasted £300 billion during Covid but that's different apparently. For the American economy, $60 billion is very little and easily affordable.
It’s not about the actual sums of money; it’s about how it looks. Trump prides himself on the art of the deal, on not over-paying, on getting a good price. He’s not prone to acts that look generous (unless to his own supporters).
As you say, the "art of the deal". I don't know for example how much last week's little excursion into downtown Caracas "cost" but presumably whatever guarantees he has given to his oil company executive friends will make it worthwhile.
I'm reminded of the Resource Wars in Fallout - is the 21st century going to be about resources (the 20th Century was as well to an extent)? Will we end up fighting for oil, water, wind - anything from which we can gain control of our own energy supply and deny it to our opponents?
We won’t end up fighting over oil, because most of the world is rapidly transitioning away from fossil fuels!
It is unclear if Trump has actually had any coherent conversations with oil companies. The oil companies are all being politely quiet about events, they understand that considerable investment would be required in Venezuela and they aren’t going to what to start anything without some stability in the country.
I’ve heard a couple of times on the media that the US lacks icebreakers, a necessary factor in securing Greenland. Ironically on checking Wiki, the US is working with Canada and Finland to replace its old and broken down vessels. Tricky stuff this having allies thing..
Secure it against whom? Who has the desire and capacity to fight the USA for Greenland? Nobody.
Time european countries told them to Feck off
I agree Malcolm. There's little point in pussy footing around. There's at least a chance that a show of resistance will deter him; continuing to pussy foot around, and pretend he isn't trying on a bit of extortion just encourages the mad old megalomaniac.
Doesn't seem to me his military leaders will push back against his orders if those happen. They'll find some way of turning an invasion into a rescue.
So odd, really, because the US is already there as a guest, so to speak, and surely a softer approach would have gained them more with preserved goodwill.
Good morning, everyone.
According to Wikipedia the US used to have 6,000 military personnel at its base in Greenland, but since the Cold war this has been reduced to just 150. So, obviously, the public statements about needing to possess Greenland for national security grounds are complete cobblers.
This leaves us speculating about why he wants Greenland, and without knowing what his motivation is it becomes very difficult to predict what actions he might take in service of those motivations.
So it's possible that what he wants - self-aggrandisement and self-enrichment in some form most likely - would not have been achievable by a softer approach (while national defence motivations would have been) and this leaves us with extortion or expropriation. Or this could simply be distraction from the previous distraction from his humiliation by Putin as part of his failure to create peace in Ukraine the attempt of which was a distraction from the Epstein Files.
One of the things about Trump is that he relentlessly and rapidly moves the news agenda on so that critics and impartial observers are unable to detail his failure, corruption, etc.
There's no criticism of Trump for swallowing Putin's lies about the attack that never happened on Putin's Novgorod Palace, that acted to derail any pressure on Putin for refusing a peace deal, because he forced us to rapidly move on to the abduction of Maduro, his supposed control of Venezuela, his desire to annex Greenland, etc.
For a normal politician, who tries to move the news agenda on by announcing a new policy on school meals, the tactic doesn't work so well, because the attempted distraction can either be ignored, or dealt with briefly (food is good). But Trump doesn't do half measures. Talking about invading the territory of a supposed NATO ally is not something you can brush off in order to concentrate on the previous news story. And so he escapes scrutiny.
"national security grounds" = bagging as much of the world's resources as we can, by force if we have to.
They now have the worlds largest hydrocarbons resource in Venezuela (albeit, I doubt the dumb fucks in the White House appreciated it is as mobile as boot polish before they went in).
The greater block on Trump going for Greenland is the threat of the early loss of control of Congress. The close margin has got 3 closer in the past couple of days (MTG resignation effective, one death, one in hospital after a car crash) - and that is before further resignations are being threatened over foreign policy.
Loss of control of Congress = impeachment.
He’s been impeached before but the senate has never convicted him and I cannot see them convicting.
Given over 50% of Republicans oppose a US military invasion of Greenland if Trump tried that the Senate would likely convict him.
Most Republicans back buying Greenland but not invading it though most Americans overall oppose both
Good morning
I have been to Greenland and frankly it is a large empty expanse and the US already has bases there
There will be no invasion but I do not rule out a large payment to the 56,000 population
There will be nothing Denmark, the EU or NATO can do if Trump takes over Greenland, which is a stark reminder of just how powerless the west is against him
(No he isn’t about to send the military into a NATO country. If anything happens it will be a purchase and with a referendum of the people of Greenland).
Why would the people of Greenland want a hostile takeover of the country by another country that runs its own place like a cut-throat business exploiting its customers (citizens)?
Trump's not going to be asking the people of Greenland.
I do wonder if there might be legal challenges in the US.
The great and the good in the US seem remarkably quiet about how the US has shorn all pretensions of being the world’s policeman and morphed into Al Capone.
Surely there are respected voices on the right who should be pointing out to the American people that this might look like a jolly at the moment but there will be long term damage to the US.
Denmark should say to the US that they have carte Blanche to agree with Greenland’s government to build as many naval bases and airbases it feels it needs to defend itself from the Russians (surely they just need an agreement from Putin to be nice?) and can knock themselves out by putting as many soldiers as it likes but sovereignty remains as before. Trump can’t then complain about security and will have to confirm (if it wasn’t clear already) that he is the Pirate King and actually only really cares about the money the US can extract.
Aren't US military bases officially US soil? So what's to stop them dropping an airbase and then mining underneath it?
(No he isn’t about to send the military into a NATO country. If anything happens it will be a purchase and with a referendum of the people of Greenland).
Why would the people of Greenland want a hostile takeover of the country by another country that runs its own place like a cut-throat business exploiting its customers (citizens)?
Trump's not going to be asking the people of Greenland.
I do wonder if there might be legal challenges in the US.
The great and the good in the US seem remarkably quiet about how the US has shorn all pretensions of being the world’s policeman and morphed into Al Capone.
Surely there are respected voices on the right who should be pointing out to the American people that this might look like a jolly at the moment but there will be long term damage to the US.
Denmark should say to the US that they have carte Blanche to agree with Greenland’s government to build as many naval bases and airbases it feels it needs to defend itself from the Russians (surely they just need an agreement from Putin to be nice?) and can knock themselves out by putting as many soldiers as it likes but sovereignty remains as before. Trump can’t then complain about security and will have to confirm (if it wasn’t clear already) that he is the Pirate King and actually only really cares about the money the US can extract.
Aren't US military bases officially US soil? So what's to stop them dropping an airbase and then mining underneath it?
No. In the UK, for example, they are RAF bases hosting Yanks.
The agreements can have dodgy clause sin them, though. For example the Greenland one:
Article VIII. The Government of the United States of America shall have the right to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over those defense areas in Greenland for which it is responsible under Article II (3), and over any offenses which may be committed in Greenland by the aforesaid military or civilian personnel or by members of their families, as well as over other persons within such defense areas except Danish nationals, it being understood, however, that the Government of the United States of America may turn over to the Danish authorities in Greenland for trial any person committing an offense within such defense areas. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/den001.asp
They ran into stick on that type of clause with US service staff who raped local women in the Philippines, and who were just sent home with no real punishment.
America has had plenty of experience buying territory - the Louisiana Purchase, Florida, Alaska. Indeed, the war with Mexico was one of those exceptions where they got with force far more than they probably would have achieved with a simple commercial transaction.
Now, you could argue. Florida aside, there weren't that many people involved (well, the Indians and the Eskimos didn't count then). In an era of self-determination, how much will money talk? Imagine if Argentina had been a country with the oil and GDP of Dubai and had offered every Falkland Islander £5 million to either leave the island or stay as Argentine citizens?
Essentially, Washington could make the Greenlanders an offer they'd find hard to refuse - the kind of money and investment of which they could dream but presumably backed with a 25 year guarantee of maintainign the existing social welfare and education systems.
How much is your national identity worth? We see many examples of people threatening to leave the UK if the wrong party gets elected and when you have a level of income sufficiently large, you can basically live almost anywhere and you have only an economic identity which is the size of your various accounts and investments. That's the true definition not so much of a citizen of nowhere but a citizen of everywhere.
Money talks, men walk. Why should anyone fight to preserve a identity which can be bought and sold like any other product?
Also, Trump and the Republicans are not known for their generosity with spending! They’re not going to offer Greenlanders wheelbarrows full of money.
Greenland has roughly 60,000 people so a sixth of the population of the London Borough of Newham.
Roughly 85% are Inuit - Danes make up most of the rest with very small numbers from other nationalities. To offer each of them $1 million would equal $60 billion - now, I got told off a couple of days ago for suggesting £2 billion for the British economy is a drop in the ocean - from a Conservative supporter by the way, whose perspective is strange given his party wasted £300 billion during Covid but that's different apparently. For the American economy, $60 billion is very little and easily affordable.
I reckon the folks in Newham would be up for the same deal, too?
These aren't small variations - these are significant and substantial differences (apart from the Labour number). Now, why are these differences happening? We can assume sampling, weighting and other aspects of the methodologies differ between More In Common and YouGov and that doesn't make either "right" or "wrong" but it does provide polls for anyone to choose what they want.
I'm curious - noting in any of the Reform statements suggests any willingness whatsoever to work with or co-operate with the Conservative Party (or the Labour Party). Yet some still seem to subconsciously think, believe or hope (delete as appropriate) Reform and the Conservatives are potential allies and partners.
On the More in Common numbers Reform would win a majority anyway with Kemi Leader of the Opposition.
On the Yougov numbers though it would be a hung parliament
Assuming you slavishly follow UNS which in a multi party system under FPTP is probably about the worst thing you can do.
Never mind, if it makes you feel better...
The sanest interpretation of the polls is the GE is 3 years away and that the trend is the best indication of movement and not individual polls you may or may not like
However, May will be an actual election which could have consquences for some leaders
With Grok producing sexualised images of women and children on request, does this mean anyone with a twitter account could be prosrcuted for downloading indecent images of children?
There’s now allegedly four more dodgy tankers that have suddenly started flying Russian flags, as well as the one that Russian and American navies are arguing over off the coast of Scotland.
I see that the Russians have sent a submarine and other naval vessels to escort the tanker previously known as Bella-1.
» show previous quotes The thing about international law is that it's very libertarian. (You'd think @BartholomewRoberts would like it!) The basic principle is that countries leave each other alone, and what happens in your country is your business (unless it gets absolutely extreme, e.g. genocide).
I said: International law is a very mixed bag of things, some good, some less so. At its best it regulates relationships between countries to their mutual benefit (eg trade agreements), standardises equipment with consequential gains to users and provides non violent ways of resolving disputes. At its worse it makes what is happening in other countries such as the destruction of the Uyghurs, the Burmese slaughter of the Rohingyas and the appalling behaviour of the IDF none of our business or at least provides no effective mechanisms to stop the outrages.
Trump's abduction and kidnapping of Maduro and his wife, along with the massacre of his supposed guards, is completely contrary to any rules based system. I really don't see a problem with pointing out that this is very damaging to international law and the prospects of peaceful resolution of future issues. I don't think it is a problem pointing out that this is not how we think things should be done and that this was a very bad thing. That is entirely independent of the question of whether Maduro is a very bad man or not (which is not much of a question really). Personally, I don't think that this is that complicated and the idea that opposing such criminal behaviour on the part of the US is somehow supporting Maduro is really for the hard of thinking.
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
I hope you haven't been driving in Scotland: joke, but with a serious point, as the limit has been 50mg for years.
Not for porn, but my VPN does connect to the Isle of Man much of the time. UK without the UK...
I'm mostly on Albania, to get ad-free YouTube, dropping back to the UK to visit iPlayer and various other home sites
I didn't know that about Albania. Will have to take a look. I have had VPNs for years - through Nord usually. I do it for security and am actually usually through UK servers as I am not bothered about the porn stuff. I sometimes switch to other specific countries to access news outlets (a lot of US newspaper websites can't be accessed from the UK/Europe).
There’s now allegedly four more dodgy tankers that have suddenly started flying Russian flags, as well as the one that Russian and American navies are arguing over off the coast of Scotland.
I see that the Russians have sent a submarine and other naval vessels to escort the tanker previously known as Bella-1.
There’s now allegedly four more dodgy tankers that have suddenly started flying Russian flags, as well as the one that Russian and American navies are arguing over off the coast of Scotland.
I see that the Russians have sent a submarine and other naval vessels to escort the tanker previously known as Bella-1.
Why are they going to so much effort?
Maybe, Bond-style, the front opens to swallow other vessels?
Newsflash: Britain’s construction sector continued to shrink in December, as housing, commercial and civil engineering activity suffered sharp falls again.
Data provider S&P Global has reported that activity across the UK construction sector, and new orders, both fell again last month.
Housebuilding and commercial construction work both decreased at the fastest rate since May 2020, when the Covid-19 lockdown forced building sites to close, S&P Global’s survey of purchasing managers at UK construction firms shows.
That highlights the government’s struggle to hit its housebuilding targets.
Civil engineering was the weakest-performing category of construction activity in December; it also shrank, but not by as much as in November.
This lifted the UK’s construction PMI index slightly to 40.1 in December, up from 39.4 in November, but still showing a contraction – for the 12th month running (50 = stagnation).
The drop extended the sector’s downturn to 12 months, its longest unbroken run of contractions since the global financial crisis of 2007-09, Reuters reports.
There’s now allegedly four more dodgy tankers that have suddenly started flying Russian flags, as well as the one that Russian and American navies are arguing over off the coast of Scotland.
I see that the Russians have sent a submarine and other naval vessels to escort the tanker previously known as Bella-1.
Why are they going to so much effort?
Maybe, Bond-style, the front opens to swallow other vessels?
There’s now allegedly four more dodgy tankers that have suddenly started flying Russian flags, as well as the one that Russian and American navies are arguing over off the coast of Scotland.
I see that the Russians have sent a submarine and other naval vessels to escort the tanker previously known as Bella-1.
Why are they going to so much effort?
Maybe, Bond-style, the front opens to swallow other vessels?
The Spy Who Loved Me was stupid-fun.
It’s magnificently batshit. Same with Moonraker. I genuinely adore both.
Doesn't seem to me his military leaders will push back against his orders if those happen. They'll find some way of turning an invasion into a rescue.
So odd, really, because the US is already there as a guest, so to speak, and surely a softer approach would have gained them more with preserved goodwill.
Good morning, everyone.
According to Wikipedia the US used to have 6,000 military personnel at its base in Greenland, but since the Cold war this has been reduced to just 150. So, obviously, the public statements about needing to possess Greenland for national security grounds are complete cobblers.
This leaves us speculating about why he wants Greenland, and without knowing what his motivation is it becomes very difficult to predict what actions he might take in service of those motivations.
So it's possible that what he wants - self-aggrandisement and self-enrichment in some form most likely - would not have been achievable by a softer approach (while national defence motivations would have been) and this leaves us with extortion or expropriation. Or this could simply be distraction from the previous distraction from his humiliation by Putin as part of his failure to create peace in Ukraine the attempt of which was a distraction from the Epstein Files.
One of the things about Trump is that he relentlessly and rapidly moves the news agenda on so that critics and impartial observers are unable to detail his failure, corruption, etc.
There's no criticism of Trump for swallowing Putin's lies about the attack that never happened on Putin's Novgorod Palace, that acted to derail any pressure on Putin for refusing a peace deal, because he forced us to rapidly move on to the abduction of Maduro, his supposed control of Venezuela, his desire to annex Greenland, etc.
For a normal politician, who tries to move the news agenda on by announcing a new policy on school meals, the tactic doesn't work so well, because the attempted distraction can either be ignored, or dealt with briefly (food is good). But Trump doesn't do half measures. Talking about invading the territory of a supposed NATO ally is not something you can brush off in order to concentrate on the previous news story. And so he escapes scrutiny.
"national security grounds" = bagging as much of the world's resources as we can, by force if we have to.
They now have the worlds largest hydrocarbons resource in Venezuela (albeit, I doubt the dumb fucks in the White House appreciated it is as mobile as boot polish before they went in).
Boot polish is far superior to a lot of it.
Has anyone told Timpsons, though?
Waging war for natural resources and farmland made sense, economically, in a 19th century context. Waging war for slaves made sense economically, in an early medieval context.
An advanced economy today is driven by technology, a well-educated population, and (often), a good deep water harbour. These things are not easily captured by conquest, (other than the last), and by putting in an army of occupation. It’s usually far cheaper to buy the stuff you need, rather than fighting to seize it.
So, one has to look for reasons other than economics, why Trump, Putin, etc. behave the way the do (of course, they can usually line their own pockets). Or indeed, why slavery is still practised, long past the point anyone could claim it makes economic sense.
Ego is a big part. The desire to win glory, by adding to your national territory, however costly that might be. Vindictiveness, paying off slights that the leader thinks he has suffered. The sheer delight they take, from screwing people over, even when it is possible to achieve their stated ends, by acting fairly and honestly. And in the case of slavery, unlimited sex, with people who can’t say no.
Newsflash: Britain’s construction sector continued to shrink in December, as housing, commercial and civil engineering activity suffered sharp falls again.
Data provider S&P Global has reported that activity across the UK construction sector, and new orders, both fell again last month.
Housebuilding and commercial construction work both decreased at the fastest rate since May 2020, when the Covid-19 lockdown forced building sites to close, S&P Global’s survey of purchasing managers at UK construction firms shows.
That highlights the government’s struggle to hit its housebuilding targets.
Civil engineering was the weakest-performing category of construction activity in December; it also shrank, but not by as much as in November.
This lifted the UK’s construction PMI index slightly to 40.1 in December, up from 39.4 in November, but still showing a contraction – for the 12th month running (50 = stagnation).
The drop extended the sector’s downturn to 12 months, its longest unbroken run of contractions since the global financial crisis of 2007-09, Reuters reports.
There’s now allegedly four more dodgy tankers that have suddenly started flying Russian flags, as well as the one that Russian and American navies are arguing over off the coast of Scotland.
I see that the Russians have sent a submarine and other naval vessels to escort the tanker previously known as Bella-1.
Why are they going to so much effort?
Maybe, Bond-style, the front opens to swallow other vessels?
There’s now allegedly four more dodgy tankers that have suddenly started flying Russian flags, as well as the one that Russian and American navies are arguing over off the coast of Scotland.
I see that the Russians have sent a submarine and other naval vessels to escort the tanker previously known as Bella-1.
Why are they going to so much effort?
Maybe, Bond-style, the front opens to swallow other vessels?
The Spy Who Loved Me was stupid-fun.
It’s magnificently batshit. Same with Moonraker. I genuinely adore both.
A friend was recently arguing that they are basically the same plot.
She should be glad he isn't playing for Inverness Caledonian Thistle.
On several levels.
Largely unconnected, but did you by any chance catch a showing of Culloden and a documentary on the making of said film on BBC4 last night? The cast were mostly Invernessians, quite moving to see them talking about the then and now, though the now of the documentaryt was almost 20 years ago. Peter Watkins, recently deceased, was a great guy, criminal that he retired for making work for British tv.
Newsflash: Britain’s construction sector continued to shrink in December, as housing, commercial and civil engineering activity suffered sharp falls again.
Data provider S&P Global has reported that activity across the UK construction sector, and new orders, both fell again last month.
Housebuilding and commercial construction work both decreased at the fastest rate since May 2020, when the Covid-19 lockdown forced building sites to close, S&P Global’s survey of purchasing managers at UK construction firms shows.
That highlights the government’s struggle to hit its housebuilding targets.
Civil engineering was the weakest-performing category of construction activity in December; it also shrank, but not by as much as in November.
This lifted the UK’s construction PMI index slightly to 40.1 in December, up from 39.4 in November, but still showing a contraction – for the 12th month running (50 = stagnation).
The drop extended the sector’s downturn to 12 months, its longest unbroken run of contractions since the global financial crisis of 2007-09, Reuters reports.
This really is remarkable. I know a lot is going on at the moment, but it ought to be receiving more attention in Britain. Far from having turned a corner or fixed the foundations, or whatever the latest vapid slogan is from Number Ten, they're actually going in the wrong direction.
"Struggle to hit its housebuilding targets" is masterful understatement.
How have they managed to make things worse, when they were awful to start with?
Doesn't seem to me his military leaders will push back against his orders if those happen. They'll find some way of turning an invasion into a rescue.
So odd, really, because the US is already there as a guest, so to speak, and surely a softer approach would have gained them more with preserved goodwill.
Good morning, everyone.
According to Wikipedia the US used to have 6,000 military personnel at its base in Greenland, but since the Cold war this has been reduced to just 150. So, obviously, the public statements about needing to possess Greenland for national security grounds are complete cobblers.
This leaves us speculating about why he wants Greenland, and without knowing what his motivation is it becomes very difficult to predict what actions he might take in service of those motivations.
So it's possible that what he wants - self-aggrandisement and self-enrichment in some form most likely - would not have been achievable by a softer approach (while national defence motivations would have been) and this leaves us with extortion or expropriation. Or this could simply be distraction from the previous distraction from his humiliation by Putin as part of his failure to create peace in Ukraine the attempt of which was a distraction from the Epstein Files.
One of the things about Trump is that he relentlessly and rapidly moves the news agenda on so that critics and impartial observers are unable to detail his failure, corruption, etc.
There's no criticism of Trump for swallowing Putin's lies about the attack that never happened on Putin's Novgorod Palace, that acted to derail any pressure on Putin for refusing a peace deal, because he forced us to rapidly move on to the abduction of Maduro, his supposed control of Venezuela, his desire to annex Greenland, etc.
For a normal politician, who tries to move the news agenda on by announcing a new policy on school meals, the tactic doesn't work so well, because the attempted distraction can either be ignored, or dealt with briefly (food is good). But Trump doesn't do half measures. Talking about invading the territory of a supposed NATO ally is not something you can brush off in order to concentrate on the previous news story. And so he escapes scrutiny.
"national security grounds" = bagging as much of the world's resources as we can, by force if we have to.
They now have the worlds largest hydrocarbons resource in Venezuela (albeit, I doubt the dumb fucks in the White House appreciated it is as mobile as boot polish before they went in).
Boot polish is far superior to a lot of it.
Has anyone told Timpsons, though?
Waging war for natural resources and farmland made sense, economically, in a 19th century context. Waging war for slaves made sense economically, in an early medieval context.
An advanced economy today is driven by technology, a well-educated population, and (often), a good deep water harbour. These things are not easily captured by conquest, (other than the last), and by putting in an army of occupation. It’s usually far cheaper to buy the stuff you need, rather than fighting to seize it.
So, one has to look for reasons other than economics, why Trump, Putin, etc. behave the way the do (of course, they can usually line their own pockets). Or indeed, why slavery is still practised, long past the point anyone could claim it makes economic sense.
Ego is a big part. The desire to win glory, by adding to your national territory, however costly that might be. Vindictiveness, paying off slights that the leader thinks he has suffered. The sheer delight they take, from screwing people over, even when it is possible to achieve their stated ends, by acting fairly and honestly. And in the case of slavery, unlimited sex, with people who can’t say no.
Trump has to do something now Epstein Island is closed.
I’ve heard a couple of times on the media that the US lacks icebreakers, a necessary factor in securing Greenland. Ironically on checking Wiki, the US is working with Canada and Finland to replace its old and broken down vessels. Tricky stuff this having allies thing..
Secure it against whom? Who has the desire and capacity to fight the USA for Greenland? Nobody.
But that is Trump and Miller's explicit justification for wanting to take Greenland.
Until a year ago the answer to the question: Who defends Greenland if attacked? was: NATO led by USA.
What the USA is actually doing is saying: We have decided to leave you all in doubt about NATO and Article 5 for all practical purposes, which means Greenland isn't defended because we have no plans to defend it and because of that we have to have sovereignty over it. Or: We need to own it because otherwise we might attack it.
Identical logic applies to Canada (which would be next - look at a map) and the whole of NATO Europe, bit by bit.
Doesn't seem to me his military leaders will push back against his orders if those happen. They'll find some way of turning an invasion into a rescue.
So odd, really, because the US is already there as a guest, so to speak, and surely a softer approach would have gained them more with preserved goodwill.
Good morning, everyone.
According to Wikipedia the US used to have 6,000 military personnel at its base in Greenland, but since the Cold war this has been reduced to just 150. So, obviously, the public statements about needing to possess Greenland for national security grounds are complete cobblers.
This leaves us speculating about why he wants Greenland, and without knowing what his motivation is it becomes very difficult to predict what actions he might take in service of those motivations.
So it's possible that what he wants - self-aggrandisement and self-enrichment in some form most likely - would not have been achievable by a softer approach (while national defence motivations would have been) and this leaves us with extortion or expropriation. Or this could simply be distraction from the previous distraction from his humiliation by Putin as part of his failure to create peace in Ukraine the attempt of which was a distraction from the Epstein Files.
One of the things about Trump is that he relentlessly and rapidly moves the news agenda on so that critics and impartial observers are unable to detail his failure, corruption, etc.
There's no criticism of Trump for swallowing Putin's lies about the attack that never happened on Putin's Novgorod Palace, that acted to derail any pressure on Putin for refusing a peace deal, because he forced us to rapidly move on to the abduction of Maduro, his supposed control of Venezuela, his desire to annex Greenland, etc.
For a normal politician, who tries to move the news agenda on by announcing a new policy on school meals, the tactic doesn't work so well, because the attempted distraction can either be ignored, or dealt with briefly (food is good). But Trump doesn't do half measures. Talking about invading the territory of a supposed NATO ally is not something you can brush off in order to concentrate on the previous news story. And so he escapes scrutiny.
"national security grounds" = bagging as much of the world's resources as we can, by force if we have to.
They now have the worlds largest hydrocarbons resource in Venezuela (albeit, I doubt the dumb fucks in the White House appreciated it is as mobile as boot polish before they went in).
Boot polish is far superior to a lot of it.
Has anyone told Timpsons, though?
Waging war for natural resources and farmland made sense, economically, in a 19th century context. Waging war for slaves made sense economically, in an early medieval context.
An advanced economy today is driven by technology, a well-educated population, and (often), a good deep water harbour. These things are not easily captured by conquest, (other than the last), and by putting in an army of occupation. It’s usually far cheaper to buy the stuff you need, rather than fighting to seize it.
So, one has to look for reasons other than economics, why Trump, Putin, etc. behave the way the do (of course, they can usually line their own pockets). Or indeed, why slavery is still practised, long past the point anyone could claim it makes economic sense.
Ego is a big part. The desire to win glory, by adding to your national territory, however costly that might be. Vindictiveness, paying off slights that the leader thinks he has suffered. The sheer delight they take, from screwing people over, even when it is possible to achieve their stated ends, by acting fairly and honestly. And in the case of slavery, unlimited sex, with people who can’t say no.
Indeed.
The classic of the genre is Japan.
Which went from a poor, barely semi-industrial society to First World status. Richer and more powerful than the Dragon Society ever dreamed of.
I’ve heard a couple of times on the media that the US lacks icebreakers, a necessary factor in securing Greenland. Ironically on checking Wiki, the US is working with Canada and Finland to replace its old and broken down vessels. Tricky stuff this having allies thing..
Secure it against whom? Who has the desire and capacity to fight the USA for Greenland? Nobody.
But that is Trump and Miller's explicit justification for wanting to take Greenland.
Until a year ago the answer to the question: Who defends Greenland if attacked? was: NATO led by USA.
What the USA is actually doing is saying: We have decided to leave you all in doubt about NATO and Article 5 for all practical purposes, which means Greenland isn't defended because we have no plans to defend it and because of that we have to have sovereignty over it. Or: We need to own it because otherwise we might attack it.
Identical logic applies to Canada (which would be next - look at a map) and the whole of NATO Europe, bit by bit.
"An “extraordinary” iron age war trumpet that may have links to the Celtic tribe led by Boudicca in the period they were battling the invading Roman army has been discovered by archaeologists in Norfolk.
"The bronze trumpet or carnyx is only the third ever found in Britain, and the most complete example discovered anywhere in the world. Fashioned in the shape of a snarling wild animal, the object would have been mounted on a long mouthpiece high above the heads of warriors, allowing it to be sounded to intimidate the enemy in battle."
She should be glad he isn't playing for Inverness Caledonian Thistle.
On several levels.
Largely unconnected, but did you by any chance catch a showing of Culloden and a documentary on the making of said film on BBC4 last night? The cast were mostly Invernessians, quite moving to see them talking about the then and now, though the now of the documentaryt was almost 20 years ago. Peter Watkins, recently deceased, was a great guy, criminal that he retired for making work for British tv.
No, alas, but I've got the DVD IIRC - it's on BFI anyway. Most PBers will know his work through the War Game of course. INteresting he gave the Paris Commune a similar treatment to 1746.
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
I hope you haven't been driving in Scotland: joke, but with a serious point, as the limit has been 50mg for years.
[deleted - my error]
I don't think I have been to Scotland since it was changed in 2014, tbh. Fair point, though - I should have said EWNi (Malta having changed recently).
I think we should be doing it properly and going for 20 mg/ml.
There’s now allegedly four more dodgy tankers that have suddenly started flying Russian flags, as well as the one that Russian and American navies are arguing over off the coast of Scotland.
I see that the Russians have sent a submarine and other naval vessels to escort the tanker previously known as Bella-1.
Why are they going to so much effort?
Indeed. Speculation is that it’s not as empty as has been made out.
It sailed from Iran to Venezuela, but never landed there, instead turning around and heading for Russia. That Putin sends a submarine and other naval vessels after it, and the US Coast Guard is following with airborne assets moved to the area, suggests that the Russians know the US knows about the true nature of the mission.
So is it weapons, rare minerals (gold, drugs?), something nuclear, even key people who shouldn’t be there? Or is it that the ship itself isn’t what it appears?
Newsflash: Britain’s construction sector continued to shrink in December, as housing, commercial and civil engineering activity suffered sharp falls again.
Data provider S&P Global has reported that activity across the UK construction sector, and new orders, both fell again last month.
Housebuilding and commercial construction work both decreased at the fastest rate since May 2020, when the Covid-19 lockdown forced building sites to close, S&P Global’s survey of purchasing managers at UK construction firms shows.
That highlights the government’s struggle to hit its housebuilding targets.
Civil engineering was the weakest-performing category of construction activity in December; it also shrank, but not by as much as in November.
This lifted the UK’s construction PMI index slightly to 40.1 in December, up from 39.4 in November, but still showing a contraction – for the 12th month running (50 = stagnation).
The drop extended the sector’s downturn to 12 months, its longest unbroken run of contractions since the global financial crisis of 2007-09, Reuters reports.
This really is remarkable. I know a lot is going on at the moment, but it ought to be receiving more attention in Britain. Far from having turned a corner or fixed the foundations, or whatever the latest vapid slogan is from Number Ten, they're actually going in the wrong direction.
"Struggle to hit its housebuilding targets" is masterful understatement.
How have they managed to make things worse, when they were awful to start with?
To be fair the Labour government haven't made things worse in the sense that housebuilding would also have declined if the Conservatives stayed in power. They haven't however taken the necessary steps to increase it. I think if they want housebuilding they need to invest directly in it, which is difficult ask in times of budget constraint. Otherwise they are just reliant on the market that is in no mood to build right now.
Doesn't seem to me his military leaders will push back against his orders if those happen. They'll find some way of turning an invasion into a rescue.
So odd, really, because the US is already there as a guest, so to speak, and surely a softer approach would have gained them more with preserved goodwill.
Good morning, everyone.
According to Wikipedia the US used to have 6,000 military personnel at its base in Greenland, but since the Cold war this has been reduced to just 150. So, obviously, the public statements about needing to possess Greenland for national security grounds are complete cobblers.
This leaves us speculating about why he wants Greenland, and without knowing what his motivation is it becomes very difficult to predict what actions he might take in service of those motivations.
So it's possible that what he wants - self-aggrandisement and self-enrichment in some form most likely - would not have been achievable by a softer approach (while national defence motivations would have been) and this leaves us with extortion or expropriation. Or this could simply be distraction from the previous distraction from his humiliation by Putin as part of his failure to create peace in Ukraine the attempt of which was a distraction from the Epstein Files.
One of the things about Trump is that he relentlessly and rapidly moves the news agenda on so that critics and impartial observers are unable to detail his failure, corruption, etc.
There's no criticism of Trump for swallowing Putin's lies about the attack that never happened on Putin's Novgorod Palace, that acted to derail any pressure on Putin for refusing a peace deal, because he forced us to rapidly move on to the abduction of Maduro, his supposed control of Venezuela, his desire to annex Greenland, etc.
For a normal politician, who tries to move the news agenda on by announcing a new policy on school meals, the tactic doesn't work so well, because the attempted distraction can either be ignored, or dealt with briefly (food is good). But Trump doesn't do half measures. Talking about invading the territory of a supposed NATO ally is not something you can brush off in order to concentrate on the previous news story. And so he escapes scrutiny.
"national security grounds" = bagging as much of the world's resources as we can, by force if we have to.
They now have the worlds largest hydrocarbons resource in Venezuela (albeit, I doubt the dumb fucks in the White House appreciated it is as mobile as boot polish before they went in).
Boot polish is far superior to a lot of it.
Has anyone told Timpsons, though?
Waging war for natural resources and farmland made sense, economically, in a 19th century context. Waging war for slaves made sense economically, in an early medieval context.
An advanced economy today is driven by technology, a well-educated population, and (often), a good deep water harbour. These things are not easily captured by conquest, (other than the last), and by putting in an army of occupation. It’s usually far cheaper to buy the stuff you need, rather than fighting to seize it.
So, one has to look for reasons other than economics, why Trump, Putin, etc. behave the way the do (of course, they can usually line their own pockets). Or indeed, why slavery is still practised, long past the point anyone could claim it makes economic sense.
Ego is a big part. The desire to win glory, by adding to your national territory, however costly that might be. Vindictiveness, paying off slights that the leader thinks he has suffered. The sheer delight they take, from screwing people over, even when it is possible to achieve their stated ends, by acting fairly and honestly. And in the case of slavery, unlimited sex, with people who can’t say no.
Indeed.
The classic of the genre is Japan.
Which went from a poor, barely semi-industrial society to First World status. Richer and more powerful than the Dragon Society ever dreamed of.
Ditch the Empire, win the game.
Or Germany. Even had the Nazis won, they would have completely impoverished their own people, through autarky and plunder economics, let alone the occupied territories.
You appear to be speaking of subsamples, sir. Here is your whisky and revolver, and the drawing room is on your left. Good luck on the journey.
I don't think a sub sample of 2000 is too bad - I'd certainly agree if I were looking at the London sub sample in YouGov of just over 250 and comparing it to the Satanta poll but I didn't.
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
I hope you haven't been driving in Scotland: joke, but with a serious point, as the limit has been 50mg for years.
[deleted - my error]
I don't think I have been to Scotland since it was changed in 2014, tbh.
I think we should be doing it properly and going for 20 mg/ml.
In which case even a pint or a glass of wine would put you over the limit and only 1 half might be allowed.
It would also devastate a pub and bar trade already hit by tax rises and a higher minimum wage, it would also do next to nothing to save lives.
Drink driving deaths and injuries are almost entirely caused by those drinking multiple pints and glasses and well over the limit, better to enforce the law against them than just add more nanny state tokenism
Does anyone believe Maduro was running a drugs cartel? I've been looking around and all I could find was Trump parading himself like a slightly unhinged peacock. This was the best I could find which describes it as nonsense....
America has had plenty of experience buying territory - the Louisiana Purchase, Florida, Alaska. Indeed, the war with Mexico was one of those exceptions where they got with force far more than they probably would have achieved with a simple commercial transaction.
Now, you could argue. Florida aside, there weren't that many people involved (well, the Indians and the Eskimos didn't count then). In an era of self-determination, how much will money talk? Imagine if Argentina had been a country with the oil and GDP of Dubai and had offered every Falkland Islander £5 million to either leave the island or stay as Argentine citizens?
Essentially, Washington could make the Greenlanders an offer they'd find hard to refuse - the kind of money and investment of which they could dream but presumably backed with a 25 year guarantee of maintainign the existing social welfare and education systems.
How much is your national identity worth? We see many examples of people threatening to leave the UK if the wrong party gets elected and when you have a level of income sufficiently large, you can basically live almost anywhere and you have only an economic identity which is the size of your various accounts and investments. That's the true definition not so much of a citizen of nowhere but a citizen of everywhere.
Money talks, men walk. Why should anyone fight to preserve a identity which can be bought and sold like any other product?
Also, Trump and the Republicans are not known for their generosity with spending! They’re not going to offer Greenlanders wheelbarrows full of money.
Greenland has roughly 60,000 people so a sixth of the population of the London Borough of Newham.
Roughly 85% are Inuit - Danes make up most of the rest with very small numbers from other nationalities. To offer each of them $1 million would equal $60 billion - now, I got told off a couple of days ago for suggesting £2 billion for the British economy is a drop in the ocean - from a Conservative supporter by the way, whose perspective is strange given his party wasted £300 billion during Covid but that's different apparently. For the American economy, $60 billion is very little and easily affordable.
I reckon the folks in Newham would be up for the same deal, too?
Yes, but only a sixth of us would get the cash....imagine.
Newsflash: Britain’s construction sector continued to shrink in December, as housing, commercial and civil engineering activity suffered sharp falls again.
Data provider S&P Global has reported that activity across the UK construction sector, and new orders, both fell again last month.
Housebuilding and commercial construction work both decreased at the fastest rate since May 2020, when the Covid-19 lockdown forced building sites to close, S&P Global’s survey of purchasing managers at UK construction firms shows.
That highlights the government’s struggle to hit its housebuilding targets.
Civil engineering was the weakest-performing category of construction activity in December; it also shrank, but not by as much as in November.
This lifted the UK’s construction PMI index slightly to 40.1 in December, up from 39.4 in November, but still showing a contraction – for the 12th month running (50 = stagnation).
The drop extended the sector’s downturn to 12 months, its longest unbroken run of contractions since the global financial crisis of 2007-09, Reuters reports.
Fpt Ben Wallace being pretty uncompromising about crooked thieving Donald on R4 this am. Though Justin Webb brought up Badenoch’s appeasing bollocks about kidnapping Maduro being the moral thing to do, with his customary feebleness he didn’t ask Wallace what he thought about it.
It goes beyond feebleness. Webb is, I think, simply another Trump fanboy.
A somewhat different tone in Emma Barnett’s later interview with Ed Davey. You could feel in every sentence the irritation, distaste and condescension that goes well beyond journalistic devil’s advocacy.
Ed and the Lib Dems really don’t fit the Beeb’s preferred narrative that Trump is a great statesman and Britain’s only meaningful international alliance is our special relationship.
It is pretty clear that the BBC is under two sets of orders. The first, running for ages now, is to go easy on Trump for government reasons; the second is internal in order not to make worse the Florida litigation.
Compare the BBC USA operation with Simon Marks's solo operation for LBC, or indeed thoughtful liberal USA coverage exemplified by Washington Week. To say nothing of the mighty John Stewart.
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
I hope you haven't been driving in Scotland: joke, but with a serious point, as the limit has been 50mg for years.
[deleted - my error]
I don't think I have been to Scotland since it was changed in 2014, tbh. Fair point, though - I should have said EWNi (Malta having changed recently).
I think we should be doing it properly and going for 20 mg/ml.
Actually SG advice is not to drink alcohol at all if driving.
Interestingly and perhaps not coincidentally there are now some fairly decent low/non alcohol beers to be had up here - I get a selection in every now and then simply because I like them at lunchtime in particular rather than rot teeth with fruit juice (as opposed to real fruit) or get hyper on even more coffee.
Edit: I believe the 20mg limit is more for an error margin and borderline cases than a serious target for alcohol drinkersa at the time.
The greater block on Trump going for Greenland is the threat of the early loss of control of Congress. The close margin has got 3 closer in the past couple of days (MTG resignation effective, one death, one in hospital after a car crash) - and that is before further resignations are being threatened over foreign policy.
Loss of control of Congress = impeachment.
He’s been impeached before but the senate has never convicted him and I cannot see them convicting.
Given over 50% of Republicans oppose a US military invasion of Greenland if Trump tried that the Senate would likely convict him.
Most Republicans back buying Greenland but not invading it though most Americans overall oppose both
Good morning
I have been to Greenland and frankly it is a large empty expanse and the US already has bases there
There will be no invasion but I do not rule out a large payment to the 56,000 population
There will be nothing Denmark, the EU or NATO can do if Trump takes over Greenland, which is a stark reminder of just how powerless the west is against him
As I said though most Americans oppose both an invasion and purchase of Greenland and even Republicans oppose the former, so Trump would face problems with Congress and internally regardless of what NATO or the EU does
The greater block on Trump going for Greenland is the threat of the early loss of control of Congress. The close margin has got 3 closer in the past couple of days (MTG resignation effective, one death, one in hospital after a car crash) - and that is before further resignations are being threatened over foreign policy.
Loss of control of Congress = impeachment.
He’s been impeached before but the senate has never convicted him and I cannot see them convicting.
Given over 50% of Republicans oppose a US military invasion of Greenland if Trump tried that the Senate would likely convict him.
Would they, though ?
When did they last show any sign of exercising their constitutional powers against Trump ?
The risk of losing their seats would concentrate minds
It hasn't so far. A dozen or so GOP members of Congress have already decided to step down rather than resist Trump.
Over half of Republican Senators would lose their seats if they backed an invasion of Greenland, that would be more than enough plus the near half of the Senate who are Democrats anyway, to convict
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
I hope you haven't been driving in Scotland: joke, but with a serious point, as the limit has been 50mg for years.
[deleted - my error]
I don't think I have been to Scotland since it was changed in 2014, tbh.
I think we should be doing it properly and going for 20 mg/ml.
In which case even a pint or a glass of wine would put you over the limit and only 1 half might be allowed.
It would also devastate a pub and bar trade already hit by tax rises and a higher minimum wage, it would also do next to nothing to save lives.
Drink driving deaths and injuries are almost entirely caused by those drinking multiple pints and glasses and well over the limit, better to enforce the law against them than just add more nanny state tokenism
Data to support that please? We know that impairment is significant from even a small volume of alcohol, so I'd be very surprised if that was the case.
Tbh a zero-tolerance approach is simpler and fairer on everyone, particularly given the consequences of being caught.
Newsflash: Britain’s construction sector continued to shrink in December, as housing, commercial and civil engineering activity suffered sharp falls again.
Data provider S&P Global has reported that activity across the UK construction sector, and new orders, both fell again last month.
Housebuilding and commercial construction work both decreased at the fastest rate since May 2020, when the Covid-19 lockdown forced building sites to close, S&P Global’s survey of purchasing managers at UK construction firms shows.
That highlights the government’s struggle to hit its housebuilding targets.
Civil engineering was the weakest-performing category of construction activity in December; it also shrank, but not by as much as in November.
This lifted the UK’s construction PMI index slightly to 40.1 in December, up from 39.4 in November, but still showing a contraction – for the 12th month running (50 = stagnation).
The drop extended the sector’s downturn to 12 months, its longest unbroken run of contractions since the global financial crisis of 2007-09, Reuters reports.
This really is remarkable. I know a lot is going on at the moment, but it ought to be receiving more attention in Britain. Far from having turned a corner or fixed the foundations, or whatever the latest vapid slogan is from Number Ten, they're actually going in the wrong direction.
"Struggle to hit its housebuilding targets" is masterful understatement.
How have they managed to make things worse, when they were awful to start with?
To be fair the Labour government haven't made things worse in the sense that housebuilding would also have declined if the Conservatives stayed in power. They haven't however taken the necessary steps to increase it. I think if they want housebuilding they need to invest directly in it, which is difficult ask in times of budget constraint. Otherwise they are just reliant on the market that is in no mood to build right now.
There was a piece at the weekend in Sunday Times saying house building not going well partly because builders given planning permission are not always building as they can't make sufficient profit. House prices pretty flat but build costs up dramatically.
There’s now allegedly four more dodgy tankers that have suddenly started flying Russian flags, as well as the one that Russian and American navies are arguing over off the coast of Scotland.
I see that the Russians have sent a submarine and other naval vessels to escort the tanker previously known as Bella-1.
Why are they going to so much effort?
Indeed. Speculation is that it’s not as empty as has been made out.
It sailed from Iran to Venezuela, but never landed there, instead turning around and heading for Russia. That Putin sends a submarine and other naval vessels after it, and the US Coast Guard is following with airborne assets moved to the area, suggests that the Russians know the US knows about the true nature of the mission.
So is it weapons, rare minerals (gold, drugs?), something nuclear, even key people who shouldn’t be there? Or is it that the ship itself isn’t what it appears?
Do you think the US will take it, or have the Russians done enough to deter them from doing so now?
I'm curious as to what, if anything, is on board it now.
With Grok producing sexualised images of women and children on request, does this mean anyone with a twitter account could be prosrcuted for downloading indecent images of children?
You mean literally anyone with a Twitter/X account? That seems remarkably unlikely. I think the offence is “possession” rather than “downloading” but, either way, I can’t see how the offence would be made out just by holding an account.
I’m not a criminal lawyer but had a couple of clients seek advice on dismissal from work for related issues and AIUI the act of "making" an image is interpreted broadly and includes opening an email attachment or simply viewing an image that automatically downloads to a device. I believe a defendant has a defence in certain circumstances if they can prove that the photograph in question was unsolicited and that they did not keep it for an unreasonable time. So I’m pretty sure just having a Twitter/X account alone, with nothing else, would not cross that threshold.
Superintendent placed on sex offenders register despite ‘never viewing’ child abuse image
A senior Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) officer has been handed a community order and placed on the sex offenders register after receiving a child abuse video from her sister.
It requires the image not to be kept for an unreasonable time, but as your report says -
“ Judge Richard Marks said Supt Williams made a grave error of judgment in not reporting the video and said she was unlikely to retain her job.”
Sounds like she didn’t do anything with the image when she got it. If she’d reported it ASAP she may (I emphasise May) have had the defence.
Bit of a catch-22 there? You should delete such content asap, but you should also report it and deleting the content somewhat impedes any prosecution against the originator (if they've managed to delete the content too).
(I know 'deleted' is fairly easily recovered in most cases - most filesystems simply mark deleted rather than over-writing for example)
These aren't small variations - these are significant and substantial differences (apart from the Labour number). Now, why are these differences happening? We can assume sampling, weighting and other aspects of the methodologies differ between More In Common and YouGov and that doesn't make either "right" or "wrong" but it does provide polls for anyone to choose what they want.
I'm curious - noting in any of the Reform statements suggests any willingness whatsoever to work with or co-operate with the Conservative Party (or the Labour Party). Yet some still seem to subconsciously think, believe or hope (delete as appropriate) Reform and the Conservatives are potential allies and partners.
On the More in Common numbers Reform would win a majority anyway with Kemi Leader of the Opposition.
On the Yougov numbers though it would be a hung parliament
Assuming you slavishly follow UNS which in a multi party system under FPTP is probably about the worst thing you can do.
Never mind, if it makes you feel better...
Throw your toys out the pram at a Farage PM and Badenoch LOTO MiC poll if you like but I was just reporting what the numbers would give, though in reality I accept that is probably an unlikely result
As you say, the "art of the deal". I don't know for example how much last week's little excursion into downtown Caracas "cost" but presumably whatever guarantees he has given to his oil company executive friends will make it worthwhile.
I'm reminded of the Resource Wars in Fallout - is the 21st century going to be about resources (the 20th Century was as well to an extent)? Will we end up fighting for oil, water, wind - anything from which we can gain control of our own energy supply and deny it to our opponents?
As a big fan of Fallout, I do wonder if we are heading towards nuclear war. The United States under Trump has completely lost it. He seems to hate everyone and everything and wants to make his mark by making the United States bigger. In Fallout, both Canada and Mexico were attacked. Maybe Trump is a big fan of the Ceasars Legion and wants to see it brought to fruition.
Newsflash: Britain’s construction sector continued to shrink in December, as housing, commercial and civil engineering activity suffered sharp falls again.
Data provider S&P Global has reported that activity across the UK construction sector, and new orders, both fell again last month.
Housebuilding and commercial construction work both decreased at the fastest rate since May 2020, when the Covid-19 lockdown forced building sites to close, S&P Global’s survey of purchasing managers at UK construction firms shows.
That highlights the government’s struggle to hit its housebuilding targets.
Civil engineering was the weakest-performing category of construction activity in December; it also shrank, but not by as much as in November.
This lifted the UK’s construction PMI index slightly to 40.1 in December, up from 39.4 in November, but still showing a contraction – for the 12th month running (50 = stagnation).
The drop extended the sector’s downturn to 12 months, its longest unbroken run of contractions since the global financial crisis of 2007-09, Reuters reports.
This really is remarkable. I know a lot is going on at the moment, but it ought to be receiving more attention in Britain. Far from having turned a corner or fixed the foundations, or whatever the latest vapid slogan is from Number Ten, they're actually going in the wrong direction.
"Struggle to hit its housebuilding targets" is masterful understatement.
How have they managed to make things worse, when they were awful to start with?
To be fair the Labour government haven't made things worse in the sense that housebuilding would also have declined if the Conservatives stayed in power. They haven't however taken the necessary steps to increase it. I think if they want housebuilding they need to invest directly in it, which is difficult ask in times of budget constraint. Otherwise they are just reliant on the market that is in no mood to build right now.
This is where a sustained and consistent level of state housebuilding can prop up an industry and retain those skills during a downturn. The problem is housebuilding is going the same way as nuclear energy - where are we going to get all the people required?
With Grok producing sexualised images of women and children on request, does this mean anyone with a twitter account could be prosrcuted for downloading indecent images of children?
You can come across some of these images just by browsing Twitter, without specifically requesting them. This would mean you have broken the law.
Only if you search for those already created using search terms to get them.
If you come across any such images online though as long as you did not request them, notify police and delete them you will not be convicted
There was a Tweet the other day from a guy who was searching for news on Stranger Things and one of the search results was of the kids undressed.
If an AI version rather than footage from the series, which would be legal as long as not underage naked, then as I said if he told police and deleted it then he would not be prosecuted
Newsflash: Britain’s construction sector continued to shrink in December, as housing, commercial and civil engineering activity suffered sharp falls again.
Data provider S&P Global has reported that activity across the UK construction sector, and new orders, both fell again last month.
Housebuilding and commercial construction work both decreased at the fastest rate since May 2020, when the Covid-19 lockdown forced building sites to close, S&P Global’s survey of purchasing managers at UK construction firms shows.
That highlights the government’s struggle to hit its housebuilding targets.
Civil engineering was the weakest-performing category of construction activity in December; it also shrank, but not by as much as in November.
This lifted the UK’s construction PMI index slightly to 40.1 in December, up from 39.4 in November, but still showing a contraction – for the 12th month running (50 = stagnation).
The drop extended the sector’s downturn to 12 months, its longest unbroken run of contractions since the global financial crisis of 2007-09, Reuters reports.
There’s now allegedly four more dodgy tankers that have suddenly started flying Russian flags, as well as the one that Russian and American navies are arguing over off the coast of Scotland.
I see that the Russians have sent a submarine and other naval vessels to escort the tanker previously known as Bella-1.
Why are they going to so much effort?
Maybe, Bond-style, the front opens to swallow other vessels?
The Spy Who Loved Me was stupid-fun.
It’s magnificently batshit. Same with Moonraker. I genuinely adore both.
(narrator: viewcode is currently resisting the urge to rhapsodise about the genuinely beautiful SFX in Moonraker, the last hurrah of British modelmaking)
You appear to be speaking of subsamples, sir. Here is your whisky and revolver, and the drawing room is on your left. Good luck on the journey.
I thought the rule was sub-sample analysis was fine as long as you declared it as such. It was posters using Scottish samples and declaring them as a full poll that was misleading.
I think they are really important for getting a feel for he voters are moving between parties (or not) - if not statistical evidence.
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
I hope you haven't been driving in Scotland: joke, but with a serious point, as the limit has been 50mg for years.
[deleted - my error]
I don't think I have been to Scotland since it was changed in 2014, tbh.
I think we should be doing it properly and going for 20 mg/ml.
In which case even a pint or a glass of wine would put you over the limit and only 1 half might be allowed.
It would also devastate a pub and bar trade already hit by tax rises and a higher minimum wage, it would also do next to nothing to save lives.
Drink driving deaths and injuries are almost entirely caused by those drinking multiple pints and glasses and well over the limit, better to enforce the law against them than just add more nanny state tokenism
Data to support that please? We know that impairment is significant from even a small volume of alcohol, so I'd be very surprised if that was the case.
Tbh a zero-tolerance approach is simpler and fairer on everyone, particularly given the consequences of being caught.
'The number of drink driving deaths has fallen by more than 75% since 1979... 2% - two-thirds of all those who were over the limit - had more than twice the legal amount of blood alcohol in their body 7% of those killed - 40% of those who were over the limit - were at least 2.5 times over the limit' https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-crackdown-on-drink-and-drug-driving'
We need greater enforcement of laws we already have not more nanny state that will destroy an already struggling pub trade, even more reason to vote Tory or Reform therefore and get rid of this useless nanny state government!
There’s now allegedly four more dodgy tankers that have suddenly started flying Russian flags, as well as the one that Russian and American navies are arguing over off the coast of Scotland.
I see that the Russians have sent a submarine and other naval vessels to escort the tanker previously known as Bella-1.
Why are they going to so much effort?
Indeed. Speculation is that it’s not as empty as has been made out.
It sailed from Iran to Venezuela, but never landed there, instead turning around and heading for Russia. That Putin sends a submarine and other naval vessels after it, and the US Coast Guard is following with airborne assets moved to the area, suggests that the Russians know the US knows about the true nature of the mission.
So is it weapons, rare minerals (gold, drugs?), something nuclear, even key people who shouldn’t be there? Or is it that the ship itself isn’t what it appears?
Do you think the US will take it, or have the Russians done enough to deter them from doing so now?
I'm curious as to what, if anything, is on board it now.
You, and me, and most of the OSINT folks on Twitter!
The general consensus is that you don’t send a submarine to escort an empty vessel, and the US effort appears way out of proportion to the same, when they could have NATO allies board it close to Russia. So something’s up, we just don’t know what exactly.
With Grok producing sexualised images of women and children on request, does this mean anyone with a twitter account could be prosrcuted for downloading indecent images of children?
You can come across some of these images just by browsing Twitter, without specifically requesting them. This would mean you have broken the law.
Only if you search for those already created using search terms to get them.
If you come across any such images online though as long as you did not request them, notify police and delete them you will not be convicted
There was a Tweet the other day from a guy who was searching for news on Stranger Things and one of the search results was of the kids undressed.
If an AI version rather than footage from the series, which would be legal as long as not underage naked, then as I said if he told police and deleted it then he would not be prosecuted
Remind me never to ask you for legal advice. How do you think he'd know it was AI in the first place? By viewing it, very carefully.
There’s now allegedly four more dodgy tankers that have suddenly started flying Russian flags, as well as the one that Russian and American navies are arguing over off the coast of Scotland.
I see that the Russians have sent a submarine and other naval vessels to escort the tanker previously known as Bella-1.
Why are they going to so much effort?
Maybe, Bond-style, the front opens to swallow other vessels?
The Spy Who Loved Me was stupid-fun.
It’s magnificently batshit. Same with Moonraker. I genuinely adore both.
(narrator: viewcode is currently resisting the urge to rhapsodise about the genuinely beautiful SFX in Moonraker, the last hurrah of British modelmaking)
The model work for Moon was UK based and very good.
Newsflash: Britain’s construction sector continued to shrink in December, as housing, commercial and civil engineering activity suffered sharp falls again.
Data provider S&P Global has reported that activity across the UK construction sector, and new orders, both fell again last month.
Housebuilding and commercial construction work both decreased at the fastest rate since May 2020, when the Covid-19 lockdown forced building sites to close, S&P Global’s survey of purchasing managers at UK construction firms shows.
That highlights the government’s struggle to hit its housebuilding targets.
Civil engineering was the weakest-performing category of construction activity in December; it also shrank, but not by as much as in November.
This lifted the UK’s construction PMI index slightly to 40.1 in December, up from 39.4 in November, but still showing a contraction – for the 12th month running (50 = stagnation).
The drop extended the sector’s downturn to 12 months, its longest unbroken run of contractions since the global financial crisis of 2007-09, Reuters reports.
At this point the government are going to have to start building houses themselves.
A massive housebuilding programme that shows results before the next election, is about the only thing that’s saving them from here.
I've long advocated a direct government role in housebuilding, but as FF43 says, where is the money going to come from?
And even if they could find the money, and actually decide to do it, they're beginning to run out of time to get started on it.
Special building bonds is all I can think of, with government-owned land made available and the planning going directly through Parliament.
It’s yet more evidence that they didn’t have a clue what do actually do with power having won the election. Stuff like building and planning has long lead times, it should have been done in the first six months.
These aren't small variations - these are significant and substantial differences (apart from the Labour number). Now, why are these differences happening? We can assume sampling, weighting and other aspects of the methodologies differ between More In Common and YouGov and that doesn't make either "right" or "wrong" but it does provide polls for anyone to choose what they want.
I'm curious - noting in any of the Reform statements suggests any willingness whatsoever to work with or co-operate with the Conservative Party (or the Labour Party). Yet some still seem to subconsciously think, believe or hope (delete as appropriate) Reform and the Conservatives are potential allies and partners.
Is YouGov oversampling tertiary educated and younger voters? Or is More in Common overcorrecting?
The United States seems, under Trump, hell bend on territorial expansion (not unlike Putin's Russia, and Hitler's Germany). Greenland is just the next one after Venezuala (which hasn't been captured, Trump is simply stating he'll keep kidnapping leaders until the country submits).
Will the US invade? Possibly. What happens if they do?
I genuinely can't say. The reaction could range from as little as 'Team America Hans Blix' "write you a letter telling you how angry we are" to nuclear war. I'd be inclined to think Denmark would leave NATO and some others may also leave in solidarity, so NATO dies on its arse. Trump gets what he wants twice.
I can't see Denmark fighting for it, nor Greenland offering more than token resistance.
These aren't small variations - these are significant and substantial differences (apart from the Labour number). Now, why are these differences happening? We can assume sampling, weighting and other aspects of the methodologies differ between More In Common and YouGov and that doesn't make either "right" or "wrong" but it does provide polls for anyone to choose what they want.
I'm curious - noting in any of the Reform statements suggests any willingness whatsoever to work with or co-operate with the Conservative Party (or the Labour Party). Yet some still seem to subconsciously think, believe or hope (delete as appropriate) Reform and the Conservatives are potential allies and partners.
Is YouGov oversampling tertiary educated and younger voters? Or is More in Common overcorrecting?
The answer is probably ‘Yes’. A hybrid pool poll would be interesting.
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
We do not miss Louise Haigh.
Making it illegal to have a pint with a meal at the weekends, which is what I do and is perfectly fine, will kill country pubs and breweries.
With Grok producing sexualised images of women and children on request, does this mean anyone with a twitter account could be prosrcuted for downloading indecent images of children?
You can come across some of these images just by browsing Twitter, without specifically requesting them. This would mean you have broken the law.
Only if you search for those already created using search terms to get them.
If you come across any such images online though as long as you did not request them, notify police and delete them you will not be convicted
There was a Tweet the other day from a guy who was searching for news on Stranger Things and one of the search results was of the kids undressed.
If an AI version rather than footage from the series, which would be legal as long as not underage naked, then as I said if he told police and deleted it then he would not be prosecuted
Remind me never to ask you for legal advice. How do you think he'd know it was AI in the first place? By viewing it, very carefully.
Well he obviously watched the series so would have known what was in it.
Regardless as I said provided he told police and deleted it he would not be prosecuted
Newsflash: Britain’s construction sector continued to shrink in December, as housing, commercial and civil engineering activity suffered sharp falls again.
Data provider S&P Global has reported that activity across the UK construction sector, and new orders, both fell again last month.
Housebuilding and commercial construction work both decreased at the fastest rate since May 2020, when the Covid-19 lockdown forced building sites to close, S&P Global’s survey of purchasing managers at UK construction firms shows.
That highlights the government’s struggle to hit its housebuilding targets.
Civil engineering was the weakest-performing category of construction activity in December; it also shrank, but not by as much as in November.
This lifted the UK’s construction PMI index slightly to 40.1 in December, up from 39.4 in November, but still showing a contraction – for the 12th month running (50 = stagnation).
The drop extended the sector’s downturn to 12 months, its longest unbroken run of contractions since the global financial crisis of 2007-09, Reuters reports.
This really is remarkable. I know a lot is going on at the moment, but it ought to be receiving more attention in Britain. Far from having turned a corner or fixed the foundations, or whatever the latest vapid slogan is from Number Ten, they're actually going in the wrong direction.
"Struggle to hit its housebuilding targets" is masterful understatement.
How have they managed to make things worse, when they were awful to start with?
To be fair the Labour government haven't made things worse in the sense that housebuilding would also have declined if the Conservatives stayed in power. They haven't however taken the necessary steps to increase it. I think if they want housebuilding they need to invest directly in it, which is difficult ask in times of budget constraint. Otherwise they are just reliant on the market that is in no mood to build right now.
This is where a sustained and consistent level of state housebuilding can prop up an industry and retain those skills during a downturn. The problem is housebuilding is going the same way as nuclear energy - where are we going to get all the people required?
I'm not expert on this at all but was reading someone who was. The basic calculation is that the cost of land, building and finance for the development is bigger in total right now than house prices people are able to afford. Finance is the one lever the government has according to this expert, so it has to use it if it wants more houses built.
I was wondering if government could legislate to reduce compensation to land owners in some cases.
With Grok producing sexualised images of women and children on request, does this mean anyone with a twitter account could be prosrcuted for downloading indecent images of children?
You can come across some of these images just by browsing Twitter, without specifically requesting them. This would mean you have broken the law.
Only if you search for those already created using search terms to get them.
If you come across any such images online though as long as you did not request them, notify police and delete them you will not be convicted
There was a Tweet the other day from a guy who was searching for news on Stranger Things and one of the search results was of the kids undressed.
If an AI version rather than footage from the series, which would be legal as long as not underage naked, then as I said if he told police and deleted it then he would not be prosecuted
Remind me never to ask you for legal advice. How do you think he'd know it was AI in the first place? By viewing it, very carefully.
Well he obviously watched the series so would have known what was in it.
Regardless as I said provided he told police and deleted it he would not be prosecuted
You're not thinking (or reading earlier posts). He'd have to view it to realise it was different in the first place.
End of NATO or end of US membership of NATO? Putin seems to be the immediate beneficiary of Venezuelan oil being diverted from China to the US. He'd also be the beneficiary of the US undermining NATO.
You appear to be speaking of subsamples, sir. Here is your whisky and revolver, and the drawing room is on your left. Good luck on the journey.
I don't think a sub sample of 2000 is too bad - I'd certainly agree if I were looking at the London sub sample in YouGov of just over 250 and comparing it to the Satanta poll but I didn't.
It's a decent size, yes, but one should note that the quota sampling will be off.
Newsflash: Britain’s construction sector continued to shrink in December, as housing, commercial and civil engineering activity suffered sharp falls again.
Data provider S&P Global has reported that activity across the UK construction sector, and new orders, both fell again last month.
Housebuilding and commercial construction work both decreased at the fastest rate since May 2020, when the Covid-19 lockdown forced building sites to close, S&P Global’s survey of purchasing managers at UK construction firms shows.
That highlights the government’s struggle to hit its housebuilding targets.
Civil engineering was the weakest-performing category of construction activity in December; it also shrank, but not by as much as in November.
This lifted the UK’s construction PMI index slightly to 40.1 in December, up from 39.4 in November, but still showing a contraction – for the 12th month running (50 = stagnation).
The drop extended the sector’s downturn to 12 months, its longest unbroken run of contractions since the global financial crisis of 2007-09, Reuters reports.
This really is remarkable. I know a lot is going on at the moment, but it ought to be receiving more attention in Britain. Far from having turned a corner or fixed the foundations, or whatever the latest vapid slogan is from Number Ten, they're actually going in the wrong direction.
"Struggle to hit its housebuilding targets" is masterful understatement.
How have they managed to make things worse, when they were awful to start with?
To be fair the Labour government haven't made things worse in the sense that housebuilding would also have declined if the Conservatives stayed in power. They haven't however taken the necessary steps to increase it. I think if they want housebuilding they need to invest directly in it, which is difficult ask in times of budget constraint. Otherwise they are just reliant on the market that is in no mood to build right now.
This is where a sustained and consistent level of state housebuilding can prop up an industry and retain those skills during a downturn. The problem is housebuilding is going the same way as nuclear energy - where are we going to get all the people required?
I'm not expert on this at all but was reading someone who was. The basic calculation is that the cost of land, building and finance for the development is bigger in total right now than house prices people are able to afford. Finance is the one lever the government has according to this expert, so it has to use it if it wants more houses built.
I was wondering if government could legislate to reduce compensation to land owners in some cases.
Scottish Government still building houses (albeit through councils). Not enough, sure, but last time I looked a fair chunk although IANAE. Surprised no discussion on here of the detailed pros and cons of their strategies.
End of NATO or end of US membership of NATO? Putin seems to be the immediate beneficiary of Venezuelan oil being diverted from China to the US. He'd also be the beneficiary of the US undermining NATO.
Trump may or may not be a Russian asset, but he certainly behaves like one.
Newsflash: Britain’s construction sector continued to shrink in December, as housing, commercial and civil engineering activity suffered sharp falls again.
Data provider S&P Global has reported that activity across the UK construction sector, and new orders, both fell again last month.
Housebuilding and commercial construction work both decreased at the fastest rate since May 2020, when the Covid-19 lockdown forced building sites to close, S&P Global’s survey of purchasing managers at UK construction firms shows.
That highlights the government’s struggle to hit its housebuilding targets.
Civil engineering was the weakest-performing category of construction activity in December; it also shrank, but not by as much as in November.
This lifted the UK’s construction PMI index slightly to 40.1 in December, up from 39.4 in November, but still showing a contraction – for the 12th month running (50 = stagnation).
The drop extended the sector’s downturn to 12 months, its longest unbroken run of contractions since the global financial crisis of 2007-09, Reuters reports.
This really is remarkable. I know a lot is going on at the moment, but it ought to be receiving more attention in Britain. Far from having turned a corner or fixed the foundations, or whatever the latest vapid slogan is from Number Ten, they're actually going in the wrong direction.
"Struggle to hit its housebuilding targets" is masterful understatement.
How have they managed to make things worse, when they were awful to start with?
Turns out jacking up taxes that solely apply to employment like National Insurance may actually be economically sub-optimal.
These aren't small variations - these are significant and substantial differences (apart from the Labour number). Now, why are these differences happening? We can assume sampling, weighting and other aspects of the methodologies differ between More In Common and YouGov and that doesn't make either "right" or "wrong" but it does provide polls for anyone to choose what they want.
I'm curious - noting in any of the Reform statements suggests any willingness whatsoever to work with or co-operate with the Conservative Party (or the Labour Party). Yet some still seem to subconsciously think, believe or hope (delete as appropriate) Reform and the Conservatives are potential allies and partners.
On the More in Common numbers Reform would win a majority anyway with Kemi Leader of the Opposition.
On the Yougov numbers though it would be a hung parliament
Assuming you slavishly follow UNS which in a multi party system under FPTP is probably about the worst thing you can do.
Never mind, if it makes you feel better...
Throw your toys out the pram at a Farage PM and Badenoch LOTO MiC poll if you like but I was just reporting what the numbers would give, though in reality I accept that is probably an unlikely result
Not at all. I was pointing out the huge discrepency between that and YouGov but as a Conservative I'd expect you to make more of the better poll for your party just as I would for mine.
The other aspect is if the first thing you do when you see poll numbers is put them into Baxter,that simply adds another layer of implausibility as we know Baxter is tailored to the old two party system rather than a four or five party system.
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
I hope you haven't been driving in Scotland: joke, but with a serious point, as the limit has been 50mg for years.
[deleted - my error]
I don't think I have been to Scotland since it was changed in 2014, tbh.
I think we should be doing it properly and going for 20 mg/ml.
In which case even a pint or a glass of wine would put you over the limit and only 1 half might be allowed.
It would also devastate a pub and bar trade already hit by tax rises and a higher minimum wage, it would also do next to nothing to save lives.
Drink driving deaths and injuries are almost entirely caused by those drinking multiple pints and glasses and well over the limit, better to enforce the law against them than just add more nanny state tokenism
Do we know that that statement in you last paragraph is accurate, and is there any officialdata on eg casualties where the alcohol level is between 50mg/ml and 80 mg/ml (ie new and old limits)?
That's a serious question. I am not aware of data that has been collected routinely at all collisions. Perhaps you are? However DUI is involved in about 20% of road deaths, and checking:
Drivers with a BAC between 20mg and 50mg per 100ml are three times more likely to die in a crash than those who have not consumed any alcohol. Those between 50mg and 80mg are up to six times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash.
There are things such as designated drivers which has been a recommendation since I was in short trousers, who go to a pub with their family or group and do not drink alcohol. Plus there are taxis, buses and Shank's Pony.
Other places (eg Ireland, Scotland, rest of Europe) manage OK; I think we can manage that too.
Newsflash: Britain’s construction sector continued to shrink in December, as housing, commercial and civil engineering activity suffered sharp falls again.
Data provider S&P Global has reported that activity across the UK construction sector, and new orders, both fell again last month.
Housebuilding and commercial construction work both decreased at the fastest rate since May 2020, when the Covid-19 lockdown forced building sites to close, S&P Global’s survey of purchasing managers at UK construction firms shows.
That highlights the government’s struggle to hit its housebuilding targets.
Civil engineering was the weakest-performing category of construction activity in December; it also shrank, but not by as much as in November.
This lifted the UK’s construction PMI index slightly to 40.1 in December, up from 39.4 in November, but still showing a contraction – for the 12th month running (50 = stagnation).
The drop extended the sector’s downturn to 12 months, its longest unbroken run of contractions since the global financial crisis of 2007-09, Reuters reports.
At this point the government are going to have to start building houses themselves.
A massive housebuilding programme that shows results before the next election, is about the only thing that’s saving them from here.
Ha ha ha ha
While quoting JRM is probably mad, the section he did the other day in his podcast on why nothing can be done before the election is valid.
Essentially, any major policy will take more than 2 years - initiation, discussion, stakeholder input, drafting, initial legislation, parliament, secondary legislation, lawfare etc
Then you’d have planning.
This is why Starmer is banging on about the system being blocked. He is being told that he can’t have stuff before the election - *now*
End of NATO or end of US membership of NATO? Putin seems to be the immediate beneficiary of Venezuelan oil being diverted from China to the US. He'd also be the beneficiary of the US undermining NATO.
NATO will survive without the US. But yes, everything Trump is doing currently seems to be supporting and encouraging Putin.
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
I hope you haven't been driving in Scotland: joke, but with a serious point, as the limit has been 50mg for years.
[deleted - my error]
I don't think I have been to Scotland since it was changed in 2014, tbh.
I think we should be doing it properly and going for 20 mg/ml.
In which case even a pint or a glass of wine would put you over the limit and only 1 half might be allowed.
It would also devastate a pub and bar trade already hit by tax rises and a higher minimum wage, it would also do next to nothing to save lives.
Drink driving deaths and injuries are almost entirely caused by those drinking multiple pints and glasses and well over the limit, better to enforce the law against them than just add more nanny state tokenism
Data to support that please? We know that impairment is significant from even a small volume of alcohol, so I'd be very surprised if that was the case.
Tbh a zero-tolerance approach is simpler and fairer on everyone, particularly given the consequences of being caught.
'The number of drink driving deaths has fallen by more than 75% since 1979... 2% - two-thirds of all those who were over the limit - had more than twice the legal amount of blood alcohol in their body 7% of those killed - 40% of those who were over the limit - were at least 2.5 times over the limit' https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-crackdown-on-drink-and-drug-driving'
We need greater enforcement of laws we already have not more nanny state that will destroy an already struggling pub trade, even more reason to vote Tory or Reform therefore and get rid of this useless nanny state government!
That data doesn't tell us anything about the pedestrians and cyclists drunk drivers killed though, oddly enough.
The big change I want to see is phone use - impairment is roughly the same as drink driving and should get the same punishment.
Newsflash: Britain’s construction sector continued to shrink in December, as housing, commercial and civil engineering activity suffered sharp falls again.
Data provider S&P Global has reported that activity across the UK construction sector, and new orders, both fell again last month.
Housebuilding and commercial construction work both decreased at the fastest rate since May 2020, when the Covid-19 lockdown forced building sites to close, S&P Global’s survey of purchasing managers at UK construction firms shows.
That highlights the government’s struggle to hit its housebuilding targets.
Civil engineering was the weakest-performing category of construction activity in December; it also shrank, but not by as much as in November.
This lifted the UK’s construction PMI index slightly to 40.1 in December, up from 39.4 in November, but still showing a contraction – for the 12th month running (50 = stagnation).
The drop extended the sector’s downturn to 12 months, its longest unbroken run of contractions since the global financial crisis of 2007-09, Reuters reports.
At this point the government are going to have to start building houses themselves.
A massive housebuilding programme that shows results before the next election, is about the only thing that’s saving them from here.
Ha ha ha ha
While quoting JRM is probably mad, the section he did the other day in his podcast on why nothing can be done before the election is valid.
Essentially, any major policy will take more than 2 years - initiation, discussion, stakeholder input, drafting, initial legislation, parliament, secondary legislation, lawfare etc
Then you’d have planning.
This is why Starmer is banging on about the system being blocked. He is being told that he can’t have stuff before the election - *now*
Well Parliament is sovereign, so he’d better get started on the legislation to remove the process from the process.
There’s now allegedly four more dodgy tankers that have suddenly started flying Russian flags, as well as the one that Russian and American navies are arguing over off the coast of Scotland.
I see that the Russians have sent a submarine and other naval vessels to escort the tanker previously known as Bella-1.
Why are they going to so much effort?
Indeed. Speculation is that it’s not as empty as has been made out.
It sailed from Iran to Venezuela, but never landed there, instead turning around and heading for Russia. That Putin sends a submarine and other naval vessels after it, and the US Coast Guard is following with airborne assets moved to the area, suggests that the Russians know the US knows about the true nature of the mission.
So is it weapons, rare minerals (gold, drugs?), something nuclear, even key people who shouldn’t be there? Or is it that the ship itself isn’t what it appears?
Do you think the US will take it, or have the Russians done enough to deter them from doing so now?
I'm curious as to what, if anything, is on board it now.
You, and me, and most of the OSINT folks on Twitter!
The general consensus is that you don’t send a submarine to escort an empty vessel, and the US effort appears way out of proportion to the same, when they could have NATO allies board it close to Russia. So something’s up, we just don’t know what exactly.
Interesting that the United States is taking an interest in it. You'd have thought Putin would've rang Trump by now and warned him off. It's either got the Kompromat negatives on it, or else so much money that Trump thinks it worth nicking.
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
I hope you haven't been driving in Scotland: joke, but with a serious point, as the limit has been 50mg for years.
[deleted - my error]
I don't think I have been to Scotland since it was changed in 2014, tbh.
I think we should be doing it properly and going for 20 mg/ml.
In which case even a pint or a glass of wine would put you over the limit and only 1 half might be allowed.
It would also devastate a pub and bar trade already hit by tax rises and a higher minimum wage, it would also do next to nothing to save lives.
Drink driving deaths and injuries are almost entirely caused by those drinking multiple pints and glasses and well over the limit, better to enforce the law against them than just add more nanny state tokenism
Do we know that statement in you last paragraph, and is there any officialdata on eg casualties where the alcohol level is between 50mg/ml and 80 mg/ml (ie new and old limits)?
That's a serious question. I am not aware of data that has been collected routinely at all collisions. Perhaps you are? However DUI is involved in about 20% of road deaths, and checking:
Drivers with a BAC between 20mg and 50mg per 100ml are three times more likely to die in a crash than those who have not consumed any alcohol. Those between 50mg and 80mg are up to six times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash.
There are things such as designated drivers which has been a recommendation since I was in short trousers, who go to a pub with their family or group and do not drink alcohol.
Other places (eg Ireland, Scotland, rest of Europe) manage OK; so can we.
Do they?
Other places (rest of Europe) have a considerably worse road safety record than we do.
The statistics show that the UK's roads are amongst the safest in Europe and the safest in the planet.
So adopting policies used in other nations with considerably higher casualty rates might not be the smartest move.
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
I hope you haven't been driving in Scotland: joke, but with a serious point, as the limit has been 50mg for years.
[deleted - my error]
I don't think I have been to Scotland since it was changed in 2014, tbh. Fair point, though - I should have said EWNi (Malta having changed recently).
I think we should be doing it properly and going for 20 mg/ml.
Actually SG advice is not to drink alcohol at all if driving.
Interestingly and perhaps not coincidentally there are now some fairly decent low/non alcohol beers to be had up here - I get a selection in every now and then simply because I like them at lunchtime in particular rather than rot teeth with fruit juice (as opposed to real fruit) or get hyper on even more coffee.
Edit: I believe the 20mg limit is more for an error margin and borderline cases than a serious target for alcohol drinkersa at the time.
I have always used that advice, not just in Scotland, but whenever I get in my car
It is helped that I am not really a drinker and quite content to have soft drinks
Coke Cola on Christmas Day when we went to our daughters
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
We do not miss Louise Haigh.
Making it illegal to have a pint with a meal at the weekends, which is what I do and is perfectly fine, will kill country pubs and breweries.
That is not the proposal ! And there's nothing to prevent you not driving.
I'll have a pint with a meal; I make sure that I will be there long enough that it will be metabolised (normally 1.5-2 hours), and I make sure it is eg Chatsworth Gold, not Old Roger.
We had these sort of arguments back in 1967 from the "I'm perfectly fine to drive when I have been drinking; how DARE they" brigade. This will bed in too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_tqQYmgMQg
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
I hope you haven't been driving in Scotland: joke, but with a serious point, as the limit has been 50mg for years.
[deleted - my error]
I don't think I have been to Scotland since it was changed in 2014, tbh.
I think we should be doing it properly and going for 20 mg/ml.
In which case even a pint or a glass of wine would put you over the limit and only 1 half might be allowed.
It would also devastate a pub and bar trade already hit by tax rises and a higher minimum wage, it would also do next to nothing to save lives.
Drink driving deaths and injuries are almost entirely caused by those drinking multiple pints and glasses and well over the limit, better to enforce the law against them than just add more nanny state tokenism
Do we know that statement in you last paragraph, and is there any officialdata on eg casualties where the alcohol level is between 50mg/ml and 80 mg/ml (ie new and old limits)?
That's a serious question. I am not aware of data that has been collected routinely at all collisions. Perhaps you are? However DUI is involved in about 20% of road deaths, and checking:
Drivers with a BAC between 20mg and 50mg per 100ml are three times more likely to die in a crash than those who have not consumed any alcohol. Those between 50mg and 80mg are up to six times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash.
There are things such as designated drivers which has been a recommendation since I was in short trousers, who go to a pub with their family or group and do not drink alcohol.
Other places (eg Ireland, Scotland, rest of Europe) manage OK; so can we.
Do they?
Other places (rest of Europe) have a considerably worse road safety record than we do.
The statistics show that the UK's roads are amongst the safest in Europe and the safest in the planet.
So adopting policies used in other nations with considerably higher casualty rates might not be the smartest move.
Comments
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
It is unclear if Trump has actually had any coherent conversations with oil companies. The oil companies are all being politely quiet about events, they understand that considerable investment would be required in Venezuela and they aren’t going to what to start anything without some stability in the country.
There's little point in pussy footing around. There's at least a chance that a show of resistance will deter him; continuing to pussy foot around, and pretend he isn't trying on a bit of extortion just encourages the mad old megalomaniac.
Has anyone told Timpsons, though?
I have been to Greenland and frankly it is a large empty expanse and the US already has bases there
There will be no invasion but I do not rule out a large payment to the 56,000 population
There will be nothing Denmark, the EU or NATO can do if Trump takes over Greenland, which is a stark reminder of just how powerless the west is against him
The agreements can have dodgy clause sin them, though. For example the Greenland one:
Article VIII.
The Government of the United States of America shall have the right to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over those defense areas in Greenland for which it is responsible under Article II (3), and over any offenses which may be committed in Greenland by the aforesaid military or civilian personnel or by members of their families, as well as over other persons within such defense areas except Danish nationals, it being understood, however, that the Government of the United States of America may turn over to the Danish authorities in Greenland for trial any person committing an offense within such defense areas.
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/den001.asp
They ran into stick on that type of clause with US service staff who raped local women in the Philippines, and who were just sent home with no real punishment.
However, May will be an actual election which could have consquences for some leaders
Why are they going to so much effort?
"I don't blame him for going there. It was horrible, so horrible. I just told him, ‘Darling, I want to kill myself, it’s night time at two o'clock.'"
https://x.com/FootballTalkHQ/status/2008603975151444476?s=20
bondegezou said:
» show previous quotes
The thing about international law is that it's very libertarian. (You'd think @BartholomewRoberts would like it!) The basic principle is that countries leave each other alone, and what happens in your country is your business (unless it gets absolutely extreme, e.g. genocide).
I said:
International law is a very mixed bag of things, some good, some less so. At its best it regulates relationships between countries to their mutual benefit (eg trade agreements), standardises equipment with consequential gains to users and provides non violent ways of resolving disputes. At its worse it makes what is happening in other countries such as the destruction of the Uyghurs, the Burmese slaughter of the Rohingyas and the appalling behaviour of the IDF none of our business or at least provides no effective mechanisms to stop the outrages.
Trump's abduction and kidnapping of Maduro and his wife, along with the massacre of his supposed guards, is completely contrary to any rules based system. I really don't see a problem with pointing out that this is very damaging to international law and the prospects of peaceful resolution of future issues. I don't think it is a problem pointing out that this is not how we think things should be done and that this was a very bad thing. That is entirely independent of the question of whether Maduro is a very bad man or not (which is not much of a question really). Personally, I don't think that this is that complicated and the idea that opposing such criminal behaviour on the part of the US is somehow supporting Maduro is really for the hard of thinking.
[deleted - my error]
That would be a change from a while ago.
UK housebuilding in deepest slump since 2020
Newsflash: Britain’s construction sector continued to shrink in December, as housing, commercial and civil engineering activity suffered sharp falls again.
Data provider S&P Global has reported that activity across the UK construction sector, and new orders, both fell again last month.
Housebuilding and commercial construction work both decreased at the fastest rate since May 2020, when the Covid-19 lockdown forced building sites to close, S&P Global’s survey of purchasing managers at UK construction firms shows.
That highlights the government’s struggle to hit its housebuilding targets.
Civil engineering was the weakest-performing category of construction activity in December; it also shrank, but not by as much as in November.
This lifted the UK’s construction PMI index slightly to 40.1 in December, up from 39.4 in November, but still showing a contraction – for the 12th month running (50 = stagnation).
The drop extended the sector’s downturn to 12 months, its longest unbroken run of contractions since the global financial crisis of 2007-09, Reuters reports.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2026/jan/07/oil-price-falls-trump-venezuela-supply-stock-markets-dollar-uk-construction-business-live-news-updates#maincontent
An advanced economy today is driven by technology, a well-educated population, and (often), a good deep water harbour. These things are not easily captured by conquest, (other than the last), and by putting in an army of occupation. It’s usually far cheaper to buy the stuff you need, rather than fighting to seize it.
So, one has to look for reasons other than economics, why Trump, Putin, etc. behave the way the do (of course, they can usually line their own pockets). Or indeed, why slavery is still practised, long past the point anyone could claim it makes economic sense.
Ego is a big part. The desire to win glory, by adding to your national territory, however costly that might be. Vindictiveness, paying off slights that the leader thinks he has suffered. The sheer delight they take, from screwing people over, even when it is possible to achieve their stated ends, by acting fairly and honestly. And in the case of slavery, unlimited sex, with people who can’t say no.
Largely unconnected, but did you by any chance catch a showing of Culloden and a documentary on the making of said film on BBC4 last night? The cast were mostly Invernessians, quite moving to see them talking about the then and now, though the now of the documentaryt was almost 20 years ago. Peter Watkins, recently deceased, was a great guy, criminal that he retired for making work for British tv.
"Struggle to hit its housebuilding targets" is masterful understatement.
How have they managed to make things worse, when they were awful to start with?
What the USA is actually doing is saying: We have decided to leave you all in doubt about NATO and Article 5 for all practical purposes, which means Greenland isn't defended because we have no plans to defend it and because of that we have to have sovereignty over it. Or: We need to own it because otherwise we might attack it.
Identical logic applies to Canada (which would be next - look at a map) and the whole of NATO Europe, bit by bit.
Time to buy a torch and a tin opener.
The classic of the genre is Japan.
Which went from a poor, barely semi-industrial society to First World status. Richer and more powerful than the Dragon Society ever dreamed of.
Ditch the Empire, win the game.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2026/jan/07/iron-age-war-trumpet-find-britain-norfolk-boudicca-links
"An “extraordinary” iron age war trumpet that may have links to the Celtic tribe led by Boudicca in the period they were battling the invading Roman army has been discovered by archaeologists in Norfolk.
"The bronze trumpet or carnyx is only the third ever found in Britain, and the most complete example discovered anywhere in the world. Fashioned in the shape of a snarling wild animal, the object would have been mounted on a long mouthpiece high above the heads of warriors, allowing it to be sounded to intimidate the enemy in battle."
https://www.bfi.org.uk/features/peter-watkins-obituary-war-game-punishment-park
I think we should be doing it properly and going for 20 mg/ml.
It sailed from Iran to Venezuela, but never landed there, instead turning around and heading for Russia. That Putin sends a submarine and other naval vessels after it, and the US Coast Guard is following with airborne assets moved to the area, suggests that the Russians know the US knows about the true nature of the mission.
So is it weapons, rare minerals (gold, drugs?), something nuclear, even key people who shouldn’t be there? Or is it that the ship itself isn’t what it appears?
It would also devastate a pub and bar trade already hit by tax rises and a higher minimum wage, it would also do next to nothing to save lives.
Drink driving deaths and injuries are almost entirely caused by those drinking multiple pints and glasses and well over the limit, better to enforce the law against them than just add more nanny state tokenism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49lBIcyt51A
A massive housebuilding programme that shows results before the next election, is about the only thing that’s saving them from here.
Compare the BBC USA operation with Simon Marks's solo operation for LBC, or indeed thoughtful liberal USA coverage exemplified by Washington Week. To say nothing of the mighty John Stewart.
Interestingly and perhaps not coincidentally there are now some fairly decent low/non alcohol beers to be had up here - I get a selection in every now and then simply because I like them at lunchtime in particular rather than rot teeth with fruit juice (as opposed to real fruit) or get hyper on even more coffee.
Edit: I believe the 20mg limit is more for an error margin and borderline cases than a serious target for alcohol drinkersa at the time.
Tbh a zero-tolerance approach is simpler and fairer on everyone, particularly given the consequences of being caught.
I'm curious as to what, if anything, is on board it now.
(I know 'deleted' is fairly easily recovered in most cases - most filesystems simply mark deleted rather than over-writing for example)
And even if they could find the money, and actually decide to do it, they're beginning to run out of time to get started on it.
I think they are really important for getting a feel for he voters are moving between parties (or not) - if not statistical evidence.
Guardian blog
2% - two-thirds of all those who were over the limit - had more than twice the legal amount of blood alcohol in their body
7% of those killed - 40% of those who were over the limit - were at least 2.5 times over the limit'
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-crackdown-on-drink-and-drug-driving'
We need greater enforcement of laws we already have not more nanny state that will destroy an already struggling pub trade, even more reason to vote Tory or Reform therefore and get rid of this useless nanny state government!
The general consensus is that you don’t send a submarine to escort an empty vessel, and the US effort appears way out of proportion to the same, when they could have NATO allies board it close to Russia. So something’s up, we just don’t know what exactly.
It’s yet more evidence that they didn’t have a clue what do actually do with power having won the election. Stuff like building and planning has long lead times, it should have been done in the first six months.
Will the US invade? Possibly.
What happens if they do?
I genuinely can't say. The reaction could range from as little as 'Team America Hans Blix' "write you a letter telling you how angry we are" to nuclear war. I'd be inclined to think Denmark would leave NATO and some others may also leave in solidarity, so NATO dies on its arse. Trump gets what he wants twice.
I can't see Denmark fighting for it, nor Greenland offering more than token resistance.
It’s a total sh…show at the moment, possibly the worst Windows since the first Vista broke the security model back in 2007.
Making it illegal to have a pint with a meal at the weekends, which is what I do and is perfectly fine, will kill country pubs and breweries.
Regardless as I said provided he told police and deleted it he would not be prosecuted
I was wondering if government could legislate to reduce compensation to land owners in some cases.
Putin seems to be the immediate beneficiary of Venezuelan oil being diverted from China to the US.
He'd also be the beneficiary of the US undermining NATO.
https://www.gov.scot/policies/more-homes/affordable-housing-supply/
guardian
Thankfully in the UK there’s clear cross-party support for the Ukranians, and such measures are not seen as particularly controversial.
Who could have predicted that?
The other aspect is if the first thing you do when you see poll numbers is put them into Baxter,that simply adds another layer of implausibility as we know Baxter is tailored to the old two party system rather than a four or five party system.
That's a serious question. I am not aware of data that has been collected routinely at all collisions. Perhaps you are? However DUI is involved in about 20% of road deaths, and checking:
Drivers with a BAC between 20mg and 50mg per 100ml are three times more likely to die in a crash than those who have not consumed any alcohol. Those between 50mg and 80mg are up to six times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash.
There are things such as designated drivers which has been a recommendation since I was in short trousers, who go to a pub with their family or group and do not drink alcohol. Plus there are taxis, buses and Shank's Pony.
Other places (eg Ireland, Scotland, rest of Europe) manage OK; I think we can manage that too.
While quoting JRM is probably mad, the section he did the other day in his podcast on why nothing can be done before the election is valid.
Essentially, any major policy will take more than 2 years - initiation, discussion, stakeholder input, drafting, initial legislation, parliament, secondary legislation, lawfare etc
Then you’d have planning.
This is why Starmer is banging on about the system being blocked. He is being told that he can’t have stuff before the election - *now*
The big change I want to see is phone use - impairment is roughly the same as drink driving and should get the same punishment.
Instead, they’ve done nothing for 18 months.
She's like the righrwing Arianna Stassinopoulos, I wonder if she could go far.
Other places (rest of Europe) have a considerably worse road safety record than we do.
The statistics show that the UK's roads are amongst the safest in Europe and the safest in the planet.
So adopting policies used in other nations with considerably higher casualty rates might not be the smartest move.
https://etsc.eu/wp-content/uploads/ETSC-2025-Annual-PIN-Report-DIGITAL-V2.pdf
It is helped that I am not really a drinker and quite content to have soft drinks
Coke Cola on Christmas Day when we went to our daughters
I'll have a pint with a meal; I make sure that I will be there long enough that it will be metabolised (normally 1.5-2 hours), and I make sure it is eg Chatsworth Gold, not Old Roger.
We had these sort of arguments back in 1967 from the "I'm perfectly fine to drive when I have been drinking; how DARE they" brigade. This will bed in too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_tqQYmgMQg