Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 3m Is there a political party I should vote for if I actually want to change anything about the UK's macroeconomic management?
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 3m Is there any party that favours re-doing/rejigging/re-arranging/reconceptualising/re-moulding the UK's macroeconomic policy? I might be interested in voting for *that* party. All the current ones seem to have essentially the same macroeconomic policy.
I think it's time to cut £40bn from welfare and build a properly independent nuclear deterrent and properly fund defence. We can no longer rely on the US regardless of who is in the White House. The Trident programme made sense in an era when the UK and US were inseparable in terms of our global aims but now that is no longer the case. We cannot be beholden to what I would term as an informal ally for such a crucial part of our defence posture.
It's a truly sad state of affairs when the US and UK can no longer say they have the same outlook on the world regardless of who occupies No 10 or the White House. That partnership has been the cornerstone of the post war consensus and now it seems to be broken beyond repair. I think America is going to quickly realise it's a cold world out there and even though it maintains defence primacy, life without friends and allies is much tougher than MAGA and other isolationists realise. Thralldom may suit some countries but I think we need to start planning for a world in which we will need to defend our own interests without an implicit guarantee from American military might.
Welfare and pensions are not affordable in this new era and both will need substantial cuts.
On you final point we can't just let the old, the infirmed, the disabled, the poor to live in abject poverty. We have to offer voluntary euthanasia like we would an old dog or cat at the end of their life.
Alternatively the World and more specifically Britain could operate a society where the top one percent don't own 90% of wealth, or whatever the figure is these days.
The peasants need to revolt like they did in the French, the Russian and the Iranian revolutions. The outcomes of each may not have been optimal after the revolutions but your remedy is no better.
Yeah, great advice
French Revolution: led to the Terror, and then was reversed
Russian Revolution: epochal disaster for the world
Iranian Revolution: almost as bad, and much worse for Iranians
Otherwise, good choices. I note you didn't choose Britain's various revolutions, particularly 1688, which is surely a preferable model, in every way
A better argument starts from the observation that revolutions are generally bad things for all involved. Which is why the smart thing to is to throw the lower orders sufficient bones that they never feel the need to start one. The 19th and 20th century plutocrats seemed to understand that better than their sucessors in our time.
We have revolutions all the time.
Every 5 or so years, we overthrow the government.
Instead of a violent revolution that kills a serious percentage of the population and causes misery for the rest for decades, we call a removal van.
That’s the advantage of democracy - not that there is some metaphysical reason that the politicians picked are superior. Just that we can get rid of them.
As bin Laden accurately and perceptively observed democracy is the 'religion of ignorance'.
I think it's time to cut £40bn from welfare and build a properly independent nuclear deterrent and properly fund defence. We can no longer rely on the US regardless of who is in the White House. The Trident programme made sense in an era when the UK and US were inseparable in terms of our global aims but now that is no longer the case. We cannot be beholden to what I would term as an informal ally for such a crucial part of our defence posture.
It's a truly sad state of affairs when the US and UK can no longer say they have the same outlook on the world regardless of who occupies No 10 or the White House. That partnership has been the cornerstone of the post war consensus and now it seems to be broken beyond repair. I think America is going to quickly realise it's a cold world out there and even though it maintains defence primacy, life without friends and allies is much tougher than MAGA and other isolationists realise. Thralldom may suit some countries but I think we need to start planning for a world in which we will need to defend our own interests without an implicit guarantee from American military might.
Welfare and pensions are not affordable in this new era and both will need substantial cuts.
On you final point we can't just let the old, the infirmed, the disabled, the poor to live in abject poverty. We have to offer voluntary euthanasia like we would an old dog or cat at the end of their life.
Alternatively the World and more specifically Britain could operate a society where the top one percent don't own 90% of wealth, or whatever the figure is these days.
The peasants need to revolt like they did in the French, the Russian and the Iranian revolutions. The outcomes of each may not have been optimal after the revolutions but your remedy is no better.
The UK has one of the biggest welfare states in the world and the top 10% only own 43% of UK wealth not 90% (whereas in the US now the top 10% own 67% of the nation's wealth)
47% of GB owned by wealthiest 10% 8% of GB owned by poorest 50%
Your figure of 43% was close, but I've based the above on the latest ONS figures, plus Advani and Tarrant corrections adding a few percent to the top 1% and top 10% which was missed from close-companies and equity, and undersampling.
Even without the corrections, it remains hideous. And when you factor in income, one can see that the poorest are working to make the wealthiest richer. So the issue of the welfare state is really obscuring the real steal and even if the Greens don't have a fully-fledged plan, only they are identifying the issue on the national level. The concern about the welfare state pales even more when we consider impending AI+robotics impacts on working. The wealthiest don't even actually need to work - that is the real welfare state, it's torrent-up not trickle-down. I'm not sure those of us in the lowest decile should be thankful for being thrown crumbs.
I think it's time to cut £40bn from welfare and build a properly independent nuclear deterrent and properly fund defence. We can no longer rely on the US regardless of who is in the White House. The Trident programme made sense in an era when the UK and US were inseparable in terms of our global aims but now that is no longer the case. We cannot be beholden to what I would term as an informal ally for such a crucial part of our defence posture.
It's a truly sad state of affairs when the US and UK can no longer say they have the same outlook on the world regardless of who occupies No 10 or the White House. That partnership has been the cornerstone of the post war consensus and now it seems to be broken beyond repair. I think America is going to quickly realise it's a cold world out there and even though it maintains defence primacy, life without friends and allies is much tougher than MAGA and other isolationists realise. Thralldom may suit some countries but I think we need to start planning for a world in which we will need to defend our own interests without an implicit guarantee from American military might.
Welfare and pensions are not affordable in this new era and both will need substantial cuts.
On you final point we can't just let the old, the infirmed, the disabled, the poor to live in abject poverty. We have to offer voluntary euthanasia like we would an old dog or cat at the end of their life.
Alternatively the World and more specifically Britain could operate a society where the top one percent don't own 90% of wealth, or whatever the figure is these days.
The peasants need to revolt like they did in the French, the Russian and the Iranian revolutions. The outcomes of each may not have been optimal after the revolutions but your remedy is no better.
Yeah, great advice
French Revolution: led to the Terror, and then was reversed
Russian Revolution: epochal disaster for the world
Iranian Revolution: almost as bad, and much worse for Iranians
Otherwise, good choices. I note you didn't choose Britain's various revolutions, particularly 1688, which is surely a preferable model, in every way
A better argument starts from the observation that revolutions are generally bad things for all involved. Which is why the smart thing to is to throw the lower orders sufficient bones that they never feel the need to start one. The 19th and 20th century plutocrats seemed to understand that better than their sucessors in our time.
Revolutions are generally not started by the lower classes who are too busy trying to survive. They are started by the frustrated middle class and merchant class who have the time, money and ability to organise against the elite. See French and American revolutions. The exception is the Peasants Revolt in England led by Wat Tyler. Lawyers generally play a central role in revolutions.
If lawyers are involved, no wonder we have so few revolutions. By the time they set up an inquiry, call witnesses and write a report recommending that Lessons be Learned, the crisis leading to the revolution will be over.
Robespierre and Danton were lawyers.
Lenin too. From (roughly) 1892 to 1893, he worked as an advocate’s assistant in Samara.
I think it's time to cut £40bn from welfare and build a properly independent nuclear deterrent and properly fund defence. We can no longer rely on the US regardless of who is in the White House. The Trident programme made sense in an era when the UK and US were inseparable in terms of our global aims but now that is no longer the case. We cannot be beholden to what I would term as an informal ally for such a crucial part of our defence posture.
It's a truly sad state of affairs when the US and UK can no longer say they have the same outlook on the world regardless of who occupies No 10 or the White House. That partnership has been the cornerstone of the post war consensus and now it seems to be broken beyond repair. I think America is going to quickly realise it's a cold world out there and even though it maintains defence primacy, life without friends and allies is much tougher than MAGA and other isolationists realise. Thralldom may suit some countries but I think we need to start planning for a world in which we will need to defend our own interests without an implicit guarantee from American military might.
Welfare and pensions are not affordable in this new era and both will need substantial cuts.
On you final point we can't just let the old, the infirmed, the disabled, the poor to live in abject poverty. We have to offer voluntary euthanasia like we would an old dog or cat at the end of their life.
Alternatively the World and more specifically Britain could operate a society where the top one percent don't own 90% of wealth, or whatever the figure is these days.
The peasants need to revolt like they did in the French, the Russian and the Iranian revolutions. The outcomes of each may not have been optimal after the revolutions but your remedy is no better.
Yeah, great advice
French Revolution: led to the Terror, and then was reversed
Russian Revolution: epochal disaster for the world
Iranian Revolution: almost as bad, and much worse for Iranians
Otherwise, good choices. I note you didn't choose Britain's various revolutions, particularly 1688, which is surely a preferable model, in every way
You clearly didn't read or more likely understand that I pointed out that these revolutions didn't yield the appropriate results, but Max's view that we should pay for fun things like defence, but the offset on that is widespread destitution is also ridiculous.
No, I did read it, you said the "outcomes of these revolutions may not have been optimal", which is like saying "for the Jewish people, the Holocaust was certainly not a vacation"
It is offensively dim - but then, this is you
No you got caught out through not being very bright and now you are aggressively doubling down.
"Aggressively doubling down" = "correctly quoting exactly what you said"
No, the Holocaust comment didn't compute to what I said at all it was hyperbole on stilts.
I think it's time to cut £40bn from welfare and build a properly independent nuclear deterrent and properly fund defence. We can no longer rely on the US regardless of who is in the White House. The Trident programme made sense in an era when the UK and US were inseparable in terms of our global aims but now that is no longer the case. We cannot be beholden to what I would term as an informal ally for such a crucial part of our defence posture.
It's a truly sad state of affairs when the US and UK can no longer say they have the same outlook on the world regardless of who occupies No 10 or the White House. That partnership has been the cornerstone of the post war consensus and now it seems to be broken beyond repair. I think America is going to quickly realise it's a cold world out there and even though it maintains defence primacy, life without friends and allies is much tougher than MAGA and other isolationists realise. Thralldom may suit some countries but I think we need to start planning for a world in which we will need to defend our own interests without an implicit guarantee from American military might.
Welfare and pensions are not affordable in this new era and both will need substantial cuts.
On you final point we can't just let the old, the infirmed, the disabled, the poor to live in abject poverty. We have to offer voluntary euthanasia like we would an old dog or cat at the end of their life.
Alternatively the World and more specifically Britain could operate a society where the top one percent don't own 90% of wealth, or whatever the figure is these days.
The peasants need to revolt like they did in the French, the Russian and the Iranian revolutions. The outcomes of each may not have been optimal after the revolutions but your remedy is no better.
Yeah, great advice
French Revolution: led to the Terror, and then was reversed
Russian Revolution: epochal disaster for the world
Iranian Revolution: almost as bad, and much worse for Iranians
Otherwise, good choices. I note you didn't choose Britain's various revolutions, particularly 1688, which is surely a preferable model, in every way
A better argument starts from the observation that revolutions are generally bad things for all involved. Which is why the smart thing to is to throw the lower orders sufficient bones that they never feel the need to start one. The 19th and 20th century plutocrats seemed to understand that better than their sucessors in our time.
Revolutions are generally not started by the lower classes who are too busy trying to survive. They are started by the frustrated middle class and merchant class who have the time, money and ability to organise against the elite. See French and American revolutions. The exception is the Peasants Revolt in England led by Wat Tyler. Lawyers generally play a central role in revolutions.
If lawyers are involved, no wonder we have so few revolutions. By the time they set up an inquiry, call witnesses and write a report recommending that Lessons be Learned, the crisis leading to the revolution will be over.
Robespierre and Danton were lawyers.
Lenin too. From (roughly) 1892 to 1893, he worked as an advocate’s assistant in Samara.
John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Patrick Henry - lawyers
A happier thought to go to bed with. Trump's net approval on Nate Silver's polling average has once again today fallen to a record low, this time of -17.3%. Seems now to be an almost daily occurence. The trend is definitely not his friend.
I think it's time to cut £40bn from welfare and build a properly independent nuclear deterrent and properly fund defence. We can no longer rely on the US regardless of who is in the White House. The Trident programme made sense in an era when the UK and US were inseparable in terms of our global aims but now that is no longer the case. We cannot be beholden to what I would term as an informal ally for such a crucial part of our defence posture.
It's a truly sad state of affairs when the US and UK can no longer say they have the same outlook on the world regardless of who occupies No 10 or the White House. That partnership has been the cornerstone of the post war consensus and now it seems to be broken beyond repair. I think America is going to quickly realise it's a cold world out there and even though it maintains defence primacy, life without friends and allies is much tougher than MAGA and other isolationists realise. Thralldom may suit some countries but I think we need to start planning for a world in which we will need to defend our own interests without an implicit guarantee from American military might.
Welfare and pensions are not affordable in this new era and both will need substantial cuts.
On you final point we can't just let the old, the infirmed, the disabled, the poor to live in abject poverty. We have to offer voluntary euthanasia like we would an old dog or cat at the end of their life.
Alternatively the World and more specifically Britain could operate a society where the top one percent don't own 90% of wealth, or whatever the figure is these days.
The peasants need to revolt like they did in the French, the Russian and the Iranian revolutions. The outcomes of each may not have been optimal after the revolutions but your remedy is no better.
Yeah, great advice
French Revolution: led to the Terror, and then was reversed
Russian Revolution: epochal disaster for the world
Iranian Revolution: almost as bad, and much worse for Iranians
Otherwise, good choices. I note you didn't choose Britain's various revolutions, particularly 1688, which is surely a preferable model, in every way
A better argument starts from the observation that revolutions are generally bad things for all involved. Which is why the smart thing to is to throw the lower orders sufficient bones that they never feel the need to start one. The 19th and 20th century plutocrats seemed to understand that better than their sucessors in our time.
Revolutions are generally not started by the lower classes who are too busy trying to survive. They are started by the frustrated middle class and merchant class who have the time, money and ability to organise against the elite. See French and American revolutions. The exception is the Peasants Revolt in England led by Wat Tyler. Lawyers generally play a central role in revolutions.
If lawyers are involved, no wonder we have so few revolutions. By the time they set up an inquiry, call witnesses and write a report recommending that Lessons be Learned, the crisis leading to the revolution will be over.
Robespierre and Danton were lawyers.
Lenin too. From (roughly) 1892 to 1893, he worked as an advocate’s assistant in Samara.
Several Founding Fathers, too. Adams and Hamilton and Jefferson and Madison...
Ordinarily I am not a big fan of DEI, (Among other things, DEI often leads to policies that violate our civil rights laws. And it reminds me far too much of the sins of many big city machines.)
But I like the four chosen for this mission; they include a Canadian, a black man, and a woman. On future missions, I hope to see a Hispanic, an east Asian, a Jew, and someone of mixed race.
The Kobeissi Letter @KobeissiLetter · 25m BREAKING: Iran says no talks have taken place through mediators for a temporary ceasefire with the US and Israel.
This morning, President Trump said Iran’s President “asked the US for a ceasefire.”
I think it's time to cut £40bn from welfare and build a properly independent nuclear deterrent and properly fund defence. We can no longer rely on the US regardless of who is in the White House. The Trident programme made sense in an era when the UK and US were inseparable in terms of our global aims but now that is no longer the case. We cannot be beholden to what I would term as an informal ally for such a crucial part of our defence posture.
It's a truly sad state of affairs when the US and UK can no longer say they have the same outlook on the world regardless of who occupies No 10 or the White House. That partnership has been the cornerstone of the post war consensus and now it seems to be broken beyond repair. I think America is going to quickly realise it's a cold world out there and even though it maintains defence primacy, life without friends and allies is much tougher than MAGA and other isolationists realise. Thralldom may suit some countries but I think we need to start planning for a world in which we will need to defend our own interests without an implicit guarantee from American military might.
Welfare and pensions are not affordable in this new era and both will need substantial cuts.
On you final point we can't just let the old, the infirmed, the disabled, the poor to live in abject poverty. We have to offer voluntary euthanasia like we would an old dog or cat at the end of their life.
Alternatively the World and more specifically Britain could operate a society where the top one percent don't own 90% of wealth, or whatever the figure is these days.
The peasants need to revolt like they did in the French, the Russian and the Iranian revolutions. The outcomes of each may not have been optimal after the revolutions but your remedy is no better.
Yeah, great advice
French Revolution: led to the Terror, and then was reversed
Russian Revolution: epochal disaster for the world
Iranian Revolution: almost as bad, and much worse for Iranians
Otherwise, good choices. I note you didn't choose Britain's various revolutions, particularly 1688, which is surely a preferable model, in every way
A better argument starts from the observation that revolutions are generally bad things for all involved. Which is why the smart thing to is to throw the lower orders sufficient bones that they never feel the need to start one. The 19th and 20th century plutocrats seemed to understand that better than their sucessors in our time.
We have revolutions all the time.
Every 5 or so years, we overthrow the government.
Instead of a violent revolution that kills a serious percentage of the population and causes misery for the rest for decades, we call a removal van.
That’s the advantage of democracy - not that there is some metaphysical reason that the politicians picked are superior. Just that we can get rid of them.
As bin Laden accurately and perceptively observed democracy is the 'religion of ignorance'.
Ah yes - “People won’t vote for my genius. So democracy is stupid.”
It’s a very boring song. Sung by many, many morons over the years.
I think it's time to cut £40bn from welfare and build a properly independent nuclear deterrent and properly fund defence. We can no longer rely on the US regardless of who is in the White House. The Trident programme made sense in an era when the UK and US were inseparable in terms of our global aims but now that is no longer the case. We cannot be beholden to what I would term as an informal ally for such a crucial part of our defence posture.
It's a truly sad state of affairs when the US and UK can no longer say they have the same outlook on the world regardless of who occupies No 10 or the White House. That partnership has been the cornerstone of the post war consensus and now it seems to be broken beyond repair. I think America is going to quickly realise it's a cold world out there and even though it maintains defence primacy, life without friends and allies is much tougher than MAGA and other isolationists realise. Thralldom may suit some countries but I think we need to start planning for a world in which we will need to defend our own interests without an implicit guarantee from American military might.
Welfare and pensions are not affordable in this new era and both will need substantial cuts.
On you final point we can't just let the old, the infirmed, the disabled, the poor to live in abject poverty. We have to offer voluntary euthanasia like we would an old dog or cat at the end of their life.
Alternatively the World and more specifically Britain could operate a society where the top one percent don't own 90% of wealth, or whatever the figure is these days.
The peasants need to revolt like they did in the French, the Russian and the Iranian revolutions. The outcomes of each may not have been optimal after the revolutions but your remedy is no better.
Yeah, great advice
French Revolution: led to the Terror, and then was reversed
Russian Revolution: epochal disaster for the world
Iranian Revolution: almost as bad, and much worse for Iranians
Otherwise, good choices. I note you didn't choose Britain's various revolutions, particularly 1688, which is surely a preferable model, in every way
A better argument starts from the observation that revolutions are generally bad things for all involved. Which is why the smart thing to is to throw the lower orders sufficient bones that they never feel the need to start one. The 19th and 20th century plutocrats seemed to understand that better than their sucessors in our time.
Revolutions are generally not started by the lower classes who are too busy trying to survive. They are started by the frustrated middle class and merchant class who have the time, money and ability to organise against the elite. See French and American revolutions. The exception is the Peasants Revolt in England led by Wat Tyler. Lawyers generally play a central role in revolutions.
If lawyers are involved, no wonder we have so few revolutions. By the time they set up an inquiry, call witnesses and write a report recommending that Lessons be Learned, the crisis leading to the revolution will be over.
I think it's time to cut £40bn from welfare and build a properly independent nuclear deterrent and properly fund defence. We can no longer rely on the US regardless of who is in the White House. The Trident programme made sense in an era when the UK and US were inseparable in terms of our global aims but now that is no longer the case. We cannot be beholden to what I would term as an informal ally for such a crucial part of our defence posture.
It's a truly sad state of affairs when the US and UK can no longer say they have the same outlook on the world regardless of who occupies No 10 or the White House. That partnership has been the cornerstone of the post war consensus and now it seems to be broken beyond repair. I think America is going to quickly realise it's a cold world out there and even though it maintains defence primacy, life without friends and allies is much tougher than MAGA and other isolationists realise. Thralldom may suit some countries but I think we need to start planning for a world in which we will need to defend our own interests without an implicit guarantee from American military might.
Welfare and pensions are not affordable in this new era and both will need substantial cuts.
On you final point we can't just let the old, the infirmed, the disabled, the poor to live in abject poverty. We have to offer voluntary euthanasia like we would an old dog or cat at the end of their life.
Alternatively the World and more specifically Britain could operate a society where the top one percent don't own 90% of wealth, or whatever the figure is these days.
The peasants need to revolt like they did in the French, the Russian and the Iranian revolutions. The outcomes of each may not have been optimal after the revolutions but your remedy is no better.
Yeah, great advice
French Revolution: led to the Terror, and then was reversed
Russian Revolution: epochal disaster for the world
Iranian Revolution: almost as bad, and much worse for Iranians
Otherwise, good choices. I note you didn't choose Britain's various revolutions, particularly 1688, which is surely a preferable model, in every way
A better argument starts from the observation that revolutions are generally bad things for all involved. Which is why the smart thing to is to throw the lower orders sufficient bones that they never feel the need to start one. The 19th and 20th century plutocrats seemed to understand that better than their sucessors in our time.
We have revolutions all the time.
Every 5 or so years, we overthrow the government.
Instead of a violent revolution that kills a serious percentage of the population and causes misery for the rest for decades, we call a removal van.
That’s the advantage of democracy - not that there is some metaphysical reason that the politicians picked are superior. Just that we can get rid of them.
Revolution isn't replacing one bunch of twats in ministerial positions with another (when kindly given the chance, one button press each, queue nicely) - another gutless crew who agree on all the essentials, such as leaving the permanent government and established arrangement untouched, and the ruling class unexpropriated. (Note for those who need it: this includes the Greens and the Fukkers.)
As for "democracy", that's "people's rule" in Greek. Better for things to be brought out into the open if you want change. Admittedly this is a bit of a pious hope right now.
I think it's time to cut £40bn from welfare and build a properly independent nuclear deterrent and properly fund defence. We can no longer rely on the US regardless of who is in the White House. The Trident programme made sense in an era when the UK and US were inseparable in terms of our global aims but now that is no longer the case. We cannot be beholden to what I would term as an informal ally for such a crucial part of our defence posture.
It's a truly sad state of affairs when the US and UK can no longer say they have the same outlook on the world regardless of who occupies No 10 or the White House. That partnership has been the cornerstone of the post war consensus and now it seems to be broken beyond repair. I think America is going to quickly realise it's a cold world out there and even though it maintains defence primacy, life without friends and allies is much tougher than MAGA and other isolationists realise. Thralldom may suit some countries but I think we need to start planning for a world in which we will need to defend our own interests without an implicit guarantee from American military might.
Welfare and pensions are not affordable in this new era and both will need substantial cuts.
On you final point we can't just let the old, the infirmed, the disabled, the poor to live in abject poverty. We have to offer voluntary euthanasia like we would an old dog or cat at the end of their life.
Alternatively the World and more specifically Britain could operate a society where the top one percent don't own 90% of wealth, or whatever the figure is these days.
The peasants need to revolt like they did in the French, the Russian and the Iranian revolutions. The outcomes of each may not have been optimal after the revolutions but your remedy is no better.
The UK has one of the biggest welfare states in the world and the top 10% only own 43% of UK wealth not 90% (whereas in the US now the top 10% own 67% of the nation's wealth)
I think it's time to cut £40bn from welfare and build a properly independent nuclear deterrent and properly fund defence. We can no longer rely on the US regardless of who is in the White House. The Trident programme made sense in an era when the UK and US were inseparable in terms of our global aims but now that is no longer the case. We cannot be beholden to what I would term as an informal ally for such a crucial part of our defence posture.
It's a truly sad state of affairs when the US and UK can no longer say they have the same outlook on the world regardless of who occupies No 10 or the White House. That partnership has been the cornerstone of the post war consensus and now it seems to be broken beyond repair. I think America is going to quickly realise it's a cold world out there and even though it maintains defence primacy, life without friends and allies is much tougher than MAGA and other isolationists realise. Thralldom may suit some countries but I think we need to start planning for a world in which we will need to defend our own interests without an implicit guarantee from American military might.
Welfare and pensions are not affordable in this new era and both will need substantial cuts.
On you final point we can't just let the old, the infirmed, the disabled, the poor to live in abject poverty. We have to offer voluntary euthanasia like we would an old dog or cat at the end of their life.
Alternatively the World and more specifically Britain could operate a society where the top one percent don't own 90% of wealth, or whatever the figure is these days.
The peasants need to revolt like they did in the French, the Russian and the Iranian revolutions. The outcomes of each may not have been optimal after the revolutions but your remedy is no better.
Yeah, great advice
French Revolution: led to the Terror, and then was reversed
Russian Revolution: epochal disaster for the world
Iranian Revolution: almost as bad, and much worse for Iranians
Otherwise, good choices. I note you didn't choose Britain's various revolutions, particularly 1688, which is surely a preferable model, in every way
A better argument starts from the observation that revolutions are generally bad things for all involved. Which is why the smart thing to is to throw the lower orders sufficient bones that they never feel the need to start one. The 19th and 20th century plutocrats seemed to understand that better than their sucessors in our time.
We have revolutions all the time.
Every 5 or so years, we overthrow the government.
Instead of a violent revolution that kills a serious percentage of the population and causes misery for the rest for decades, we call a removal van.
That’s the advantage of democracy - not that there is some metaphysical reason that the politicians picked are superior. Just that we can get rid of them.
As bin Laden accurately and perceptively observed democracy is the 'religion of ignorance'.
As Churchill said:
"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
I think it's time to cut £40bn from welfare and build a properly independent nuclear deterrent and properly fund defence. We can no longer rely on the US regardless of who is in the White House. The Trident programme made sense in an era when the UK and US were inseparable in terms of our global aims but now that is no longer the case. We cannot be beholden to what I would term as an informal ally for such a crucial part of our defence posture.
It's a truly sad state of affairs when the US and UK can no longer say they have the same outlook on the world regardless of who occupies No 10 or the White House. That partnership has been the cornerstone of the post war consensus and now it seems to be broken beyond repair. I think America is going to quickly realise it's a cold world out there and even though it maintains defence primacy, life without friends and allies is much tougher than MAGA and other isolationists realise. Thralldom may suit some countries but I think we need to start planning for a world in which we will need to defend our own interests without an implicit guarantee from American military might.
Welfare and pensions are not affordable in this new era and both will need substantial cuts.
On you final point we can't just let the old, the infirmed, the disabled, the poor to live in abject poverty. We have to offer voluntary euthanasia like we would an old dog or cat at the end of their life.
Alternatively the World and more specifically Britain could operate a society where the top one percent don't own 90% of wealth, or whatever the figure is these days.
The peasants need to revolt like they did in the French, the Russian and the Iranian revolutions. The outcomes of each may not have been optimal after the revolutions but your remedy is no better.
Yeah, great advice
French Revolution: led to the Terror, and then was reversed
Russian Revolution: epochal disaster for the world
Iranian Revolution: almost as bad, and much worse for Iranians
Otherwise, good choices. I note you didn't choose Britain's various revolutions, particularly 1688, which is surely a preferable model, in every way
A better argument starts from the observation that revolutions are generally bad things for all involved. Which is why the smart thing to is to throw the lower orders sufficient bones that they never feel the need to start one. The 19th and 20th century plutocrats seemed to understand that better than their sucessors in our time.
We have revolutions all the time.
Every 5 or so years, we overthrow the government.
Instead of a violent revolution that kills a serious percentage of the population and causes misery for the rest for decades, we call a removal van.
That’s the advantage of democracy - not that there is some metaphysical reason that the politicians picked are superior. Just that we can get rid of them.
As bin Laden accurately and perceptively observed democracy is the 'religion of ignorance'.
Ah yes - “People won’t vote for my genius. So democracy is stupid.”
It’s a very boring song. Sung by many, many morons over the years.
We're so lucky that the means of influencing minds and actions is so fairly distributed, right?
I think it's time to cut £40bn from welfare and build a properly independent nuclear deterrent and properly fund defence. We can no longer rely on the US regardless of who is in the White House. The Trident programme made sense in an era when the UK and US were inseparable in terms of our global aims but now that is no longer the case. We cannot be beholden to what I would term as an informal ally for such a crucial part of our defence posture.
It's a truly sad state of affairs when the US and UK can no longer say they have the same outlook on the world regardless of who occupies No 10 or the White House. That partnership has been the cornerstone of the post war consensus and now it seems to be broken beyond repair. I think America is going to quickly realise it's a cold world out there and even though it maintains defence primacy, life without friends and allies is much tougher than MAGA and other isolationists realise. Thralldom may suit some countries but I think we need to start planning for a world in which we will need to defend our own interests without an implicit guarantee from American military might.
Welfare and pensions are not affordable in this new era and both will need substantial cuts.
On you final point we can't just let the old, the infirmed, the disabled, the poor to live in abject poverty. We have to offer voluntary euthanasia like we would an old dog or cat at the end of their life.
Alternatively the World and more specifically Britain could operate a society where the top one percent don't own 90% of wealth, or whatever the figure is these days.
The peasants need to revolt like they did in the French, the Russian and the Iranian revolutions. The outcomes of each may not have been optimal after the revolutions but your remedy is no better.
Yeah, great advice
French Revolution: led to the Terror, and then was reversed
Russian Revolution: epochal disaster for the world
Iranian Revolution: almost as bad, and much worse for Iranians
Otherwise, good choices. I note you didn't choose Britain's various revolutions, particularly 1688, which is surely a preferable model, in every way
A better argument starts from the observation that revolutions are generally bad things for all involved. Which is why the smart thing to is to throw the lower orders sufficient bones that they never feel the need to start one. The 19th and 20th century plutocrats seemed to understand that better than their sucessors in our time.
We have revolutions all the time.
Every 5 or so years, we overthrow the government.
Instead of a violent revolution that kills a serious percentage of the population and causes misery for the rest for decades, we call a removal van.
That’s the advantage of democracy - not that there is some metaphysical reason that the politicians picked are superior. Just that we can get rid of them.
Revolution isn't replacing one bunch of twats in ministerial positions with another (when kindly given the chance, one button press each, queue nicely) - another crew who agree on all the essentials, such as leaving the permanent government and established arrangement untouched.
As for "democracy", that's "people's rule" in Greek. Better for things to be brought out into the open if you want change.
Have you looked at the result of revolutions?
That is exactly what happens.
The idea of the bold, noble revolutionary who changes things… ends up with a committee for deciding which biscuits for the committee for deciding the membership of the committee for deciding which budget should be used to pay a criminal to break Rudolf Nureyev legs. (This actually happened in the KGB)
I think it's time to cut £40bn from welfare and build a properly independent nuclear deterrent and properly fund defence. We can no longer rely on the US regardless of who is in the White House. The Trident programme made sense in an era when the UK and US were inseparable in terms of our global aims but now that is no longer the case. We cannot be beholden to what I would term as an informal ally for such a crucial part of our defence posture.
It's a truly sad state of affairs when the US and UK can no longer say they have the same outlook on the world regardless of who occupies No 10 or the White House. That partnership has been the cornerstone of the post war consensus and now it seems to be broken beyond repair. I think America is going to quickly realise it's a cold world out there and even though it maintains defence primacy, life without friends and allies is much tougher than MAGA and other isolationists realise. Thralldom may suit some countries but I think we need to start planning for a world in which we will need to defend our own interests without an implicit guarantee from American military might.
Welfare and pensions are not affordable in this new era and both will need substantial cuts.
On you final point we can't just let the old, the infirmed, the disabled, the poor to live in abject poverty. We have to offer voluntary euthanasia like we would an old dog or cat at the end of their life.
Alternatively the World and more specifically Britain could operate a society where the top one percent don't own 90% of wealth, or whatever the figure is these days.
The peasants need to revolt like they did in the French, the Russian and the Iranian revolutions. The outcomes of each may not have been optimal after the revolutions but your remedy is no better.
Yeah, great advice
French Revolution: led to the Terror, and then was reversed
Russian Revolution: epochal disaster for the world
Iranian Revolution: almost as bad, and much worse for Iranians
Otherwise, good choices. I note you didn't choose Britain's various revolutions, particularly 1688, which is surely a preferable model, in every way
A better argument starts from the observation that revolutions are generally bad things for all involved. Which is why the smart thing to is to throw the lower orders sufficient bones that they never feel the need to start one. The 19th and 20th century plutocrats seemed to understand that better than their sucessors in our time.
We have revolutions all the time.
Every 5 or so years, we overthrow the government.
Instead of a violent revolution that kills a serious percentage of the population and causes misery for the rest for decades, we call a removal van.
That’s the advantage of democracy - not that there is some metaphysical reason that the politicians picked are superior. Just that we can get rid of them.
A revolution requires a change of regime rather than simply a change of government.
I think it's time to cut £40bn from welfare and build a properly independent nuclear deterrent and properly fund defence. We can no longer rely on the US regardless of who is in the White House. The Trident programme made sense in an era when the UK and US were inseparable in terms of our global aims but now that is no longer the case. We cannot be beholden to what I would term as an informal ally for such a crucial part of our defence posture.
It's a truly sad state of affairs when the US and UK can no longer say they have the same outlook on the world regardless of who occupies No 10 or the White House. That partnership has been the cornerstone of the post war consensus and now it seems to be broken beyond repair. I think America is going to quickly realise it's a cold world out there and even though it maintains defence primacy, life without friends and allies is much tougher than MAGA and other isolationists realise. Thralldom may suit some countries but I think we need to start planning for a world in which we will need to defend our own interests without an implicit guarantee from American military might.
Welfare and pensions are not affordable in this new era and both will need substantial cuts.
On you final point we can't just let the old, the infirmed, the disabled, the poor to live in abject poverty. We have to offer voluntary euthanasia like we would an old dog or cat at the end of their life.
Alternatively the World and more specifically Britain could operate a society where the top one percent don't own 90% of wealth, or whatever the figure is these days.
The peasants need to revolt like they did in the French, the Russian and the Iranian revolutions. The outcomes of each may not have been optimal after the revolutions but your remedy is no better.
The UK has one of the biggest welfare states in the world and the top 10% only own 43% of UK wealth not 90% (whereas in the US now the top 10% own 67% of the nation's wealth)
Have I ever suggested that the UK welfare state is not expensive and overburdens the middle income tax payer? No I haven't.
What I said in a nutshell is if you are going to ensure the poorest are even poorer you need to offer them a way out.
I would much prefer as Robert suggested people are given the opportunity to make their own way in life.
What is the point of Musk, Bezos and Zuckerberg owning everything and the rest of us living in the gutter?
The argument isn't about closing libraries in Wolverhampton, it is about overhauling the current capitalist system.
And another thing, you currently have already supremely wealthy members of the Trump administration insider betting millions of dollars to make millions of dollars more on poor people being sent into Iran to die, and these same people have decimated Obamacare and awarded themselves massive tax cuts. Riddle me that HYUFD.
A good answer to the question would be that it will be hilarious to watch him, so sagely advised by the FCO, shove his foot right in it. He'll have to surpass the time he told Trump that two state visits was a really big honour, because otherwise what would be the point? What's the vector product of Zelensky in the Oval Office with "my fucking pen doesn't work"?
Out of interest, has any other non-royal ever paid two state visits to Britain? I think Ceausescu only had the one.
A good answer to the question would be that it will be hilarious to watch him, so sagely advised by the FCO, shove his foot right in it. He'll have to surpass the time he told Trump that two state visits was a really big honour, because otherwise what would be the point? What's the vector product of Zelensky in the Oval Office with "my fucking pen doesn't work"?
Out of interest, has any other non-royal ever paid two state visits to Britain? I think Ceausescu only had the one.
Charles is the head of state of more American territory than Trump. He could legitimately call himself the real King of America.
I think it's time to cut £40bn from welfare and build a properly independent nuclear deterrent and properly fund defence. We can no longer rely on the US regardless of who is in the White House. The Trident programme made sense in an era when the UK and US were inseparable in terms of our global aims but now that is no longer the case. We cannot be beholden to what I would term as an informal ally for such a crucial part of our defence posture.
It's a truly sad state of affairs when the US and UK can no longer say they have the same outlook on the world regardless of who occupies No 10 or the White House. That partnership has been the cornerstone of the post war consensus and now it seems to be broken beyond repair. I think America is going to quickly realise it's a cold world out there and even though it maintains defence primacy, life without friends and allies is much tougher than MAGA and other isolationists realise. Thralldom may suit some countries but I think we need to start planning for a world in which we will need to defend our own interests without an implicit guarantee from American military might.
Welfare and pensions are not affordable in this new era and both will need substantial cuts.
On you final point we can't just let the old, the infirmed, the disabled, the poor to live in abject poverty. We have to offer voluntary euthanasia like we would an old dog or cat at the end of their life.
Alternatively the World and more specifically Britain could operate a society where the top one percent don't own 90% of wealth, or whatever the figure is these days.
The peasants need to revolt like they did in the French, the Russian and the Iranian revolutions. The outcomes of each may not have been optimal after the revolutions but your remedy is no better.
Yeah, great advice
French Revolution: led to the Terror, and then was reversed
Russian Revolution: epochal disaster for the world
Iranian Revolution: almost as bad, and much worse for Iranians
Otherwise, good choices. I note you didn't choose Britain's various revolutions, particularly 1688, which is surely a preferable model, in every way
A better argument starts from the observation that revolutions are generally bad things for all involved. Which is why the smart thing to is to throw the lower orders sufficient bones that they never feel the need to start one. The 19th and 20th century plutocrats seemed to understand that better than their sucessors in our time.
We have revolutions all the time.
Every 5 or so years, we overthrow the government.
Instead of a violent revolution that kills a serious percentage of the population and causes misery for the rest for decades, we call a removal van.
That’s the advantage of democracy - not that there is some metaphysical reason that the politicians picked are superior. Just that we can get rid of them.
As bin Laden accurately and perceptively observed democracy is the 'religion of ignorance'.
Ah yes - “People won’t vote for my genius. So democracy is stupid.”
It’s a very boring song. Sung by many, many morons over the years.
We're so lucky that the means of influencing minds and actions is so fairly distributed, right?
So the Green Party is really promoted by Big Something Or The Other?
Yes, media ownership is a concern.
Note that non-democracies tend to things like state monopolies on media. Which sing the praises of El President. Until he becomes Ex El Presidente. Then they sing the praises of his successor.
I think it's time to cut £40bn from welfare and build a properly independent nuclear deterrent and properly fund defence. We can no longer rely on the US regardless of who is in the White House. The Trident programme made sense in an era when the UK and US were inseparable in terms of our global aims but now that is no longer the case. We cannot be beholden to what I would term as an informal ally for such a crucial part of our defence posture.
It's a truly sad state of affairs when the US and UK can no longer say they have the same outlook on the world regardless of who occupies No 10 or the White House. That partnership has been the cornerstone of the post war consensus and now it seems to be broken beyond repair. I think America is going to quickly realise it's a cold world out there and even though it maintains defence primacy, life without friends and allies is much tougher than MAGA and other isolationists realise. Thralldom may suit some countries but I think we need to start planning for a world in which we will need to defend our own interests without an implicit guarantee from American military might.
Welfare and pensions are not affordable in this new era and both will need substantial cuts.
On you final point we can't just let the old, the infirmed, the disabled, the poor to live in abject poverty. We have to offer voluntary euthanasia like we would an old dog or cat at the end of their life.
Alternatively the World and more specifically Britain could operate a society where the top one percent don't own 90% of wealth, or whatever the figure is these days.
The peasants need to revolt like they did in the French, the Russian and the Iranian revolutions. The outcomes of each may not have been optimal after the revolutions but your remedy is no better.
Yeah, great advice
French Revolution: led to the Terror, and then was reversed
Russian Revolution: epochal disaster for the world
Iranian Revolution: almost as bad, and much worse for Iranians
Otherwise, good choices. I note you didn't choose Britain's various revolutions, particularly 1688, which is surely a preferable model, in every way
A better argument starts from the observation that revolutions are generally bad things for all involved. Which is why the smart thing to is to throw the lower orders sufficient bones that they never feel the need to start one. The 19th and 20th century plutocrats seemed to understand that better than their sucessors in our time.
We have revolutions all the time.
Every 5 or so years, we overthrow the government.
Instead of a violent revolution that kills a serious percentage of the population and causes misery for the rest for decades, we call a removal van.
That’s the advantage of democracy - not that there is some metaphysical reason that the politicians picked are superior. Just that we can get rid of them.
As bin Laden accurately and perceptively observed democracy is the 'religion of ignorance'.
I think it's time to cut £40bn from welfare and build a properly independent nuclear deterrent and properly fund defence. We can no longer rely on the US regardless of who is in the White House. The Trident programme made sense in an era when the UK and US were inseparable in terms of our global aims but now that is no longer the case. We cannot be beholden to what I would term as an informal ally for such a crucial part of our defence posture.
It's a truly sad state of affairs when the US and UK can no longer say they have the same outlook on the world regardless of who occupies No 10 or the White House. That partnership has been the cornerstone of the post war consensus and now it seems to be broken beyond repair. I think America is going to quickly realise it's a cold world out there and even though it maintains defence primacy, life without friends and allies is much tougher than MAGA and other isolationists realise. Thralldom may suit some countries but I think we need to start planning for a world in which we will need to defend our own interests without an implicit guarantee from American military might.
Welfare and pensions are not affordable in this new era and both will need substantial cuts.
On you final point we can't just let the old, the infirmed, the disabled, the poor to live in abject poverty. We have to offer voluntary euthanasia like we would an old dog or cat at the end of their life.
Alternatively the World and more specifically Britain could operate a society where the top one percent don't own 90% of wealth, or whatever the figure is these days.
The peasants need to revolt like they did in the French, the Russian and the Iranian revolutions. The outcomes of each may not have been optimal after the revolutions but your remedy is no better.
Yeah, great advice
French Revolution: led to the Terror, and then was reversed
Russian Revolution: epochal disaster for the world
Iranian Revolution: almost as bad, and much worse for Iranians
Otherwise, good choices. I note you didn't choose Britain's various revolutions, particularly 1688, which is surely a preferable model, in every way
A better argument starts from the observation that revolutions are generally bad things for all involved. Which is why the smart thing to is to throw the lower orders sufficient bones that they never feel the need to start one. The 19th and 20th century plutocrats seemed to understand that better than their sucessors in our time.
We have revolutions all the time.
Every 5 or so years, we overthrow the government.
Instead of a violent revolution that kills a serious percentage of the population and causes misery for the rest for decades, we call a removal van.
That’s the advantage of democracy - not that there is some metaphysical reason that the politicians picked are superior. Just that we can get rid of them.
A revolution requires a change of regime rather than simply a change of government.
A fair point. Hence loyal opposition, accepting of the political structures if not the political direction.
I think it's time to cut £40bn from welfare and build a properly independent nuclear deterrent and properly fund defence. We can no longer rely on the US regardless of who is in the White House. The Trident programme made sense in an era when the UK and US were inseparable in terms of our global aims but now that is no longer the case. We cannot be beholden to what I would term as an informal ally for such a crucial part of our defence posture.
It's a truly sad state of affairs when the US and UK can no longer say they have the same outlook on the world regardless of who occupies No 10 or the White House. That partnership has been the cornerstone of the post war consensus and now it seems to be broken beyond repair. I think America is going to quickly realise it's a cold world out there and even though it maintains defence primacy, life without friends and allies is much tougher than MAGA and other isolationists realise. Thralldom may suit some countries but I think we need to start planning for a world in which we will need to defend our own interests without an implicit guarantee from American military might.
Welfare and pensions are not affordable in this new era and both will need substantial cuts.
On you final point we can't just let the old, the infirmed, the disabled, the poor to live in abject poverty. We have to offer voluntary euthanasia like we would an old dog or cat at the end of their life.
Alternatively the World and more specifically Britain could operate a society where the top one percent don't own 90% of wealth, or whatever the figure is these days.
The peasants need to revolt like they did in the French, the Russian and the Iranian revolutions. The outcomes of each may not have been optimal after the revolutions but your remedy is no better.
Yeah, great advice
French Revolution: led to the Terror, and then was reversed
Russian Revolution: epochal disaster for the world
Iranian Revolution: almost as bad, and much worse for Iranians
Otherwise, good choices. I note you didn't choose Britain's various revolutions, particularly 1688, which is surely a preferable model, in every way
A better argument starts from the observation that revolutions are generally bad things for all involved. Which is why the smart thing to is to throw the lower orders sufficient bones that they never feel the need to start one. The 19th and 20th century plutocrats seemed to understand that better than their sucessors in our time.
We have revolutions all the time.
Every 5 or so years, we overthrow the government.
Instead of a violent revolution that kills a serious percentage of the population and causes misery for the rest for decades, we call a removal van.
That’s the advantage of democracy - not that there is some metaphysical reason that the politicians picked are superior. Just that we can get rid of them.
Revolution isn't replacing one bunch of twats in ministerial positions with another (when kindly given the chance, one button press each, queue nicely) - another crew who agree on all the essentials, such as leaving the permanent government and established arrangement untouched.
As for "democracy", that's "people's rule" in Greek. Better for things to be brought out into the open if you want change.
Have you looked at the result of revolutions?
That is exactly what happens.
The idea of the bold, noble revolutionary who changes things… ends up with a committee for deciding which biscuits for the committee for deciding the membership of the committee for deciding which budget should be used to pay a criminal to break Rudolf Nureyev legs. (This actually happened in the KGB)
Are you now backtracking from the idea that Britain experiences revolutions every five years or so?
I think it's time to cut £40bn from welfare and build a properly independent nuclear deterrent and properly fund defence. We can no longer rely on the US regardless of who is in the White House. The Trident programme made sense in an era when the UK and US were inseparable in terms of our global aims but now that is no longer the case. We cannot be beholden to what I would term as an informal ally for such a crucial part of our defence posture.
It's a truly sad state of affairs when the US and UK can no longer say they have the same outlook on the world regardless of who occupies No 10 or the White House. That partnership has been the cornerstone of the post war consensus and now it seems to be broken beyond repair. I think America is going to quickly realise it's a cold world out there and even though it maintains defence primacy, life without friends and allies is much tougher than MAGA and other isolationists realise. Thralldom may suit some countries but I think we need to start planning for a world in which we will need to defend our own interests without an implicit guarantee from American military might.
Welfare and pensions are not affordable in this new era and both will need substantial cuts.
On you final point we can't just let the old, the infirmed, the disabled, the poor to live in abject poverty. We have to offer voluntary euthanasia like we would an old dog or cat at the end of their life.
Alternatively the World and more specifically Britain could operate a society where the top one percent don't own 90% of wealth, or whatever the figure is these days.
The peasants need to revolt like they did in the French, the Russian and the Iranian revolutions. The outcomes of each may not have been optimal after the revolutions but your remedy is no better.
Yeah, great advice
French Revolution: led to the Terror, and then was reversed
Russian Revolution: epochal disaster for the world
Iranian Revolution: almost as bad, and much worse for Iranians
Otherwise, good choices. I note you didn't choose Britain's various revolutions, particularly 1688, which is surely a preferable model, in every way
A better argument starts from the observation that revolutions are generally bad things for all involved. Which is why the smart thing to is to throw the lower orders sufficient bones that they never feel the need to start one. The 19th and 20th century plutocrats seemed to understand that better than their sucessors in our time.
We have revolutions all the time.
Every 5 or so years, we overthrow the government.
Instead of a violent revolution that kills a serious percentage of the population and causes misery for the rest for decades, we call a removal van.
That’s the advantage of democracy - not that there is some metaphysical reason that the politicians picked are superior. Just that we can get rid of them.
Revolution isn't replacing one bunch of twats in ministerial positions with another (when kindly given the chance, one button press each, queue nicely) - another crew who agree on all the essentials, such as leaving the permanent government and established arrangement untouched.
As for "democracy", that's "people's rule" in Greek. Better for things to be brought out into the open if you want change.
Have you looked at the result of revolutions?
That is exactly what happens.
The idea of the bold, noble revolutionary who changes things… ends up with a committee for deciding which biscuits for the committee for deciding the membership of the committee for deciding which budget should be used to pay a criminal to break Rudolf Nureyev legs. (This actually happened in the KGB)
Perhaps, but they usually intend to upend the system at first, even if they usually don't.
Fair enough if people don't get excited by space launchers, but it baffles me when sometimes people criticise attempts at space technology on the basis we have big problems still on Earth. Perhaps it's mostly just people who really hate Musk and that carries over to everyone else in the industry.
I think it's time to cut £40bn from welfare and build a properly independent nuclear deterrent and properly fund defence. We can no longer rely on the US regardless of who is in the White House. The Trident programme made sense in an era when the UK and US were inseparable in terms of our global aims but now that is no longer the case. We cannot be beholden to what I would term as an informal ally for such a crucial part of our defence posture.
It's a truly sad state of affairs when the US and UK can no longer say they have the same outlook on the world regardless of who occupies No 10 or the White House. That partnership has been the cornerstone of the post war consensus and now it seems to be broken beyond repair. I think America is going to quickly realise it's a cold world out there and even though it maintains defence primacy, life without friends and allies is much tougher than MAGA and other isolationists realise. Thralldom may suit some countries but I think we need to start planning for a world in which we will need to defend our own interests without an implicit guarantee from American military might.
Welfare and pensions are not affordable in this new era and both will need substantial cuts.
On you final point we can't just let the old, the infirmed, the disabled, the poor to live in abject poverty. We have to offer voluntary euthanasia like we would an old dog or cat at the end of their life.
Alternatively the World and more specifically Britain could operate a society where the top one percent don't own 90% of wealth, or whatever the figure is these days.
The peasants need to revolt like they did in the French, the Russian and the Iranian revolutions. The outcomes of each may not have been optimal after the revolutions but your remedy is no better.
Yeah, great advice
French Revolution: led to the Terror, and then was reversed
Russian Revolution: epochal disaster for the world
Iranian Revolution: almost as bad, and much worse for Iranians
Otherwise, good choices. I note you didn't choose Britain's various revolutions, particularly 1688, which is surely a preferable model, in every way
A better argument starts from the observation that revolutions are generally bad things for all involved. Which is why the smart thing to is to throw the lower orders sufficient bones that they never feel the need to start one. The 19th and 20th century plutocrats seemed to understand that better than their sucessors in our time.
We have revolutions all the time.
Every 5 or so years, we overthrow the government.
Instead of a violent revolution that kills a serious percentage of the population and causes misery for the rest for decades, we call a removal van.
That’s the advantage of democracy - not that there is some metaphysical reason that the politicians picked are superior. Just that we can get rid of them.
Revolution isn't replacing one bunch of twats in ministerial positions with another (when kindly given the chance, one button press each, queue nicely) - another crew who agree on all the essentials, such as leaving the permanent government and established arrangement untouched.
As for "democracy", that's "people's rule" in Greek. Better for things to be brought out into the open if you want change.
Have you looked at the result of revolutions?
That is exactly what happens.
The idea of the bold, noble revolutionary who changes things… ends up with a committee for deciding which biscuits for the committee for deciding the membership of the committee for deciding which budget should be used to pay a criminal to break Rudolf Nureyev legs. (This actually happened in the KGB)
Are you now backtracking from the idea that Britain experiences revolutions every five years or so?
We get just as much change of government as the whole shooting-tons-of-people thing.
But if they win it will be that bloke on that side of the table at PMQ's. When Labour won their bloke stood on a different side than he'd stood on before. All very different. Transformational.
Fair enough if people don't get excited by space launchers, but it baffles me when sometimes people criticise attempts at space technology on the basis we have big problems still on Earth. Perhaps it's mostly just people who really hate Musk and that carries over to everyone else in the industry.
The same people get curious upset when you suggest that *their* favourite thing is defunded, while we still have world hunger.
Fair enough if people don't get excited by space launchers, but it baffles me when sometimes people criticise attempts at space technology on the basis we have big problems still on Earth. Perhaps it's mostly just people who really hate Musk and that carries over to everyone else in the industry.
It's a cheap shot by people who do not understand humanity and humans.
We can make war while launching rockets to the moon. It's as mad as we are mad.
According to Google, the astronauts were getting about 4G during takeoff. I know they train for this, but I was still impressed that the commander's voice sounded so normal, in spite of the extra weight.
He’s a comedian. He literally makes things up for a living.
Comedians don't have to make things up to be funny, though certainly they can and do, so it is not like it is the core definition. Sometimes minimal embellishment is needed if the subject matter is inherently comical.
The Kobeissi Letter @KobeissiLetter · 25m BREAKING: Iran says no talks have taken place through mediators for a temporary ceasefire with the US and Israel.
This morning, President Trump said Iran’s President “asked the US for a ceasefire.”
The Kobeissi Letter @KobeissiLetter · 25m BREAKING: Iran says no talks have taken place through mediators for a temporary ceasefire with the US and Israel.
This morning, President Trump said Iran’s President “asked the US for a ceasefire.”
Which liar do you wish to believe?
Those two claims aren't mutually exclusive, but given Trump's record of lying his nappy off almost every time he opens his mouth, I'd assess the Iranian claim as much more likely to be true and Trump's as likely to be a lie.
Not sure, though, that the feeling that a TACO is imminent is justified.
The Kobeissi Letter @KobeissiLetter · 25m BREAKING: Iran says no talks have taken place through mediators for a temporary ceasefire with the US and Israel.
This morning, President Trump said Iran’s President “asked the US for a ceasefire.”
Which liar do you wish to believe?
Those two claims aren't mutually exclusive, but given Trump's record of lying his nappy off almost every time he opens his mouth, I'd assess the Iranian claim as much more likely to be true and Trump's as likely to be a lie.
There seems to be a gap between the President of Iran and the IRGC. Who issued the denial?
A magnitude 7.8 earthquake has struck the Northern Molucca Sea region in Indonesia, the United States Geological Survey said.
The quake on Thursday was at a shallow depth of 10km (6.21 miles), it said.
The US tsunami warning system said tsunami waves were possible with 1,000km of the epicentre, along the coasts of Indonesia, Philippines\ and Malaysia.
Fair enough if people don't get excited by space launchers, but it baffles me when sometimes people criticise attempts at space technology on the basis we have big problems still on Earth. Perhaps it's mostly just people who really hate Musk and that carries over to everyone else in the industry.
Good news Artemis II is in space and will go round the moon but while it will be the furthest humans have travelled in space, in terms of spacecraft travel overall it will be well behind. The furthest craft launched from earth in space, Voyager 1, launched way back in 1977, has already gone beyond our solar system and is in interstellar space and is currently 24 billion km from the earth
Trump: On Palm Sunday, Jesus entered Jerusalem as crowds welcomed him with praise honoring him as king. They call me king now. Can you believe it?
In what he says next he makes a joke about how he is such a king that he couldn't even get a ballroom approved. Okay, his point is to diss his critics and it isn't funny, but at least his riff isn't about "I am great". That said, there's no way he could tell a joke that's really against himself the way Berlusconi could.
I think it's time to cut £40bn from welfare and build a properly independent nuclear deterrent and properly fund defence. We can no longer rely on the US regardless of who is in the White House. The Trident programme made sense in an era when the UK and US were inseparable in terms of our global aims but now that is no longer the case. We cannot be beholden to what I would term as an informal ally for such a crucial part of our defence posture.
It's a truly sad state of affairs when the US and UK can no longer say they have the same outlook on the world regardless of who occupies No 10 or the White House. That partnership has been the cornerstone of the post war consensus and now it seems to be broken beyond repair. I think America is going to quickly realise it's a cold world out there and even though it maintains defence primacy, life without friends and allies is much tougher than MAGA and other isolationists realise. Thralldom may suit some countries but I think we need to start planning for a world in which we will need to defend our own interests without an implicit guarantee from American military might.
Welfare and pensions are not affordable in this new era and both will need substantial cuts.
On you final point we can't just let the old, the infirmed, the disabled, the poor to live in abject poverty. We have to offer voluntary euthanasia like we would an old dog or cat at the end of their life.
Alternatively the World and more specifically Britain could operate a society where the top one percent don't own 90% of wealth, or whatever the figure is these days.
The peasants need to revolt like they did in the French, the Russian and the Iranian revolutions. The outcomes of each may not have been optimal after the revolutions but your remedy is no better.
The UK has one of the biggest welfare states in the world and the top 10% only own 43% of UK wealth not 90% (whereas in the US now the top 10% own 67% of the nation's wealth)
47% of GB owned by wealthiest 10% 8% of GB owned by poorest 50%
Your figure of 43% was close, but I've based the above on the latest ONS figures, plus Advani and Tarrant corrections adding a few percent to the top 1% and top 10% which was missed from close-companies and equity, and undersampling.
Even without the corrections, it remains hideous. And when you factor in income, one can see that the poorest are working to make the wealthiest richer. So the issue of the welfare state is really obscuring the real steal and even if the Greens don't have a fully-fledged plan, only they are identifying the issue on the national level. The concern about the welfare state pales even more when we consider impending AI+robotics impacts on working. The wealthiest don't even actually need to work - that is the real welfare state, it's torrent-up not trickle-down. I'm not sure those of us in the lowest decile should be thankful for being thrown crumbs.
Why is it hideous? In most of the world the top 10% own over half the wealth in the nation but not in the UK. Here also the average person owns their own home, has a private pension now and some savings. The Greens are near Marxist who would just wreck the economy and wealth creation in the UK. AI will still hopefully create more jobs overall than lost, if it does not a UBI may be considered but that is another question
Taking over Greenland, world's largest island, area ~2,000,000 km²: failed. Taking over Kharg, area ~20 km²: probably not going to happen. Must it now be Rockall, area ~0.0008 km², or is there an islet near Mar-a-Lago?
Taking over Greenland, world's largest island, area ~2,000,000 km^2: failed. Taking over Kharg, area ~20 km^2: probably not going to happen. Must it now be Rockall, or is there an islet near Mar-a-Lago?
There's a big island near Mar-a-Lago that he has his sights on.
Taking over Greenland, world's largest island, area ~2,000,000 km^2: failed. Taking over Kharg, area ~20 km^2: probably not going to happen. Must it now be Rockall, or is there an islet near Mar-a-Lago?
There's a big island near Mar-a-Lago that he has his sights on.
Taking over Greenland, world's largest island, area ~2,000,000 km^2: failed. Taking over Kharg, area ~20 km^2: probably not going to happen. Must it now be Rockall, or is there an islet near Mar-a-Lago?
There's a big island near Mar-a-Lago that he has his sights on.
Taking over Greenland, world's largest island, area ~2,000,000 km²: failed. Taking over Kharg, area ~20 km²: probably not going to happen. Must it now be Rockall, area ~0.0008 km², or is there an islet near Mar-a-Lago?
During tonight’s Address to the Nation from the Oval Office, U.S. President Donald J. Trump will inform the American public that the deployment of ground troops may be necessary to end the ongoing war and round up highly-enriched uranium in Iran, sources tell Fox News.
During tonight’s Address to the Nation from the Oval Office, U.S. President Donald J. Trump will inform the American public that the deployment of ground troops may be necessary to end the ongoing war and round up highly-enriched uranium in Iran, sources tell Fox News.
Saying he's sending in ground troops or saying he's keeping everyone guessing both seem more likely than a full TACO.
He may not be playing 11D chess, but this doesn't mean he can't play the 1 dimensional game of pretending to be about to go into reverse when he isn't really. Audiences may also be treated to a few snarls, as he won't be pleased that today's grownup Iranian letter has received other than contemptuous coverage.
A happier thought to go to bed with. Trump's net approval on Nate Silver's polling average has once again today fallen to a record low, this time of -17.3%. Seems now to be an almost daily occurence. The trend is definitely not his friend.
"The price of benchmark Brent crude was trading at about $100 a barrel before the president started speaking.
It fluctuated during the address but is now heading higher and is currently up by around 4% at $105.38."
Plus
"While global oil markets are rising in reaction to Trump's address, US stock futures are falling - pointing to a lower open for Wall Street on Thursday morning.
Dow Jones and S&P 500 futures are around 0.7% lower, while Nasdaq futures are down by about 1%."
So add another trillion bucks off the value of US stocks to the cost of Trump's Folly. Plus Asian stock markets are down.
I think it's time to cut £40bn from welfare and build a properly independent nuclear deterrent and properly fund defence. We can no longer rely on the US regardless of who is in the White House. The Trident programme made sense in an era when the UK and US were inseparable in terms of our global aims but now that is no longer the case. We cannot be beholden to what I would term as an informal ally for such a crucial part of our defence posture.
It's a truly sad state of affairs when the US and UK can no longer say they have the same outlook on the world regardless of who occupies No 10 or the White House. That partnership has been the cornerstone of the post war consensus and now it seems to be broken beyond repair. I think America is going to quickly realise it's a cold world out there and even though it maintains defence primacy, life without friends and allies is much tougher than MAGA and other isolationists realise. Thralldom may suit some countries but I think we need to start planning for a world in which we will need to defend our own interests without an implicit guarantee from American military might.
Welfare and pensions are not affordable in this new era and both will need substantial cuts.
On you final point we can't just let the old, the infirmed, the disabled, the poor to live in abject poverty. We have to offer voluntary euthanasia like we would an old dog or cat at the end of their life.
Alternatively the World and more specifically Britain could operate a society where the top one percent don't own 90% of wealth, or whatever the figure is these days.
The peasants need to revolt like they did in the French, the Russian and the Iranian revolutions. The outcomes of each may not have been optimal after the revolutions but your remedy is no better.
The UK has one of the biggest welfare states in the world and the top 10% only own 43% of UK wealth not 90% (whereas in the US now the top 10% own 67% of the nation's wealth)
Taking over Greenland, world's largest island, area ~2,000,000 km^2: failed. Taking over Kharg, area ~20 km^2: probably not going to happen. Must it now be Rockall, or is there an islet near Mar-a-Lago?
There's a big island near Mar-a-Lago that he has his sights on.
Isn't Mar-a-Lago on an island?
Maybe if we dig a big enough trench we could maroon him there?
"The price of benchmark Brent crude was trading at about $100 a barrel before the president started speaking.
It fluctuated during the address but is now heading higher and is currently up by around 4% at $105.38."
Plus
"While global oil markets are rising in reaction to Trump's address, US stock futures are falling - pointing to a lower open for Wall Street on Thursday morning.
Dow Jones and S&P 500 futures are around 0.7% lower, while Nasdaq futures are down by about 1%."
So add another trillion bucks off the value of US stocks to the cost of Trump's Folly. Plus Asian stock markets are down.
Decoding the lengthy ramble, the strait is likely to stay blocked well in to April, at best. The TACO has been delayed: that is extremely bad news.
...Trump also thanked “our allies in the Middle East – Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, Kuwait and Bahrain,” saying: “They’ve been great, and we will not let them get hurt or fail in any way, shape or form.”..
The stupid arse has already inflicted enormous economic damage on them. And the rest of the world.
Trump: "You know, China gets 90%* of its oil from the Strait of Hormuz. They should be policing their own strait. We're getting ready to get out of there." https://x.com/atrupar/status/2039478174212399144
Comments
It will be disastrous. But the Greens.
8% of GB owned by poorest 50%
Your figure of 43% was close, but I've based the above on the latest ONS figures, plus Advani and Tarrant corrections adding a few percent to the top 1% and top 10% which was missed from close-companies and equity, and undersampling.
Even without the corrections, it remains hideous. And when you factor in income, one can see that the poorest are working to make the wealthiest richer. So the issue of the welfare state is really obscuring the real steal and even if the Greens don't have a fully-fledged plan, only they are identifying the issue on the national level. The concern about the welfare state pales even more when we consider impending AI+robotics impacts on working. The wealthiest don't even actually need to work - that is the real welfare state, it's torrent-up not trickle-down. I'm not sure those of us in the lowest decile should be thankful for being thrown crumbs.
A happier thought to go to bed with. Trump's net approval on Nate Silver's polling average has once again today fallen to a record low, this time of -17.3%. Seems now to be an almost daily occurence. The trend is definitely not his friend.
https://www.natesilver.net/p/trump-approval-ratings-nate-silver-bulletin
Adams and Hamilton and Jefferson and Madison...
Some were even proper lawyers, unlike Lenin.
But I like the four chosen for this mission; they include a Canadian, a black man, and a woman. On future missions, I hope to see a Hispanic, an east Asian, a Jew, and someone of mixed race.
@KobeissiLetter
·
25m
BREAKING: Iran says no talks have taken place through mediators for a temporary ceasefire with the US and Israel.
This morning, President Trump said Iran’s President “asked the US for a ceasefire.”
It’s a very boring song. Sung by many, many morons over the years.
As for "democracy", that's "people's rule" in Greek. Better for things to be brought out into the open if you want change. Admittedly this is a bit of a pious hope right now.
What I said in a nutshell is if you are going to ensure the poorest are even poorer you need to offer them a way out.
I would much prefer as Robert suggested people are given the opportunity to make their own way in life.
What is the point of Musk, Bezos and Zuckerberg owning everything and the rest of us living in the gutter?
The argument isn't about closing libraries in Wolverhampton, it is about overhauling the current capitalist system.
https://bsky.app/profile/hugorifkind.bsky.social/post/3mihpaxv6e22n
When go is given, it will then count down to zero.
"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
That is exactly what happens.
The idea of the bold, noble revolutionary who changes things… ends up with a committee for deciding which biscuits for the committee for deciding the membership of the committee for deciding which budget should be used to pay a criminal to break Rudolf Nureyev legs. (This actually happened in the KGB)
T- 10m and counting.
Let’s light this candle! 🚀
Out of interest, has any other non-royal ever paid two state visits to Britain? I think Ceausescu only had the one.
Yes, media ownership is a concern.
Note that non-democracies tend to things like state monopolies on media. Which sing the praises of El President. Until he becomes Ex El Presidente. Then they sing the praises of his successor.
As pioneered by Napoleon
“To lie like a bulletin”
Crap pictures compared to the SpaceX launches though!
We are back.
Or at least on the way back
Without shooting tons of people.
Which is expensive and very untidy.
Fairly risky launch.
"You maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell!"
Trump: On Palm Sunday, Jesus entered Jerusalem as crowds welcomed him with praise honoring him as king. They call me king now. Can you believe it?
We can make war while launching rockets to the moon. It's as mad as we are mad.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/p2oIScZ1ifY
Patrick Witty
@patrickwitty
LBJ watching the Apollo 8 launch on Dec 21, 1968, by White House photographer Mike Geissinger.
https://x.com/patrickwitty/status/2039379911404655069
Not sure, though, that the feeling that a TACO is imminent is justified.
A magnitude 7.8 earthquake has struck the Northern Molucca Sea region in Indonesia, the United States Geological Survey said.
The quake on Thursday was at a shallow depth of 10km (6.21 miles), it said.
The US tsunami warning system said tsunami waves were possible with 1,000km of the epicentre, along the coasts of Indonesia, Philippines\ and Malaysia.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/apr/02/magnitude-78-earthquake-strikes-in-indonesia-sparking-tsunami-alert
Taking over Kharg, area ~20 km²: probably not going to happen.
Must it now be Rockall, area ~0.0008 km², or is there an islet near Mar-a-Lago?
During tonight’s Address to the Nation from the Oval Office, U.S. President Donald J. Trump will inform the American public that the deployment of ground troops may be necessary to end the ongoing war and round up highly-enriched uranium in Iran, sources tell Fox News.
He may not be playing 11D chess, but this doesn't mean he can't play the 1 dimensional game of pretending to be about to go into reverse when he isn't really. Audiences may also be treated to a few snarls, as he won't be pleased that today's grownup Iranian letter has received other than contemptuous coverage.
That's one massive pool of strong dislike. Good job for Trump there are no elections coming up where that can manifest itself...
"The price of benchmark Brent crude was trading at about $100 a barrel before the president started speaking.
It fluctuated during the address but is now heading higher and is currently up by around 4% at $105.38."
Plus
"While global oil markets are rising in reaction to Trump's address, US stock futures are falling - pointing to a lower open for Wall Street on Thursday morning.
Dow Jones and S&P 500 futures are around 0.7% lower, while Nasdaq futures are down by about 1%."
So add another trillion bucks off the value of US stocks to the cost of Trump's Folly. Plus Asian stock markets are down.
The TACO has been delayed: that is extremely bad news.
...Trump also thanked “our allies in the Middle East – Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, Kuwait and Bahrain,” saying: “They’ve been great, and we will not let them get hurt or fail in any way, shape or form.”..
The stupid arse has already inflicted enormous economic damage on them. And the rest of the world.
CNN POLL: Do you approve or disapprove of the way JD Vance is handling his job as Vice President?
🟢 Approve: 37% (-25)
🟤 Disapprove: 62%
——
• GOP: 83-16 (+67)
• Dem: 4-95 (-91)
• Indie: 27-71 (-44)
https://x.com/IAPolls2022/status/2039396748423037149
A big enough defeat in the midterms might change that.
Trump: "You know, China gets 90%* of its oil from the Strait of Hormuz. They should be policing their own strait. We're getting ready to get out of there."
https://x.com/atrupar/status/2039478174212399144
*They don't, but the invite stands.
The Netherlands
Colombia
Senegal
One of them, I forecast, will make the semi finals.
He just blew up the world’s energy supply chains for attempting wack-a-mole with Iranian leadership?
It’s not just about “US is fine”.
Guess where all the upstream precursors, advanced semiconductors, and others are made?
Almost nothing is actually “Made in America” yet.
We completely rely on all our partners from Japan, Taiwan, Malaysia, Korea for rare earths to foundries.
The clear beneficiaries of this War:
1. Israel
2. Russia
Maybe even Iran long term since they can use China to rebuild infrastructure and they’re richer from oil / tariffs on the strait.
We’re supposed to be strengthening all our allies, not ******* them over to help Russia and Israel.
Harsh reality is “America First” policy also includes securing America’s global supply chains.
It’s still not too late:
But you can’t just blow up the rest of the world’s energy trade, then just go out and say US alone is fine.
https://x.com/aleabitoreddit/status/2039548429412806832
https://x.com/dailymail/status/2039457741610033378?s=61