Ah yes, between his and Musk’s offspring, the Republicans are sorted for decades hence… (unless all of Musk’s brood decamp to Mars or summat…)
Not all Musk's kids like him. His trans daughter certainly doesn't.
Allowing for the fact he plans to round them up along with their mothers and put them in a compound in Texas, seemingly without bothering overly much on whether they want that or not, the rest of his children may revolt as well.
If we are to take Trump and his followers at their word, the election result is a mandate to pursue an America First policy of bilateral agreements, tariffs, and regulatory rollback aimed, they would say, at making America Great Again. I think even in as much as his tariffs might superficially favour certain US groups, they’ll ultimately do more harm than good. Just like last time........
American firms and consumers paid the vast majority of the cost of Trump’s tariffs.
While tariffs benefited some workers in import-competing industries, they hurt workers in sectors that rely on imported inputs and those in exporting industries facing retaliation from trade partners.
Trump’s tariffs did not help the U.S. negotiate better trade agreements or significantly improve national security.
If the US does go down the protectionist path, there will be an inevitable backlash and guess who suffers the most......yep the 'American Joe's' currently unhappy with being ignored by the Democrats.
The above internal economic psychodrama is little comfort for those of us caught up in the wider consequences. As steve has already pointed out with relish, 'old blighty' may be particularly economically exposed due to our idiotic Brexit decision. We'll see.......you never know, perhaps Nige is currently working his magic charms on Donald and perhaps Clacton is about to benefit from an injection of bigly amounts of capital that will see the denizens of that august town buzzing around in souped up mobile scooters putting the 'Great' back into Britain again......those sunlit uplands may be just around the next corner after all!😂
"In an attack on the education secretary Bridget Phillipson, more than two dozen authors accused the government of failing to safeguard “humane and liberal values”.
They called on her to drop her opposition to implementing legislation that would,for the first time, force universities to protect the right of legal free speech on campus or face sanctions. Those signing the letter include the novelists Ian McEwan, Lady Antonia Fraser and Lionel Shriver. They have been joined by the philosopher AC Grayling, the actor and author Stephen Fry and the former poet laureate Sir Andrew Motion.
Others signatories include Tom Holland, co-host of The Rest is History podcast, the literary agent Neil Blair and the former Olympic swimmer Sharron Davies. Grayling said that he believed in promoting the causes that “wokeism” defended but regarded most “cancelling” as a “mistaken strategy” that could have “a chilling effect on the freedom of expression”.
“A university is a place where every idea, every point of view, however disgusting some might be, should be aired, discussed, analysed, understood and whenever necessary challenged,” he said.“It is as tough to engage with the views of those with whom one emphatically disagrees as it is to engage with racists and sexists, but to lock them in a box is never more than a temporary solution.”
The authors join over half a dozen Nobel laureates and more than 600 academics who have already demanded that Phillipson implement the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act without delay."
"Relations between Ukraine and UK are worse under Labour, say Kyiv officials Exclusive: Zelenskyy administration expresses frustration with Starmer over lack of missiles"
"Relations between Ukraine and UK are worse under Labour, say Kyiv officials Exclusive: Zelenskyy administration expresses frustration with Starmer over lack of missiles"
Without unlimited handouts Ukraine was always going to lose. You are on the side of them losing?
Putin always believed the west was just too decadent to win a war, and you intend to prove him right?
If he gets Ukaine, he will invade someone else next. He may choose to challenge Nato, in fact, logically, he is certain to.He has moved Russia to a war footing. He will use that elsewhere once ukraine is passified.
If there is any settlement involving a division of Ukraine, unless the rump Ukraine is occupied by western troops willing to immediately fight any invasion, then Putin will be back for the rest.
Hastings had negligible covid in the 2020 spring wave, Most likely reason? It already had covid that winter without noticing, before it was supposed to have arrived. Did we really need to do anything if it self limited unnoticed? Come the new autumn strain, it behaved like everywhere else.
"Relations between Ukraine and UK are worse under Labour, say Kyiv officials Exclusive: Zelenskyy administration expresses frustration with Starmer over lack of missiles"
Without unlimited handouts Ukraine was always going to lose. You are on the side of them losing?
Putin always believed the west was just too decadent to win a war, and you intend to prove him right?
If he gets Ukaine, he will invade someone else next. He may choose to challenge Nato, in fact, logically, he is certain to.He has moved Russia to a war footing. He will use that elsewhere once ukraine is passified.
No I'm not. Ukraine has "won" in the sense that they have survived as a viable state and Russia has only really gained some of its territory.
It's been obvious for months that the "surge" has failed and that the Russian war machine is now in full power and cannot be defeated here.
The West is also weary of the terrible cost in lives and the grinding economic cost that hurts the least well off across Europe.
Time to negotiate a compromise and peace.
Of course Putin will claim a sort of victory here, and I wouldn't be surprised to see Zelensky out of power quickly via the ballot box. It's the way these things go.
Without unlimited handouts Ukraine was always going to lose. You are on the side of them losing?
Putin always believed the west was just too decadent to win a war, and you intend to prove him right?
If he gets Ukaine, he will invade someone else next. He may choose to challenge Nato, in fact, logically, he is certain to.He has moved Russia to a war footing. He will use that elsewhere once ukraine is passified.
No I'm not. Ukraine has "won" in the sense that they have survived as a viable state and Russia has only really gained some of it's territory.
It's been obvious for months that the "surge" has failed and that the Russian war machine is now in full power and cannot be defeated here.
The West is also weary of the terrible cost in lives and the grinding economic cost that hurts the least well off across Europe.
Tine to negotiate a compromise and peace.
Russia has gained more of the important sea coast, Lots of grain land and strategic reserves of minerals important to the renewables/ battery revolution, ie what the world will need when we stop using fossil fuels. Ukraine is economically mauch weaker what with having been blown up, so will be weaker at the next round of hostilities. The economic impact of the war will likely turn the population away from resisting next time too.
The Russian army can be defeated if we choose to defeat it, as has always been the case. Its that our leaders did not want to defeat it, they only carried on the sham of helping ukraine because western publics are sympathetic to Ukraine. Its exactly the same as telling the public you will stop immigration, but then not doing so. Allowing Putin to get away with this is exactly the same as allowing hitler to do so nearly 100 years ago. Likely with similar negative consequences, because he will be back for more.
If you really believe 'the russian war machine cannot be defeated here', then you are also saying NATO is incapable of defending any of the rest of europe too. Which is quite possibly the case, there has been so much disarmament. (and bcause the US is no longer willing or able to take part in a European war)
Hastings had negligible covid in the 2020 spring wave, Most likely reason? It already had covid that winter without noticing, before it was supposed to have arrived. Did we really need to do anything if it self limited unnoticed? Come the new autumn strain, it behaved like everywhere else.
No I'm not. Ukraine has "won" in the sense that they have survived as a viable state and Russia has only really gained some of it's territory.
It's been obvious for months that the "surge" has failed and that the Russian war machine is now in full power and cannot be defeated here.
The West is also weary of the terrible cost in lives and the grinding economic cost that hurts the least well off across Europe.
Tine to negotiate a compromise and peace.
Russia has gained more of the important sea coast, Lots of grain land and strategic reserves of minerals important to the renewables/ battery revolution, ie what the world will need when we stop using fossil fuels. Ukraine is economically mauch weaker what with having been blown up, so will be weaker at the next round of hostilities. The economic impact of the war will likely turn the population away from resisting next time too.
The Russian army can be defeated if we choose to defeat it, as has always been the case. Its that our leaders did not want to defeat it, they only carried on the sham of helping ukraine because western publics are sympathetic to Ukraine. Its exactly the same as telling the public you will stop immigration, but then not doing so. Allowing Putin to get away with this is exactly the same as allowing hitler to do so nearly 100 years ago. Likely with similar negative consequences, because he will be back for more.
If you really believe 'the russian war machine cannot be defeated here', then you are also saying NATO is incapable of defending any of the rest of europe too. Which is quite possibly the case, there has been so much disarmament. (and bcause the US is no longer willing or able to take part in a European war)
Don't necessarily disagree, but solidarity only goes so far.
The "surge" was a complete flop beyond regaining Kherson. There is little prospect of Trump and UK / Germany supplying more weapons for Surge 2.
"Relations between Ukraine and UK are worse under Labour, say Kyiv officials Exclusive: Zelenskyy administration expresses frustration with Starmer over lack of missiles"
With Starmer's appointment of Powell -a man recently quoted as saying we should have “a more relaxed attitude” to engaging with terrorist groups.-looks like the beginning of the end for Zelensky.
In the past he has criticised Burnham for wanting to bring more NHS services in house. Not really surprising that he would advocate a line that would lead you to conclude he is more interested in expanding private healthcare than fixing the NHS. I think he, you (maybe) and others promoting private healthcare need to explain why this is a better model.
Former lobbyists should be prevented from taking up positions in government in my humble opinion. Letting the fox into the hen coop.
In the past he has criticised Burnham for wanting to bring more NHS services in house. Not really surprising that he would advocate a line that would lead you to conclude he is more interested in expanding private healthcare than fixing the NHS. I think he, you (maybe) and others promoting private healthcare need to explain why this is a better model.
Former lobbyists should be prevented from taking up positions in government in my humble opinion. Letting the fox into the hen coop.
Whilst I understand your sentiment, I support a bigger role for private healthcare in the NHS.
If the NHS can't provide a service within a statutory time e.g. 12 months for a particular condition, then the NHS patient should be allowed to have the option of subsidised private treatment.
It will get the waiting lists down and eventually be benefit for those most in need.
Laudable sentiment, how are you going to enforce peace? The only wauld be european troops stationed in Ukraine. are you agreeable to that? (Hint, Putin isnt, and if the US withdraws, he will conquer all of Ukraine now.) There will be no peace short of a total surrender by ukraine and agreement to be incorporated in Russia.
Hastings had negligible covid in the 2020 spring wave, Most likely reason? It already had covid that winter without noticing, before it was supposed to have arrived. Did we really need to do anything if it self limited unnoticed? Come the new autumn strain, it behaved like everywhere else.
If the NHS can't provide a service within a statutory time e.g. 12 months for a particular condition, then the NHS patient should be allowed to have the option of subsidised private treatment.
It will get the waiting lists down and eventually be benefit for those most in need.
It would not get the waiting lists down. To pay for that private procedure, the NHS would have to cancel other procedures in house. And since the private sector would charge more, you might end up for every person treated privately, two people not getting treated on the NHS.
The NHS can only treat anyone if we give it enough money. handing that money to the private sector which costs more per treatrment isnt going to get more people treated, only add to private medical company profits.
Hastings had negligible covid in the 2020 spring wave, Most likely reason? It already had covid that winter without noticing, before it was supposed to have arrived. Did we really need to do anything if it self limited unnoticed? Come the new autumn strain, it behaved like everywhere else.
In the past he has criticised Burnham for wanting to bring more NHS services in house. Not really surprising that he would advocate a line that would lead you to conclude he is more interested in expanding private healthcare than fixing the NHS. I think he, you (maybe) and others promoting private healthcare need to explain why this is a better model.
Former lobbyists should be prevented from taking up positions in government in my humble opinion. Letting the fox into the hen coop.
THats an uncomfortable background you highlight.
I'm content to support anyone pursuing efficiency in the NHS.
Re Private Provision I have mixed feelings. I am in favour of the freedom to buy it , but I dont like the dual employment of consultants by NHS & Private providers-though I guess its inevitable.
re Private Sector providers to the NHS and to NHS patients-I dont have a problem provided they are quality checked against agreed performance criteria and offer the Treasury value for money.
If the NHS can't provide a service within a statutory time e.g. 12 months for a particular condition, then the NHS patient should be allowed to have the option of subsidised private treatment.
It will get the waiting lists down and eventually be benefit for those most in need.
It would not get the waiting lists down. To pay for that private procedure, the NHS would have to cancel other procedures in house. And since the private sector would charge more, you might end up for every person treated privately, two people not getting treated on the NHS.
The NHS can only treat anyone if we give it enough money. handing that money to the private sector which costs more per treatrment isnt going to get more people treated, only add to private medical company profits.
Don't agree with that if it's properly done and the £ required is a dedicated contingency that doesn't impact NHS staffing levels.
I notice this particular poster is obsessed with gimps. It made me look up what a gimp is; gimp
in British English
(ɡɪmp IPA Pronunciation Guide)
noun slang
1. US and Canadian offensive
a physically disabled person, esp one who has difficulty walking
2. a sexual fetishist who likes to be dominated and who dresses in a leather or rubber body suit with mask, zips, and chains
Remind you of someone who is happy to serve Tory boys and likes rubber? Haven't seen him chains, but best to keep that sort of thing between him and David Cameron.
You have published no end of links to articles critical of the budget recently. I heard a non-UK economist on the radio the other day, who said it was the kind of budget the UK desperately needed because it was the first in years that was actually interested in growth and investment and noted the calm reaction of the markets to it in contrast to what he regarded as the bizarre relentless negativity of the UK media - but that of course was him not understanding that the UK media has a massive right-wing bias.
So just for a little balance, here is the LSE giving it a cautious thumbs-up.
You have published no end of links to articles critical of the budget recently. I heard a non-UK economist on the radio the other day, who said it was the kind of budget the UK desperately needed because it was the first in years that was actually interested in growth and investment and noted the calm reaction of the markets to it in contrast to what he regarded as the bizarre relentless negativity of the UK media - but that of course was him not understanding that the UK media has a massive right-wing bias.
So just for a little balance, here is the LSE giving it a cautious thumbs-up.
Agree, the cold hard facts are that Labour needed to raise a lot of money and taxes had in reality to be part of that
Reeves managed to raise that money and massively increase spending on public services that desperately needed it (following the 14 tory years of neglect) without spooking the markets She managed to achieve that and so passed the first big hurdle
Yes people and businesses don't like paying taxes, but someone has to.
You have published no end of links to articles critical of the budget recently. I heard a non-UK economist on the radio the other day, who said it was the kind of budget the UK desperately needed because it was the first in years that was actually interested in growth and investment and noted the calm reaction of the markets to it in contrast to what he regarded as the bizarre relentless negativity of the UK media - but that of course was him not understanding that the UK media has a massive right-wing bias.
So just for a little balance, here is the LSE giving it a cautious thumbs-up.
"The increase in employer NICs will mostly negatively affect wages but could also fall on profits, risking lower business investment, and/or on prices. A 2-3 per cent increase in the basic and higher rates of income tax would have a similar yield and would cover all forms of income. As a good economist, Rachel Reeves would recognise the advantages of a broader tax base and might well have preferred the income tax option but clearly regarded it as politically toxic given the manifesto pledges."
We will have to wait and see how serious a negative effect it has as companies do their sums and respond to the Treasury.
I agree with :-
"Higher investment spending, though essential for growth, has to be well directed and well implemented – compare the problems of HS2 with the highly successful Elizabeth Line."
We will have to wait and see how well directed Reeves' capital spend is.
I agree with LSE that RR copped a very difficult set of Public Finances. I agree with her conclusion that tax revenue from economic growth is the sustainable way to adequately funded public services.
I think the jury is very much still out on whether this Budget really is going to promote the Private Sector driven growth she wishes for. OBR didn't think so-at least not in this Parliament.
And I think the US election result is a timely reminder that just growing the economy doesn't guarantee a thank you at the ballot box.
