MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
The Tom Sawyer Principle (Politics)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 68, 69, 70, 71  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

New York Times wrote:
Trump Cut a Billion-Dollar Mining Deal. His Sons Stand to Profit.
An agreement between the U.S. and Kazakhstan has given a group of American investors with ties to the president and the commerce secretary access to one of the world’s largest untapped reserves of tungsten.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
Our hero sets about combining his two loves to create an e-car with all the same gizmos Elon Musk stuffs his cars with, only his Chinese-built jalopy costs $10,000 dollars a pop rather than the 50-80 K our American hero is asking for one of his. Will 100% tariffs save Tesla Inc?

I have just watched a YouTube that claims Tesla is about to launch an e-car costing $12,000.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

When it comes to explaining why heatwaves play such havoc with railway transport, it is agreed it is mostly down to continuously-welded steel rails not being able to expand and contract. I have just heard the leading academic expert on this, qua British railways, say

In hotter countries they may well lay their rails at a higher temperature but most hotter countries don't have the cold winters we do.

His interlocutor, a senior ex-railway executive turned YouTube host, did not demur from this. Britain, in fact, has probably the lowest annual range of temperatures of any of the major railway nations. If two of our more notable experts don't know this, I fear the havoc will continue for sometime yet.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

They had a rundown of the thirty-two London boroughs the other day -- you know the sort of thing, ranking them from worst to first. I didn't want to sit through it all because they always start at the bottom and work upwards so it would have taken an hour or more to find out whether it was Lewisham/one, Kensington/two or Kensington/one, Lewisham/two. It's always a fine judgement.

But I take a ghoulish pleasure in finding out who's the present pits so I sat through five minutes on the iniquities of (32) Barking & Dagenham and (31) Croydon. Then came (30) Lewisham so I moved on to something with a bit of objectivity attached.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

At this perilous juncture in our island story, the nation's senior voice, Newsnight, is investigating the Prince and the Pizza once more. After reminding us of the charge--that a sailor had it off with a young woman he had met at a party--our Moral Guardian informed us they hadn't managed to uncover any new evidence, but somehow that was significant.

We turned to one another in our parlours, tapping the side of the nose with the first finger of the right hand. "There's no smoke without fire."
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

CNN ran their equivalent, a Maine Democrat -- who might represent the swing vote in the Senate after November. The dude had won the nomination despite all manner of dubious activities coming to light.

'We're sticking with him because he's better than Trump,' being the general sentiment as he received endorsement after endorsement from Democrat heavyweights. Until this week, when a woman came forward with an accusation of rape from five years ago.

"I had to sleep with him because he was so drunk I didn't want to send him home in his car, putting other road-users at risk."

Such public-spiritedness should earn her the nomination in his place.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I sympathise with Prince Harry. I remember having to make a last minute trip to London with the wife and kids and phoning mum to see if she could put us up for a coupla days. 'Sorry, pet, we've got a houseful at the moment, you should have rung.'
'Who's in my old room?' I asked.
'We haven't finished fumigating it,' she replied jokingly.
At least I think she was joking.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Would you like a well-paid job in charge of several thousand dedicated employees and which gives you an unexcelled degree of personal power over several million of your fellow citizens? No, probably not. But you do know zillions who would give their eye-teeths just for a week behind that particular desk. Well, tell 'em they can get a five-year gig, no sweat.

That's because an average of three people apply for every vacant Chief Constable's job. If that's too much competition, a lot of them have only one applicant so they'll have a 50/50 shot at those. And don't worry about not being on the in-house grapevine, the position has to be widely advertised by law.

So how have we been reduced to such a parlous state when it comes to appointments that carry such moment? As you probably guessed by that 'one applicant', everyone knows who's going to get the job, and if not, it will be someone remarkably like the last one. And that's not like anyone you know. It's not like any senior policeman with a bit of gumption either.

It's not quite Buggin's Turn but it's certainly Grandmother's Footsteps. The lucky candidate is always a box-ticking, admin-type who's been on all the courses but hasn't done anything for real apart from making his immediate superior's life easier. Like Jack Frost's nemesis, Horn-Rimmed Harry, but without the charisma. /more
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

It's true the police are not very important in an orderly place like Britain but even so it's worth not leaving them entirely to their own devices. I know you can level this accusation at all the other flabby bureaucracies that run the show -- the civil service, local authorities, the universities, the BBC, the NHS, blahdiblah -- but we've got to start somewhere.

For a start, why should it be a policeman? It used not to be. Chief Constables could be retired military men or local magnates. It might be a good idea if they were not allowed to be policemen. CEO's of conglomerates haven't normally worked their way up from the post room. That way. Chief Constables might be CEO's rather than figureheads, good at PR and keeping things the way they are.

People of that sort would at least be capable of withstanding the sort of pettifogging complaints about them doing something perfectly normal but which has broken some rule or other and forced their resignation. Or worse, taking responsibility for some enormity committed by individuals about twelve ranks beneath their own.

They would certainly do something about the whole operation being gradually turned into an arm of social services despite being institutionally racist, sexist, homophobic and the rest. We need an anti-policeman to police the police.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Oh no! The council house is back. Andy Burnham's all for them apparently. Channel 4 News took a loquacious Labour housing acolyte on a tour of a vast south London development. All these will be given to the council, she said proudly, pointing at one block. These will be affordable for first-time buyers, she said pointing at another block. And the rest will be for commercial sale so it won't have cost a penny of public money.

I couldn't see the difference personally. But I could see millions of pounds going up in smoke. Let me roll the picture on ten years:

1. Some of the council flats will have been sold for an enormous profit by the people lucky enough to be awarded one and who have lived there for the two years required to avail themselves of the 'right to buy'.
2. Some of them will be illegally rented out to City folk for a vast profit by the people lucky enough to be awarded one.
3. Some of them will be occupied by 'problem families'. Not many but enough to put a permanent blight on the whole estate.
4. The first-time buyers will have pocketed the difference between an affordable and a non-affordable flat and moved on.
5. Everyone else will be owner-occupiers like most of the rest of the country only, this being London, they are already paper millionaires.

Welcome to the big city, Andy, there's a reason no-one's built a council house for the last twenty years. /more
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The main reason why local authorities don't build council houses any more is that when they can't afford to collect the bins sufficiently often to avoid rat infestations (a statutory duty), they are hardly likely to spend enormous sums of money on the non-statutory task of building purpose-built dwellings, requiring vast amounts of maintenance, that lead to reams of bad publicity and which they will have to sell for a loss after a few years because of 'right-to-buy'. And all for people they don't want living in their area in the first place.

That's why the small amounts of public housing that is being built is done via national grants to housing charities. They are in business to do all these things -- and do it reasonably well -- and aren't subject to right-to-buy so can at least keep their housing stock intact for the long haul.

Was it always this way? No. I was myself brought up in a council house -- to my very great advantage -- but there were a number of differences between the Britain of that era and now, viz

* The national building stock required emergency measures thanks to the Luftwaffe. (My own was built on a bomb site.)
* The country was homogenous. There were no migrant families in need of housing.
* Single mothers had their babies adopted (more or less by diktat) rather than given council houses to bring them up in.
* Nutters were put in asylums not given council houses to fend for themselves because of 'Care in the Community'.
* There was no 'homeless class'. You either lived with mum and dad or in a hostel.
* Council houses rents were comparable to commercial ones. A slight discount but not the fraction they are now because of so-called 'Fair Rent' policies.

I'm not saying I should have been brought up in a council house. My mother was a teacher and my father (mostly) gainfully employed. We were not exactly the kind of people in dire need of public housing largesse. But on the other hand it was not a gigantic waste of public money that we were.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

One is always impressed by American vandals. It was they, you will remember, who introduced calligraphy to the vandalising of trains. At a time, please note, when our own homegrown youth were happy just slashing seats and urinating with abandon.

A correspondent presently resident in Washington, a Mr Trump, brings intelligence of a new generation of American vandals -- ones who take their cue from science rather than the arts. They were, he tells me, responsible for the algal blooms on the famous Reflecting Pool.

As an ex-professional algologist myself, I can assure you that is no small thing. Culturing algae in a domestic refrigerator, for example, requires constant monitoring and adjustment. But keeping a large body of water at the requisite temperature for a full bloom to develop speaks of team work, training and sheer American can-do.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Twenty-two per cent of the nation's wealth is owned by a hundred and fifty billionaires. That can't be right. Jeremy Corbyn on Newsnight

Can it be right? JC is too fly a character to pluck these numbers from a conspiracist's website so we must assume, at some level, the statement is correct. He doesn't say they are British billionaires but since 'the nation's wealth' wouldn't include, say, Amazon or the Tatra-owned British steel industry, we have to assume they are.

Now correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure I'd have have noticed if there were a hundred and fifty British billionaires floating around the Home Counties (they wouldn't be living anywhere else). But OK I'll slip in all those living in Monte Carlo. I still can't see it.

But I'll tell you one thing: if Corbyn furnishes with me a list, there will be a signal dearth of British names on it. Names like Corbyn (a very landed-gentry family but not billionaire level in recent centuries). Recognisably WASP names will likely turn out to be Jewish, others will be Indian sub-continental and widening out to east and west from there. I doubt that even 22% of them will be pukka Branson.

And last, is 22% of our wealth belonging to them too much, too little or about right? Unlike Jeremy Corbyn I don't know the answer to that question.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

One million 16-24 year-olds are not in employment, education or training. Newsnight

Good grief, I didn't know there were a million 16-24 year olds.

The government has just announced how they are going to help them get a job or training.

Why? What business it is of theirs what people want to do with their lives?

To bring down the soaring welfare bill.

Oh, fair enough in that case.

In the last twenty years we've had The New Deal for Young People, The Future Jobs Fund, The Work Programme, The Youth Contract, Traineeships, Kick Start, The Youth Offer and it's all a record of failure.

Twenty years covers Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem efforts so I think we can safely conclude that 'helping them get a job or training' is entirely futile.

So will Andy Burnham's plan based on the one he introduced in Manchester bring down the youth unemployment rate?

I wouldn't have thought so, these things are not decided at the local level. But do go on.

The PM told the BBC he might increase the conditions required to receive benefit.

Ah well, that is quite a different thing. If the carrot hasn't worked, try the stick. I'm not saying it will work but it seems worth trying. But what's this...?

Adding 'There are people out there who, given the right support, can go into work.'

No, old chap. We know the 'right support' has no effect. And it's not a question of 'there are people out there who ... can go into work'. There are one million of them.

Sigh. Expect more of the same.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

1. You probably know what an e-bike is. It's a bike with a small motor that helps you up hills. There are very few regulations needed to, as it were, keep them on the straight and narrow. They are an absolute boon to urban life generally (with some snags because the technology is so new).

2. You probably don't know what an e-motorbike is. It's a motorbike that's trying to pass itself off as an e-bike so its rider can live an unregulated life on the road (and, all too often, the pavement). They are an absolute menace to urban life generally, not least in giving e-bikes a thoroughly bad name.

It's up to (a) legislators (b) the police and (c) internet commerce providers to ensure that (1) are encouraged and (2) are controlled and/or discouraged and/or outlawed.

So here's an anecdote to see how everyone's getting on...
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 68, 69, 70, 71  Next

Jump to:  
Page 69 of 71

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group