- Welcome to Languish.org.
Recent posts
#41
Off the Record / Re: Brexit and the waning days...
Last post by Sheilbh - Today at 12:20:12 AMYeah on Sanders the line that always sticks out for me was Clinton's: "if we broke up the big banks tomorrow — and I will if they deserve it, if they pose a systemic risk, I will — would that end racism?" I think she did the same through LGBT+, sexism, immigration etc.
As I say Olufemi Taiwo's Elite Capture is a very good book on this - and it's about 100 pages so readable in an afternoon.
On the representation point there's a particularly weird and I think very tone-deaf side to that with Reeves. In part I think because Labour absolutely hates the fact that it's on its second leader called Keir while the Tories are on their fourth woman leader (three of whom have been PM) and second ethnic minority leader. Plus the Tories had various "firsts" in the last government: first British Asian Chancellor and Home Secretary, first Muslim Home Secretary, first Black Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary etc.
Because of this Labour or at least Reeves seem to make a weirdly big deal of Reeves being the first woman Chancellor (and also because it's the last "great office of state" not held by a woman). So in her big pre-budget interview with The Times she had a line about how "I'm sick of people mansplaining how to be chancellor to me". There's been a couple of moments where she's suggested she's treated differently than Gordon Brown or George Osborne would be. There was a line in the FT about this from a profile of her:
This was part of Badenoch's response to Reeves, which I think was fairly effective on this point: "Madam Deputy Speaker, let me explain to the Chancellor. Woman to woman. People out there aren't complaining because she's female. They're complaining because she is utterly incompetent." And I think there is something to that. She came in and there was lots of "Iron Chancellor" stuff. The jokes about her and "lack of respect" have developed because she's bad at the job - and I have lots of issues with Brown and Osborne but they absolutely stamped their authority over the Treasury. There was always a clear sense of what they were trying to do. I also think demanding "respect" is not something that goes well for any politician in Britain.
But to the GD Politics podcast I think there is a weird tone-deafness to Starmer and Reeves on this sort of stuff. David Runciman says that Starmer apparently has repeatedly told his cabinet that without him and his team none of them would be in a job because they wouldn't have won the election (which I think vastly overstates his role v the collapse of the Tories). But there's another story of an away day when apparently Starmer told the cabinet they were the most working class cabinet in British history - apparently Shabana Mahmood pushed backon that by asking, even if it's true is it how they're seen? His metric seems to be that none of them went to private school - but I think "most working class" is challenging.
It is the point Runciman and Thompson made on the podcast that Starmer's entire career in politics has shown a breathtaking disinterest in the truth, but also there's been a fair bit of dishonesty by Reeves both about her own career (plus plagiarism in a book she wrote) and how she frames budget decisions. Which might be fine if they were clearly cynical Machiavels - like Lord Mandelson
- but appparently Starmer in particular is very, very vain and quite sanctimonious with people. And I think the combination of very obviously cynical and dishonest, with sanctimony, demands for respect and incompetence is perhaps uniquely toxic.
As I say Olufemi Taiwo's Elite Capture is a very good book on this - and it's about 100 pages so readable in an afternoon.
On the representation point there's a particularly weird and I think very tone-deaf side to that with Reeves. In part I think because Labour absolutely hates the fact that it's on its second leader called Keir while the Tories are on their fourth woman leader (three of whom have been PM) and second ethnic minority leader. Plus the Tories had various "firsts" in the last government: first British Asian Chancellor and Home Secretary, first Muslim Home Secretary, first Black Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary etc.
Because of this Labour or at least Reeves seem to make a weirdly big deal of Reeves being the first woman Chancellor (and also because it's the last "great office of state" not held by a woman). So in her big pre-budget interview with The Times she had a line about how "I'm sick of people mansplaining how to be chancellor to me". There's been a couple of moments where she's suggested she's treated differently than Gordon Brown or George Osborne would be. There was a line in the FT about this from a profile of her:
Quote"At a genteel "meet and greet" over sandwiches and tea with local business leaders, the chancellor is robustly challenged — she believes rudely — over her punitive taxes on North Sea drilling. Suddenly the mood changes. "Talk to me with respect," Reeves says, glaring at her interlocutor. Eyes shift nervously towards the floor. "I'm the chancellor of the exchequer."
There are no cameras to record the extraordinary exchange. Is everything all right? Surprisingly, Reeves seems to have enjoyed the moment. "He wouldn't have spoken like that to George Osborne or Gordon Brown," says Britain's first female holder of the 800-year-old office, referring to two of her predecessors. "He deserved it," she guffaws, heading out to the waiting car. Reeves demands respect — and she believes that with her Budget, in spite of everything, she will earn it."
This was part of Badenoch's response to Reeves, which I think was fairly effective on this point: "Madam Deputy Speaker, let me explain to the Chancellor. Woman to woman. People out there aren't complaining because she's female. They're complaining because she is utterly incompetent." And I think there is something to that. She came in and there was lots of "Iron Chancellor" stuff. The jokes about her and "lack of respect" have developed because she's bad at the job - and I have lots of issues with Brown and Osborne but they absolutely stamped their authority over the Treasury. There was always a clear sense of what they were trying to do. I also think demanding "respect" is not something that goes well for any politician in Britain.
But to the GD Politics podcast I think there is a weird tone-deafness to Starmer and Reeves on this sort of stuff. David Runciman says that Starmer apparently has repeatedly told his cabinet that without him and his team none of them would be in a job because they wouldn't have won the election (which I think vastly overstates his role v the collapse of the Tories). But there's another story of an away day when apparently Starmer told the cabinet they were the most working class cabinet in British history - apparently Shabana Mahmood pushed backon that by asking, even if it's true is it how they're seen? His metric seems to be that none of them went to private school - but I think "most working class" is challenging.
It is the point Runciman and Thompson made on the podcast that Starmer's entire career in politics has shown a breathtaking disinterest in the truth, but also there's been a fair bit of dishonesty by Reeves both about her own career (plus plagiarism in a book she wrote) and how she frames budget decisions. Which might be fine if they were clearly cynical Machiavels - like Lord Mandelson
- but appparently Starmer in particular is very, very vain and quite sanctimonious with people. And I think the combination of very obviously cynical and dishonest, with sanctimony, demands for respect and incompetence is perhaps uniquely toxic. #42
Off the Record / Re: The Off Topic Topic
Last post by mongers - December 12, 2025, 10:06:11 PMQuote from: Josquius on December 12, 2025, 04:03:15 AMToday I learned- an acre is around 1/2 a football pitch.
Now I can actually visualise acres.
It's really quite simple, it's a furlong by a chain wide.
#43
Off the Record / Re: The Off Topic Topic
Last post by Tonitrus - December 12, 2025, 08:41:33 PMQuote from: Valmy on December 12, 2025, 08:19:23 PMgrifting the government
Uncle Sam said it supported conservation and sustainability.
QuoteConservation Reserve Program (CRP)
What It Is
The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), administered by the Farm Service Agency (FSA), is a voluntary program that encourages agricultural producers and landowners to convert highly erodible and other environmentally sensitive acreage to vegetative cover, such as native grasses, trees, and riparian buffers.
By enrolling in CRP, participants receive annual rental payments and cost-share assistance to establish long-term, resource-conserving vegetative covers. The program helps to improve water quality, control soil erosion, and enhance wildlife habitat, contributing to overall environmental health and sustainability.
#44
Gaming HQ / Re: Star Wars Fate of the Old ...
Last post by Valmy - December 12, 2025, 08:27:40 PMCasey Hudson? Now you have my attention.
Action RPG? Single player? Spiritual successor to KOTOR? Ok.
Is it really five years away from release? Come on guys they made KOTOR 2 in about two weeks.
Action RPG? Single player? Spiritual successor to KOTOR? Ok.
Is it really five years away from release? Come on guys they made KOTOR 2 in about two weeks.
#45
Off the Record / Re: The Off Topic Topic
Last post by Valmy - December 12, 2025, 08:19:23 PMQuote from: Tonitrus on December 12, 2025, 04:20:03 PMFor the longest times, my dad/aunt had shared ownership of a large farm property in his hometown. But they were doing the "get paid by Uncle Sam to not grow anything" program. Though even that still required a significant expense to control invasive plants/weeds etc. It's been sold since to a local area farming family.
Yeah grifting the government is not part a part of the business I am well informed on. However everytime we pay for improvements to the land, my mother paid for the construction of a bridge over a stream and installed a water well, the Feds often send us a reimbursement for part of the cost...for some reason. I guess if you are a farmer the Feds just hand you cash right and left.
#46
Off the Record / Re: The EU thread
Last post by Tonitrus - December 12, 2025, 07:15:22 PMQuote from: Zoupa on December 12, 2025, 05:22:39 PMAlso I don't think our job is to worry about what happens inside russian borders once they lose or Putin dies or whatever. Our job is to make sure Ukraine wins. What happens inside russia is for russians to figure out. It's not like we did anything when Prigozin was 100 miles from Moscow.
At least except or insofar as how those two things might be connected.
That said, excluding outside direct intervention, I don't see how Ukraine wins (if defined as a return to 2022/2014 borders) except from internal Russian disruption. And a strong risk that a new government might feel a need to intensify the war or take more desperate measures to accelerate things.
Right now, the Russia/Ukraine war feels an imperfect analogy of the American Civil War might apply...in the sense of the power/population imbalance (certainly not any of the moral/slavery elements). Russia got off to an energetic and sloppy start, got their nose bloodied a lot, and then switched to a slow, methodical ramping up of manpower. And realizing that they throwing all their armor/tanks was ineffective, went to matching and exceeding Ukraine's capabilities in small drone warfare.
The Kursk offensive was a king of Gettysburg...and I am not sure if Russia would still be in the Peninsula campaign or slogging through the equivalent of Grant's Overland campaign...and we certainly haven't seen a Battle of Atlanta yet. But I fear it may be coming.
#47
Off the Record / Re: The EU thread
Last post by Tonitrus - December 12, 2025, 07:05:07 PMQuote from: Jacob on December 12, 2025, 05:29:59 PMQuote from: Zoupa on December 12, 2025, 05:22:39 PMAlso I don't think our job is to worry about what happens inside russian borders once they lose or Putin dies or whatever. Our job is to make sure Ukraine wins. What happens inside russia is for russians to figure out. It's not like we did anything when Prigozin was 100 miles from Moscow.
I generally agree. That said, I reckon there are two motivations for meddling in a post-Putin Russian collapse:
- Let's try to minimize the risk of nukes ending up going bad places.
- There's a way for my particular clique to make a bunch of money.
I expect the appetite for "let us try to help make a better Russia for Russians via democracy and economic growth" to be fairly low.
Agreed...certainly far lower than after the fall of the USSR.
#48
Off the Record / Re: [Canada] Canadian Politics...
Last post by viper37 - December 12, 2025, 06:19:27 PMThe Beaverton strikes again!
Progressive Conservative joins Progressive Conservative party
Progressive Conservative joins Progressive Conservative party
QuoteOTTAWA – In a stunning move, progressive conservative MP Michael Ma crossed the floor Thursday to the progressive conservative Liberal Party, just a few weeks after similar minded progressive conservative Conservative MP Chris d'Entremont did the same.
#49
Gaming HQ / Star Wars Fate of the Old Repu...
Last post by viper37 - December 12, 2025, 05:48:52 PMSee ya in 2030!
#50
Off the Record / Re: The EU thread
Last post by Jacob - December 12, 2025, 05:29:59 PMQuote from: Zoupa on December 12, 2025, 05:22:39 PMAlso I don't think our job is to worry about what happens inside russian borders once they lose or Putin dies or whatever. Our job is to make sure Ukraine wins. What happens inside russia is for russians to figure out. It's not like we did anything when Prigozin was 100 miles from Moscow.
I generally agree. That said, I reckon there are two motivations for meddling in a post-Putin Russian collapse:
- Let's try to minimize the risk of nukes ending up going bad places.
- There's a way for my particular clique to make a bunch of money.
I expect the appetite for "let us try to help make a better Russia for Russians via democracy and economic growth" to be fairly low.