SF 18 nc DUP 17 -1 All 11 +4 UUP 5 -1 SDLP 3 -1 oth 2 nc
So Unionist parties 23 seats (including DUP and UUP and 1 for TUV) and Nationalist parties 21 seats combining SF and SDLP.
Almost neck and neck after transfers for largest party now too
Alliance are Progressive, so 32 including SF, SDLP, and Alliance.
I'd accept SDLP as Progressive; SF not really.
They are most certainly left of centre.
Sorta like great-granny's hankies: one for show and one for blow.
SDLP is more genuinely progressive, while SF as it's aimed for mainstream and gone big-time, has become increasingly pragmatic when it comes to ideology and motivation. Whereas it's rhetoric and style has been, and remains, more populist, confrontational, anti-establishment than that of SDLP.
At least how it comes across to me. Personal sympathies being with SDLP from 1970s onward and today.
LOVE this line of defence: "The voters wanted to give the gov't a kicking. They've done that. Now they'll move on." 🤣
Moylan then calls Labour "the party of Mayfair". That's Mayfair, represented by Tories until quite literally 10 hours ago, for *checks notes* 58 years. ~AA
Brilliant stuff. "The party of Mayfair". I wonder how much of a monopoly Labour now has in London. Goodbye Piccadilly, farewell Leicester Square? I guess the Conservatives won't wake up til they've lose Whitehall and Boris Johnson goes directly to jail. If they decide to keep him, they're taking a chance.
Suits me if the boosterism goes on all the way until there's water works.
I mentioned this on a previous thread but Aston Villa's 5 remaining premier league games include Liverpool, Manchester City and Burnley twice. So Steven Gerrard could try and do his old club a favour on the last day of the season as well as helping Everton to stay up.
Surely it's in his power to do Liverpool a favour when the teams play each other, but I'm assuming he's trying his hardest to win most games - would be odd to think he's saving his best for the last day of the season.
Yes, but that sort of reasonable logic doesn't fit the footballing narrative, does it!
The logic is the wrong way around. The best way Gerrard helps Liverpool, is by Villa losing by a rugby score to make the goal difference in the Merseysiders’ favour.
As ever John Harris adds something to the conversation that is worth sitting up and listening to. No one in political journalism does more thinking and scratching around beneath the headlines than this guy imho.
Thread of the evening.
John Harris @johnharris1969 · 4h You won't hear much political sociology in reporting of these election results. But a lot of them tell you about how a large chunk of the English middle class no longer meets old-fashioned stereotypes. (1)
John Harris @johnharris1969 · 4h Replying to @johnharris1969 It's increasingly liberal & worldly, thanks partly to the expansion of Higher Education, but also to how far cities' cultures now stretch well into suburbia and the commuter belt (2)
John Harris @johnharris1969 P.s Blair's expansion of Higher Education May yet prove to be as transformative as Thatcher's sale of council houses
Its a combination of the expansion of graduates with degrees of little use and the massive expansion of debt they're stuck with to get those degrees of little use.
The result is a huge number of new graduates each year who having been to university think they're entitled to a middle class lifestyle but don't have the skillset to achieve it.
Which inevitably leads them to blaming the government, the economic system, society as a whole.
And produces a class of people who require the creation of public sector middle class non-jobs for them to achieve the middle class lifestyle they think they're entitled to.
They can certainly still be middle class even if not necessarily upper middle class or rich enough to be in the top 10% of earners. That would largely have required them to go to Russell Group universities only to study law, medicine, economics or a STEM subject.
What is clear too is the expansion if graduates from about 10% of 25 year olds 40 years ago to about 40% now has also turned Labour from the party of the working class to the party of university graduates.
The Tories can still win graduates with a Cameron like leader but not a Boris type leader, although Boris has far more appeal and still does to the skilled working class voters in particular who have left Labour
That depends upon how you define middle class.
For me if you cannot afford to buy the average home in your area then you're not middle class.
That's a problem the Conservatives will have to deal with in southern England.
And promises about possible future inheritances aren't going to help.
Reading @another_richard and @HYUFD private dialogue is like dipping back into the 1950s and watching a smoke filled talking heads debate on a black and white TV
"Class depends on where one was educated, or what sort of a home one can afford". What a load of old nonsense.
Educate as many as one can to a high standard it drags up society, a nation of fewer hooligans and reprobates. Who cares if all the Baristas have a Sociology degree from the University of Worcester? Good on them.
That's fine as long as you make clear to those getting Sociology degrees from the University of Worcester that all their degree is good for is a life as a Barista. Stop coning people into thinking a degree is a gateway to a better job and a better life whilst at the same time so completely trashing the value of those degrees that in effect you are lying to them and that all you are really giving them is a lifetime of debt and low pay.
No, we must encourage employers to treat all graduates equally. It will be good for both sides and the country. Unless there really is something about an Oxford humanities degree that qualifies one to run a hedge fund or a country.
That is utter rubbish. Why should an employer put any value on a qualification which has no intrinsic value in itself and which does not in any way reflect the abilities of the candidate as a potential employee.
There are plenty of degrees that do have real world value in the specific areas they relate to but the idea that as an employer i should look favourably on someone simply because they have been through the degree factory and stayed out of gainful employment for an extra 3 years is idiotic.
Or put it the other way. Why should I look less favourably on someone who left school at 18 and went out and got a job so that by 21 they have 3 years experience of real employment compared with a graduate? That is what you are actually asking employers to do.
Or why should someone with 2 E grade A levels and straight Cs at GCSE at a new university be put on an equal plane for a job as a lawyer or doctor with someone with straight A*s at A level and GCSE with a degree from Oxbridge or another Russell Group university
Not posh enough for some people, I see.
OK if you would like to be operated on or defended in court or have a big commercial deal negotiated by someone with 2 E grades at A level, C grade gcses and a 2.2 from a new university, be my guest
OH, s\o you would rather be dealt with by a posh incompetent than someone who knew the job?!
Clearly you would rather be dealt with by an incompetent full stop, posh or not
You're misreading. I want a competent. I don't give a shite if they are cringing Royalists with a MBE that went to Christchurch at Oxford*.
*Friend of mine did. But, despite that, he's highly competent at his profession.
You just said you would be perfectly happy to be operated on by a surgeon who had got no better than C grade GCSEs, 2 E grade A levels and a 2.2 from a new university.
I didn't. I said "someone who knew the job". THat's my criterion. Not how posh this person is.
getting good school and university grades is not an indicator of "poshness" they are an achievement the young person should be proud of
I quitre agree. But it's HYUFD's insistence on the *school* and *uni* being upmarket in the socially understood sense.
SF 18 nc DUP 17 -1 All 11 +4 UUP 5 -1 SDLP 3 -1 oth 2 nc
So Unionist parties 23 seats (including DUP and UUP and 1 for TUV) and Nationalist parties 21 seats combining SF and SDLP.
Almost neck and neck after transfers for largest party now too
Alliance are Progressive, so 32 including SF, SDLP, and Alliance.
I'd accept SDLP as Progressive; SF not really.
They are most certainly left of centre.
Sorta like great-granny's hankies: one for show and one for blow.
SDLP is more genuinely progressive, while SF as it's aimed for mainstream and gone big-time, has become increasingly pragmatic when it comes to ideology and motivation. Whereas it's rhetoric and style has been, and remains, more populist, confrontational, anti-establishment than that of SDLP.
At least how it comes across to me. Personal sympathies being with SDLP from 1970s onward and today.
SF is a fascist party.
No. Good grief, no. Are you daft?
nationalist socialist kill opponents use intimidation to ensure conformity use political office to eliminate opposition
I could call them Baathist if it makes you feel better.
SF 18 nc DUP 17 -1 All 11 +4 UUP 5 -1 SDLP 3 -1 oth 2 nc
So Unionist parties 23 seats (including DUP and UUP and 1 for TUV) and Nationalist parties 21 seats combining SF and SDLP.
Almost neck and neck after transfers for largest party now too
Alliance are Progressive, so 32 including SF, SDLP, and Alliance.
I'd accept SDLP as Progressive; SF not really.
They are most certainly left of centre.
Sorta like great-granny's hankies: one for show and one for blow.
SDLP is more genuinely progressive, while SF as it's aimed for mainstream and gone big-time, has become increasingly pragmatic when it comes to ideology and motivation. Whereas it's rhetoric and style has been, and remains, more populist, confrontational, anti-establishment than that of SDLP.
At least how it comes across to me. Personal sympathies being with SDLP from 1970s onward and today.
SF is a fascist party.
No. Good grief, no. Are you daft?
nationalist socialist kill opponents use intimidation to ensure conformity use political office to eliminate opposition
I could call them Baathist if it makes you feel better.
As ever John Harris adds something to the conversation that is worth sitting up and listening to. No one in political journalism does more thinking and scratching around beneath the headlines than this guy imho.
Thread of the evening.
John Harris @johnharris1969 · 4h You won't hear much political sociology in reporting of these election results. But a lot of them tell you about how a large chunk of the English middle class no longer meets old-fashioned stereotypes. (1)
John Harris @johnharris1969 · 4h Replying to @johnharris1969 It's increasingly liberal & worldly, thanks partly to the expansion of Higher Education, but also to how far cities' cultures now stretch well into suburbia and the commuter belt (2)
John Harris @johnharris1969 P.s Blair's expansion of Higher Education May yet prove to be as transformative as Thatcher's sale of council houses
Its a combination of the expansion of graduates with degrees of little use and the massive expansion of debt they're stuck with to get those degrees of little use.
The result is a huge number of new graduates each year who having been to university think they're entitled to a middle class lifestyle but don't have the skillset to achieve it.
Which inevitably leads them to blaming the government, the economic system, society as a whole.
And produces a class of people who require the creation of public sector middle class non-jobs for them to achieve the middle class lifestyle they think they're entitled to.
They can certainly still be middle class even if not necessarily upper middle class or rich enough to be in the top 10% of earners. That would largely have required them to go to Russell Group universities only to study law, medicine, economics or a STEM subject.
What is clear too is the expansion if graduates from about 10% of 25 year olds 40 years ago to about 40% now has also turned Labour from the party of the working class to the party of university graduates.
The Tories can still win graduates with a Cameron like leader but not a Boris type leader, although Boris has far more appeal and still does to the skilled working class voters in particular who have left Labour
That depends upon how you define middle class.
For me if you cannot afford to buy the average home in your area then you're not middle class.
That's a problem the Conservatives will have to deal with in southern England.
And promises about possible future inheritances aren't going to help.
Reading @another_richard and @HYUFD private dialogue is like dipping back into the 1950s and watching a smoke filled talking heads debate on a black and white TV
"Class depends on where one was educated, or what sort of a home one can afford". What a load of old nonsense.
Educate as many as one can to a high standard it drags up society, a nation of fewer hooligans and reprobates. Who cares if all the Baristas have a Sociology degree from the University of Worcester? Good on them.
That's fine as long as you make clear to those getting Sociology degrees from the University of Worcester that all their degree is good for is a life as a Barista. Stop coning people into thinking a degree is a gateway to a better job and a better life whilst at the same time so completely trashing the value of those degrees that in effect you are lying to them and that all you are really giving them is a lifetime of debt and low pay.
No, we must encourage employers to treat all graduates equally. It will be good for both sides and the country. Unless there really is something about an Oxford humanities degree that qualifies one to run a hedge fund or a country.
That is utter rubbish. Why should an employer put any value on a qualification which has no intrinsic value in itself and which does not in any way reflect the abilities of the candidate as a potential employee.
There are plenty of degrees that do have real world value in the specific areas they relate to but the idea that as an employer i should look favourably on someone simply because they have been through the degree factory and stayed out of gainful employment for an extra 3 years is idiotic.
Or put it the other way. Why should I look less favourably on someone who left school at 18 and went out and got a job so that by 21 they have 3 years experience of real employment compared with a graduate? That is what you are actually asking employers to do.
Or why should someone with 2 E grade A levels and straight Cs at GCSE at a new university be put on an equal plane for a job as a lawyer or doctor with someone with straight A*s at A level and GCSE with a degree from Oxbridge or another Russell Group university
Not posh enough for some people, I see.
OK if you would like to be operated on or defended in court or have a big commercial deal negotiated by someone with 2 E grades at A level, C grade gcses and a 2.2 from a new university, be my guest
OH, s\o you would rather be dealt with by a posh incompetent than someone who knew the job?!
Clearly you would rather be dealt with by an incompetent full stop, posh or not
You're misreading. I want a competent. I don't give a shite if they are cringing Royalists with a MBE that went to Christchurch at Oxford*.
*Friend of mine did. But, despite that, he's highly competent at his profession.
You just said you would be perfectly happy to be operated on by a surgeon who had got no better than C grade GCSEs, 2 E grade A levels and a 2.2 from a new university.
I didn't. I said "someone who knew the job". THat's my criterion. Not how posh this person is.
Christ, is he really arguing with you that someone’s GCSEs, A-Levels, or degree are relevant to how good they are in their profession if they rise through to a key role?
Of course they are, you don't normally get into Medical School without good GCSEs and A levels for starters and you rarely get top surgeons or lawyers without good degrees from top universities
Sorry to break it to you, but in the real world no one cares. Many of us who enjoyed our lives from 18-21 underperformed at A-Level and in our degrees. It takes a bit longer, but you be a surgeon or a barrister despite that if are good enough. Law is easiest because of conversation courses, but you can persist and become a doctor too.
Exactly. At some point fairly quickly GCSEs and A-levels stop being defining factors in the success, knowledge or ability of an individual. There's a fairly narrow window where they are of any special importance.
You're waiting on two experienced surgeons to operate on you and you have the choice, noone's going "alright, top trumps on your GCSEs for the gig".
“Dodged a bullet there - I nearly let him operate ok me but then I found out he only got a C in GCSE German”.
Latin, old boy, Latin.
Latin is for oiks. It's Greek that matters.
I think that my Standard Grade in Ancient Greek is probably my least useful qualification - the only upside came in later life when I needed a parameter for an economic model I never ran out of letters. I found the Greeks quite annoying to be honest, with their constant philosophising. The Romans might have been thugs but at least they got on with things.
I founf mine very helpful with my biological work - an in to the cadences and meanings of terminology and classification.
So what IS the deal with Harrow. Is it really Modi operandi for Tories?
I used to know Bob Blackman, the MP for Harrow East, very well. He's an outstanding vote-getter among voters of Indian origin. He kept the Conservatives competitive in Brent North for a long time, before he moved to Harrow. Brent North used almost to be the safest Conservative seat in North London, before rapid demographic change propelled Labour to victory. The Conservatives actually gained a ward (Queensbury) in Brent North for the first time since 2006, this time around, and will probably do well there in a better year.
It comes down to Indian voters looking for a new political home, as they prosper, and the local Conservatives making a successful effort to court them.
I mentioned this on a previous thread but Aston Villa's 5 remaining premier league games include Liverpool, Manchester City and Burnley twice. So Steven Gerrard could try and do his old club a favour on the last day of the season as well as helping Everton to stay up.
Surely it's in his power to do Liverpool a favour when the teams play each other, but I'm assuming he's trying his hardest to win most games - would be odd to think he's saving his best for the last day of the season.
Gerrard and indeed Liverpool FC always strike me as having footballing integrity and doubt either would want Liverpool to win unfairly. Gerrard values loyalty as well and his loyalty will be with AV whilst employed by them
LOVE this line of defence: "The voters wanted to give the gov't a kicking. They've done that. Now they'll move on." 🤣
Moylan then calls Labour "the party of Mayfair". That's Mayfair, represented by Tories until quite literally 10 hours ago, for *checks notes* 58 years. ~AA
Brilliant stuff. "The party of Mayfair". I wonder how much of a monopoly Labour now has in London. Goodbye Piccadilly, farewell Leicester Square? I guess the Conservatives won't wake up til they've lose Whitehall and Boris Johnson goes directly to jail. If they decide to keep him, they're taking a chance.
This 'Labour is for the elites because it does well in London' line is a bit of a nonsense. London votes Labour because it's a city of young diverse workers not because it's full of rich people. Some of the poorest locales in the country are in London. And most rich people in London vote Tory. You can see that if you drilldown into the voting figures by neighbourhood.
WRT law, one can encounter a lot of very good solicitors and barristers, who went to unversities like Newcastle, Hertfordshire, Nottingham, Southampton, Reading, Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool, which all have good law departments.
That said, I think a degree in law is completely unnecessary to be a lawyer. A history degree would have been just as much use to me, and more fun.
Yes but most of those except Hertfordshire are Russell Group and I doubt you would find many QCs or partners in Magic circle law firms went to Hertfordshire
I'll bet that in the real world most employers don't even know what constitutes a 'Russell Group' institution and wouldn't care if they did. Was it even an objective thing anyway or just academics, as is their want, awarding themselves fancy titles?
SF 18 nc DUP 17 -1 All 11 +4 UUP 5 -1 SDLP 3 -1 oth 2 nc
So Unionist parties 23 seats (including DUP and UUP and 1 for TUV) and Nationalist parties 21 seats combining SF and SDLP.
Almost neck and neck after transfers for largest party now too
Alliance are Progressive, so 32 including SF, SDLP, and Alliance.
I'd accept SDLP as Progressive; SF not really.
They are most certainly left of centre.
Sorta like great-granny's hankies: one for show and one for blow.
SDLP is more genuinely progressive, while SF as it's aimed for mainstream and gone big-time, has become increasingly pragmatic when it comes to ideology and motivation. Whereas it's rhetoric and style has been, and remains, more populist, confrontational, anti-establishment than that of SDLP.
At least how it comes across to me. Personal sympathies being with SDLP from 1970s onward and today.
SF is a fascist party.
No. Good grief, no. Are you daft?
nationalist socialist kill opponents use intimidation to ensure conformity use political office to eliminate opposition
I could call them Baathist if it makes you feel better.
You could have just said "yes"
He’s pointing out why you are wrong
I wouldn’t say Sinn Fein are Fascist. But they are uncomfortably close to it, practically and genetically. They are half a generation from extreme violence
So what IS the deal with Harrow. Is it really Modi operandi for Tories?
I used to know Bob Blackman, the MP for Harrow East, very well. He's an outstanding vote-getter among voters of Indian origin. He kept the Conservatives competitive in Brent North for a long time, before he moved to Harrow. Brent North used almost to be the safest Conservative seat in North London, before rapid demographic change propelled Labour to victory. The Conservatives actually gained a ward (Queensbury) in Brent North for the first time since 2006, this time around, and will probably do well there in a better year.
It comes down to Indian voters looking for a new political home, as they prosper, and the local Conservatives making a successful effort to court them.
I suspect that's part of a long term trend the so called Asian vote will split with Hindus and Sikhs voting conservative and Muslims Labour.
SF 18 nc DUP 17 -1 All 11 +4 UUP 5 -1 SDLP 3 -1 oth 2 nc
So Unionist parties 23 seats (including DUP and UUP and 1 for TUV) and Nationalist parties 21 seats combining SF and SDLP.
Almost neck and neck after transfers for largest party now too
Alliance are Progressive, so 32 including SF, SDLP, and Alliance.
I'd accept SDLP as Progressive; SF not really.
They are most certainly left of centre.
Sorta like great-granny's hankies: one for show and one for blow.
SDLP is more genuinely progressive, while SF as it's aimed for mainstream and gone big-time, has become increasingly pragmatic when it comes to ideology and motivation. Whereas it's rhetoric and style has been, and remains, more populist, confrontational, anti-establishment than that of SDLP.
At least how it comes across to me. Personal sympathies being with SDLP from 1970s onward and today.
SF is a fascist party.
No. Good grief, no. Are you daft?
nationalist socialist kill opponents use intimidation to ensure conformity use political office to eliminate opposition
I could call them Baathist if it makes you feel better.
You could have just said "yes"
He’s pointing out why you are wrong
I wouldn’t say Sinn Fein are Fascist. But they are uncomfortably close to it, practically and genetically. They are half a generation from extreme violence
"I wouldn't say Sinn Fein are fascist" is the same thing I'm saying ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
So what IS the deal with Harrow. Is it really Modi operandi for Tories?
I used to know Bob Blackman, the MP for Harrow East, very well. He's an outstanding vote-getter among voters of Indian origin. He kept the Conservatives competitive in Brent North for a long time, before he moved to Harrow. Brent North used almost to be the safest Conservative seat in North London, before rapid demographic change propelled Labour to victory. The Conservatives actually gained a ward (Queensbury) in Brent North for the first time since 2006, this time around, and will probably do well there in a better year.
It comes down to Indian voters looking for a new political home, as they prosper, and the local Conservatives making a successful effort to court them.
I suspect that's part of a long term trend the so called Asian vote will split with Hindus and Sikhs voting conservative and Muslims Labour.
I see the new, cuddly Teletubby Taliban have now made all-shrouding burqas compulsory for all women. Who could have foreseen that?
WRT law, one can encounter a lot of very good solicitors and barristers, who went to unversities like Newcastle, Hertfordshire, Nottingham, Southampton, Reading, Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool, which all have good law departments.
That said, I think a degree in law is completely unnecessary to be a lawyer. A history degree would have been just as much use to me, and more fun.
Yes but most of those except Hertfordshire are Russell Group and I doubt you would find many QCs or partners in Magic circle law firms went to Hertfordshire
I'll bet that in the real world most employers don't even know what constitutes a 'Russell Group' institution and wouldn't care if they did. Was it even an objective thing anyway or just academics, as is their want, awarding themselves fancy titles?
Most employers don’t - but banks, top accounting, consultancy and law firms, most definitely do.
SF 18 nc DUP 17 -1 All 11 +4 UUP 5 -1 SDLP 3 -1 oth 2 nc
So Unionist parties 23 seats (including DUP and UUP and 1 for TUV) and Nationalist parties 21 seats combining SF and SDLP.
Almost neck and neck after transfers for largest party now too
Alliance are Progressive, so 32 including SF, SDLP, and Alliance.
I'd accept SDLP as Progressive; SF not really.
They are most certainly left of centre.
Sorta like great-granny's hankies: one for show and one for blow.
SDLP is more genuinely progressive, while SF as it's aimed for mainstream and gone big-time, has become increasingly pragmatic when it comes to ideology and motivation. Whereas it's rhetoric and style has been, and remains, more populist, confrontational, anti-establishment than that of SDLP.
At least how it comes across to me. Personal sympathies being with SDLP from 1970s onward and today.
SF is a fascist party.
No. Good grief, no. Are you daft?
nationalist socialist kill opponents use intimidation to ensure conformity use political office to eliminate opposition
I could call them Baathist if it makes you feel better.
You could have just said "yes"
He’s pointing out why you are wrong
I wouldn’t say Sinn Fein are Fascist. But they are uncomfortably close to it, practically and genetically. They are half a generation from extreme violence
I dont like Sinn Fein as I think anyone who puts nationalism ahead of other stuff in life is a bit thick and obsessive tbh .True of Leavers,SNP ,PC as well . I dont think they are fascists though
WRT law, one can encounter a lot of very good solicitors and barristers, who went to unversities like Newcastle, Hertfordshire, Nottingham, Southampton, Reading, Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool, which all have good law departments.
That said, I think a degree in law is completely unnecessary to be a lawyer. A history degree would have been just as much use to me, and more fun.
Yes but most of those except Hertfordshire are Russell Group and I doubt you would find many QCs or partners in Magic circle law firms went to Hertfordshire
I'll bet that in the real world most employers don't even know what constitutes a 'Russell Group' institution and wouldn't care if they did. Was it even an objective thing anyway or just academics, as is their want, awarding themselves fancy titles?
76% of Magic Circle law firm trainees went to Russell Group universities and 31% to Oxbridge.
SF 18 nc DUP 17 -1 All 11 +4 UUP 5 -1 SDLP 3 -1 oth 2 nc
So Unionist parties 23 seats (including DUP and UUP and 1 for TUV) and Nationalist parties 21 seats combining SF and SDLP.
Almost neck and neck after transfers for largest party now too
Alliance are Progressive, so 32 including SF, SDLP, and Alliance.
I'd accept SDLP as Progressive; SF not really.
They are most certainly left of centre.
Sorta like great-granny's hankies: one for show and one for blow.
SDLP is more genuinely progressive, while SF as it's aimed for mainstream and gone big-time, has become increasingly pragmatic when it comes to ideology and motivation. Whereas it's rhetoric and style has been, and remains, more populist, confrontational, anti-establishment than that of SDLP.
At least how it comes across to me. Personal sympathies being with SDLP from 1970s onward and today.
SF is a fascist party.
No. Good grief, no. Are you daft?
nationalist socialist kill opponents use intimidation to ensure conformity use political office to eliminate opposition
I could call them Baathist if it makes you feel better.
You could have just said "yes"
He’s pointing out why you are wrong
I wouldn’t say Sinn Fein are Fascist. But they are uncomfortably close to it, practically and genetically. They are half a generation from extreme violence
Most mainlanders dont see the constant punishment beatings, paramilitary imposed exiles and underlying criminality which is associated with them. Mainstream politicians dont want to rock the boat, its omerta like Putin after he grabbed the Crimea
As ever John Harris adds something to the conversation that is worth sitting up and listening to. No one in political journalism does more thinking and scratching around beneath the headlines than this guy imho.
Thread of the evening.
John Harris @johnharris1969 · 4h You won't hear much political sociology in reporting of these election results. But a lot of them tell you about how a large chunk of the English middle class no longer meets old-fashioned stereotypes. (1)
John Harris @johnharris1969 · 4h Replying to @johnharris1969 It's increasingly liberal & worldly, thanks partly to the expansion of Higher Education, but also to how far cities' cultures now stretch well into suburbia and the commuter belt (2)
John Harris @johnharris1969 P.s Blair's expansion of Higher Education May yet prove to be as transformative as Thatcher's sale of council houses
Its a combination of the expansion of graduates with degrees of little use and the massive expansion of debt they're stuck with to get those degrees of little use.
The result is a huge number of new graduates each year who having been to university think they're entitled to a middle class lifestyle but don't have the skillset to achieve it.
Which inevitably leads them to blaming the government, the economic system, society as a whole.
And produces a class of people who require the creation of public sector middle class non-jobs for them to achieve the middle class lifestyle they think they're entitled to.
They can certainly still be middle class even if not necessarily upper middle class or rich enough to be in the top 10% of earners. That would largely have required them to go to Russell Group universities only to study law, medicine, economics or a STEM subject.
What is clear too is the expansion if graduates from about 10% of 25 year olds 40 years ago to about 40% now has also turned Labour from the party of the working class to the party of university graduates.
The Tories can still win graduates with a Cameron like leader but not a Boris type leader, although Boris has far more appeal and still does to the skilled working class voters in particular who have left Labour
That depends upon how you define middle class.
For me if you cannot afford to buy the average home in your area then you're not middle class.
That's a problem the Conservatives will have to deal with in southern England.
And promises about possible future inheritances aren't going to help.
Reading @another_richard and @HYUFD private dialogue is like dipping back into the 1950s and watching a smoke filled talking heads debate on a black and white TV
"Class depends on where one was educated, or what sort of a home one can afford". What a load of old nonsense.
Educate as many as one can to a high standard it drags up society, a nation of fewer hooligans and reprobates. Who cares if all the Baristas have a Sociology degree from the University of Worcester? Good on them.
That's fine as long as you make clear to those getting Sociology degrees from the University of Worcester that all their degree is good for is a life as a Barista. Stop coning people into thinking a degree is a gateway to a better job and a better life whilst at the same time so completely trashing the value of those degrees that in effect you are lying to them and that all you are really giving them is a lifetime of debt and low pay.
No, we must encourage employers to treat all graduates equally. It will be good for both sides and the country. Unless there really is something about an Oxford humanities degree that qualifies one to run a hedge fund or a country.
That is utter rubbish. Why should an employer put any value on a qualification which has no intrinsic value in itself and which does not in any way reflect the abilities of the candidate as a potential employee.
There are plenty of degrees that do have real world value in the specific areas they relate to but the idea that as an employer i should look favourably on someone simply because they have been through the degree factory and stayed out of gainful employment for an extra 3 years is idiotic.
Or put it the other way. Why should I look less favourably on someone who left school at 18 and went out and got a job so that by 21 they have 3 years experience of real employment compared with a graduate? That is what you are actually asking employers to do.
Or why should someone with 2 E grade A levels and straight Cs at GCSE at a new university be put on an equal plane for a job as a lawyer or doctor with someone with straight A*s at A level and GCSE with a degree from Oxbridge or another Russell Group university
In case you hadn't noticed, there are no Cs at GCSE any more.
Also I didn't know anyone with an A* when I was there, let alone straight A*s.
I did know lots of people with 2 E offers.
I had one friend who went to Warwick with a 2 Es offer after failing to get a place at Cambridge. None from my school got the offer of 2 Es for Oxbridge. I'm guessing they had prowess in sport or music?
It was back in the days of fourth-term entrance; you did three entrance exams set by Oxford and if they still liked you after the interview(s) then you got an "unconditional" (in practice 2 E) offer.
It made for an unstressed Y13 after Christmas...
And 2/3 of Oxbridge students got straight A*s anyway
Nope: none of those with a 2 E offer did.
Actually I know someone with an E grade offer who did indeed still get straight A*s.
And the 2 E offer is rarely given to more than a small minority of those given Oxbridge offers. The standard offer is normally at least 2 or 3 A* grades
The entrance exam was phased out in 1997; the A* was introduced in 2010.
E grade offers are still given in a few cases even without the entrance exam. Plus the most popular courses like law now have their own entry tests too as has been mentioned
My son's offer from Cambridge was lower than any other offer he received, but then he had won an international prize from Cambridge in the lower 6th for a paper he had written on game theory and did reach the final stage (all done at Cambridge) on 3 different subjects (Physics, Chemistry, Informatics) to try and get into the British Olympiad team for each of those subjects, so they did sort of know him.
Chip off ...
Sadly not. I haven't a clue what he is talking about most of the time. At least I have a maths background, my wife is even more baffled. All pure maths which loses me after the topic title. Very proud though. Has received lots of scholarships in his time, was in his College University Challenge team, etc, etc. My daughter is of normal intelligence and having someone who achieves so much is a challenge for her, but handled.
It's great so long as it's accompanied by happiness and balance. In my family it's my youngest brother. He's genius level maths. Top 1st at Imperial with hardly any work, then PHD and very young Prof and a specialism in something so outre in the field of topology that he can only talk about it with about a dozen people in the world. But, same time, marriage, hobbies, kids, normal life. And a plain nice guy. He used to look UP to me, can you believe, when I was 25 and he was 15.
He probably still does.
- I gave him a car when he graduated and that bought me a lot of lasting 'looking up to'.
WRT law, one can encounter a lot of very good solicitors and barristers, who went to unversities like Newcastle, Hertfordshire, Nottingham, Southampton, Reading, Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool, which all have good law departments.
That said, I think a degree in law is completely unnecessary to be a lawyer. A history degree would have been just as much use to me, and more fun.
Yes but most of those except Hertfordshire are Russell Group and I doubt you would find many QCs or partners in Magic circle law firms went to Hertfordshire
I'll bet that in the real world most employers don't even know what constitutes a 'Russell Group' institution and wouldn't care if they did. Was it even an objective thing anyway or just academics, as is their want, awarding themselves fancy titles?
They used to just be called 'red brick'. As opposed to 1960s concrete.
LOVE this line of defence: "The voters wanted to give the gov't a kicking. They've done that. Now they'll move on." 🤣
Moylan then calls Labour "the party of Mayfair". That's Mayfair, represented by Tories until quite literally 10 hours ago, for *checks notes* 58 years. ~AA
Brilliant stuff. "The party of Mayfair". I wonder how much of a monopoly Labour now has in London. Goodbye Piccadilly, farewell Leicester Square? I guess the Conservatives won't wake up til they've lose Whitehall and Boris Johnson goes directly to jail. If they decide to keep him, they're taking a chance.
This 'Labour is for the elites because it does well in London' line is a bit of a nonsense. London votes Labour because it's a city of young diverse workers not because it's full of rich people. Some of the poorest locales in the country are in London. And most rich people in London vote Tory. You can see that if you drilldown into the voting figures by neighbourhood.
The Tories still have RBKC which is where all the Hedgies and non doms live.
WRT law, one can encounter a lot of very good solicitors and barristers, who went to unversities like Newcastle, Hertfordshire, Nottingham, Southampton, Reading, Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool, which all have good law departments.
That said, I think a degree in law is completely unnecessary to be a lawyer. A history degree would have been just as much use to me, and more fun.
Yes but most of those except Hertfordshire are Russell Group and I doubt you would find many QCs or partners in Magic circle law firms went to Hertfordshire
I'll bet that in the real world most employers don't even know what constitutes a 'Russell Group' institution and wouldn't care if they did. Was it even an objective thing anyway or just academics, as is their want, awarding themselves fancy titles?
Nothing wrong in having "league tables " for universities - its a competitive world .
LOVE this line of defence: "The voters wanted to give the gov't a kicking. They've done that. Now they'll move on." 🤣
Moylan then calls Labour "the party of Mayfair". That's Mayfair, represented by Tories until quite literally 10 hours ago, for *checks notes* 58 years. ~AA
Brilliant stuff. "The party of Mayfair". I wonder how much of a monopoly Labour now has in London. Goodbye Piccadilly, farewell Leicester Square? I guess the Conservatives won't wake up til they've lose Whitehall and Boris Johnson goes directly to jail. If they decide to keep him, they're taking a chance.
This 'Labour is for the elites because it does well in London' line is a bit of a nonsense. London votes Labour because it's a city of young diverse workers not because it's full of rich people. Some of the poorest locales in the country are in London. And most rich people in London vote Tory. You can see that if you drilldown into the voting figures by neighbourhood.
Yes, exactly. This whole "elites" bollocks is naked populism, aimed squarely at people who grow up with a profound ignorance of what London and Londoners are. Just pouring oil on the smouldering anti-London resentment is a weird thing for the Conservatives to be doing. But still, "one nation Tory" and all that bollocks.
SF 18 nc DUP 17 -1 All 11 +4 UUP 5 -1 SDLP 3 -1 oth 2 nc
So Unionist parties 23 seats (including DUP and UUP and 1 for TUV) and Nationalist parties 21 seats combining SF and SDLP.
Almost neck and neck after transfers for largest party now too
Alliance are Progressive, so 32 including SF, SDLP, and Alliance.
I'd accept SDLP as Progressive; SF not really.
They are most certainly left of centre.
Sorta like great-granny's hankies: one for show and one for blow.
SDLP is more genuinely progressive, while SF as it's aimed for mainstream and gone big-time, has become increasingly pragmatic when it comes to ideology and motivation. Whereas it's rhetoric and style has been, and remains, more populist, confrontational, anti-establishment than that of SDLP.
At least how it comes across to me. Personal sympathies being with SDLP from 1970s onward and today.
SF is a fascist party.
No. Good grief, no. Are you daft?
nationalist socialist kill opponents use intimidation to ensure conformity use political office to eliminate opposition
I could call them Baathist if it makes you feel better.
You could have just said "yes"
He’s pointing out why you are wrong
I wouldn’t say Sinn Fein are Fascist. But they are uncomfortably close to it, practically and genetically. They are half a generation from extreme violence
"I wouldn't say Sinn Fein are fascist" is the same thing I'm saying ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
No it’s not. You dismissed the idea SF are fascist as fanciful and absurd. “Good grief, no”
I’m saying it’s not fanciful at all. It’s arguable. Even if, in the end, I don’t quite buy it
Their propensity to violence was still being used by Ireland and the EU to ensure Britain kept the borders open in the last five years. “If the UK doesn’t do this Sinn Fein/IRA will start killing people again”
That’s an aspect of fascism. Illegal threats of violence as a way of advancing your politics
My advice for the Conservatives (other than ditching Boris. I don't share loathing that some here have for the man, but he is plainly corrupt) is:-
1. Encourage lots of house-building. My own view is that owner occupation is absolutely key to future Conservative voting. If that pisses off the NIMBY's, tough.
2. Rebalance tax away from income towards capital. I'm arguing against my own interests, here, as I'll likely inherit a lot of money in the next decade, but my need is less than the needs of my own step-children, and my nephews and nieces. Work has to pay, and it doesn't when people are facing high marginal rates of income tax.
3. Put a few hundred million pounds into fixing the criminal justice system. That does not mean more police. It means providing sufficient resources to enable justice to be delivered swiftly, which is fair to both victims and defendants. This is an area that has been shamefully neglected since 2010.
None of these things guarantee victory, but they are worth doing in themselves, and 1 and 2 will yield dividends for the Conservatives in the future.
Interesting. Current Labour Party policy is pretty close to your list - certainly closer than current Tory policy. Welcome to the dark side.
Is it? Bridgette Phillipson said yesterday that the Tories had scrapped the triple lock, implying that she thought that the triple lock was a good thing.
To be fair, I don't know what Labour's views are on planning reform and spending on the justice system, though it would be nice to think that a former DPP would think it worthwhile spending more on it.
Yes. I was referring to the list I responded to, which didn't mention the triple lock. Labour is in favour of a) large-scale house-building programme, b) rebalancing tax from income to capital, and c) a properly funded criminal justice system.
Hmmm, a lot of motherhood and apple pie in a) and c).
Have they set out any specific policies on b)? I find tax rather confusing, but the proposals on here always look far more radical than anything politicians tend to do, simply because change means some people lose out.
And the triple lock is relevant because scrapping it is something most on here agree with.
That's a good point about winners and losers. Policies with all winners either don't exist or are so obvious they've been done already or aren't disputed by anybody (thus have no political value). Hence any serious distinctive policy on anything serious will have losers. In fact that's an acid test of a serious policy. Does it have losers? If no, it isn't a serious policy.
Therefore, the art of modern politics being what it is, the avoidance of hard choices, politicians either shy away from policies like this or, if they have one, they pretend there *aren't* any losers.
Also, Boris Johnson being what he is, utterly incapable of developing serious policy, it's crucial that Labour don't unveil anything good on the policy front until the GE. Because if they do it'll be nicked.
Labour’s proposed windfall tax is a good example of a policy without any perceived losers. Even if there might be a case for one - I don’t think there is - Labour look immature proposing it.
Indeed a very interesting political party, as anti-abortion breakaway from Sinn Féin (only reason I put in the accent was because I gave S grief for omitting it!)
Like SF active in Northern Ireland and the Republic. Has one member in Dáil Éireann, party founder and leader Peadar Tóibín, first elected as SF TD for Meath West (not same thing as Westmeath) in 2011 but left that party in 2018 after defying the SF whip on legislation legalizing early-term abortions.
Am sure there are plenty more Irish Republicans with similar social-conservative & religious views who have NOT forsaken or rejected SF. Will be interesting to to what extent (or not) voters in NI 2022 giving their 1st preference for Aontú transferred in subsequent to SF or other parties, or were non-transferable.
SF 18 nc DUP 17 -1 All 11 +4 UUP 5 -1 SDLP 3 -1 oth 2 nc
So Unionist parties 23 seats (including DUP and UUP and 1 for TUV) and Nationalist parties 21 seats combining SF and SDLP.
Almost neck and neck after transfers for largest party now too
Alliance are Progressive, so 32 including SF, SDLP, and Alliance.
I'd accept SDLP as Progressive; SF not really.
They are most certainly left of centre.
Sorta like great-granny's hankies: one for show and one for blow.
SDLP is more genuinely progressive, while SF as it's aimed for mainstream and gone big-time, has become increasingly pragmatic when it comes to ideology and motivation. Whereas it's rhetoric and style has been, and remains, more populist, confrontational, anti-establishment than that of SDLP.
At least how it comes across to me. Personal sympathies being with SDLP from 1970s onward and today.
SF is a fascist party.
No. Good grief, no. Are you daft?
nationalist socialist kill opponents use intimidation to ensure conformity use political office to eliminate opposition
I could call them Baathist if it makes you feel better.
You could have just said "yes"
He’s pointing out why you are wrong
I wouldn’t say Sinn Fein are Fascist. But they are uncomfortably close to it, practically and genetically. They are half a generation from extreme violence
Most mainlanders dont see the constant punishment beatings, paramilitary imposed exiles and underlying criminality which is associated with them. Mainstream politicians dont want to rock the boat, its omerta like Putin after he grabbed the Crimea
- Tories losing 43% of their seats in Wales without a single gain and losing their only council. - Plaid gaining 3 Councils (albeit with small nett seat loss) - First seats for Gwlad & Propel
My faith in the Welsh electorate has been restored.
It does seem to be a particularly poor performance from the Tories in Wales, albeit the base for Wales was a good round of local elections for them in 2017, rather than a mediocre round in 2018.
Worth noting that there are 14 Tory MPs in Wales, half with a majority under 3,000. So it's not decisive for the next elections but it's a good clutch of marginals they can ill-afford to lose.
WRT law, one can encounter a lot of very good solicitors and barristers, who went to unversities like Newcastle, Hertfordshire, Nottingham, Southampton, Reading, Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool, which all have good law departments.
That said, I think a degree in law is completely unnecessary to be a lawyer. A history degree would have been just as much use to me, and more fun.
Yes but most of those except Hertfordshire are Russell Group and I doubt you would find many QCs or partners in Magic circle law firms went to Hertfordshire
I'll bet that in the real world most employers don't even know what constitutes a 'Russell Group' institution and wouldn't care if they did. Was it even an objective thing anyway or just academics, as is their want, awarding themselves fancy titles?
Most employers don’t - but banks, top accounting, consultancy and law firms, most definitely do.
Perfect candidates for Golgafrincham Ark Fleet Ship B if ever I saw them.
As ever John Harris adds something to the conversation that is worth sitting up and listening to. No one in political journalism does more thinking and scratching around beneath the headlines than this guy imho.
Thread of the evening.
John Harris @johnharris1969 · 4h You won't hear much political sociology in reporting of these election results. But a lot of them tell you about how a large chunk of the English middle class no longer meets old-fashioned stereotypes. (1)
John Harris @johnharris1969 · 4h Replying to @johnharris1969 It's increasingly liberal & worldly, thanks partly to the expansion of Higher Education, but also to how far cities' cultures now stretch well into suburbia and the commuter belt (2)
John Harris @johnharris1969 P.s Blair's expansion of Higher Education May yet prove to be as transformative as Thatcher's sale of council houses
Its a combination of the expansion of graduates with degrees of little use and the massive expansion of debt they're stuck with to get those degrees of little use.
The result is a huge number of new graduates each year who having been to university think they're entitled to a middle class lifestyle but don't have the skillset to achieve it.
Which inevitably leads them to blaming the government, the economic system, society as a whole.
And produces a class of people who require the creation of public sector middle class non-jobs for them to achieve the middle class lifestyle they think they're entitled to.
They can certainly still be middle class even if not necessarily upper middle class or rich enough to be in the top 10% of earners. That would largely have required them to go to Russell Group universities only to study law, medicine, economics or a STEM subject.
What is clear too is the expansion if graduates from about 10% of 25 year olds 40 years ago to about 40% now has also turned Labour from the party of the working class to the party of university graduates.
The Tories can still win graduates with a Cameron like leader but not a Boris type leader, although Boris has far more appeal and still does to the skilled working class voters in particular who have left Labour
That depends upon how you define middle class.
For me if you cannot afford to buy the average home in your area then you're not middle class.
That's a problem the Conservatives will have to deal with in southern England.
And promises about possible future inheritances aren't going to help.
Reading @another_richard and @HYUFD private dialogue is like dipping back into the 1950s and watching a smoke filled talking heads debate on a black and white TV
"Class depends on where one was educated, or what sort of a home one can afford". What a load of old nonsense.
Educate as many as one can to a high standard it drags up society, a nation of fewer hooligans and reprobates. Who cares if all the Baristas have a Sociology degree from the University of Worcester? Good on them.
That's fine as long as you make clear to those getting Sociology degrees from the University of Worcester that all their degree is good for is a life as a Barista. Stop coning people into thinking a degree is a gateway to a better job and a better life whilst at the same time so completely trashing the value of those degrees that in effect you are lying to them and that all you are really giving them is a lifetime of debt and low pay.
No, we must encourage employers to treat all graduates equally. It will be good for both sides and the country. Unless there really is something about an Oxford humanities degree that qualifies one to run a hedge fund or a country.
That is utter rubbish. Why should an employer put any value on a qualification which has no intrinsic value in itself and which does not in any way reflect the abilities of the candidate as a potential employee.
There are plenty of degrees that do have real world value in the specific areas they relate to but the idea that as an employer i should look favourably on someone simply because they have been through the degree factory and stayed out of gainful employment for an extra 3 years is idiotic.
Or put it the other way. Why should I look less favourably on someone who left school at 18 and went out and got a job so that by 21 they have 3 years experience of real employment compared with a graduate? That is what you are actually asking employers to do.
Or why should someone with 2 E grade A levels and straight Cs at GCSE at a new university be put on an equal plane for a job as a lawyer or doctor with someone with straight A*s at A level and GCSE with a degree from Oxbridge or another Russell Group university
In case you hadn't noticed, there are no Cs at GCSE any more.
Also I didn't know anyone with an A* when I was there, let alone straight A*s.
I did know lots of people with 2 E offers.
I had one friend who went to Warwick with a 2 Es offer after failing to get a place at Cambridge. None from my school got the offer of 2 Es for Oxbridge. I'm guessing they had prowess in sport or music?
It was back in the days of fourth-term entrance; you did three entrance exams set by Oxford and if they still liked you after the interview(s) then you got an "unconditional" (in practice 2 E) offer.
It made for an unstressed Y13 after Christmas...
And 2/3 of Oxbridge students got straight A*s anyway
Nope: none of those with a 2 E offer did.
Actually I know someone with an E grade offer who did indeed still get straight A*s.
And the 2 E offer is rarely given to more than a small minority of those given Oxbridge offers. The standard offer is normally at least 2 or 3 A* grades
The entrance exam was phased out in 1997; the A* was introduced in 2010.
E grade offers are still given in a few cases even without the entrance exam. Plus the most popular courses like law now have their own entry tests too as has been mentioned
My son's offer from Cambridge was lower than any other offer he received, but then he had won an international prize from Cambridge in the lower 6th for a paper he had written on game theory and did reach the final stage (all done at Cambridge) on 3 different subjects (Physics, Chemistry, Informatics) to try and get into the British Olympiad team for each of those subjects, so they did sort of know him.
Chip off ...
Sadly not. I haven't a clue what he is talking about most of the time. At least I have a maths background, my wife is even more baffled. All pure maths which loses me after the topic title. Very proud though. Has received lots of scholarships in his time, was in his College University Challenge team, etc, etc. My daughter is of normal intelligence and having someone who achieves so much is a challenge for her, but handled.
It's great so long as it's accompanied by happiness and balance. In my family it's my youngest brother. He's genius level maths. Top 1st at Imperial with hardly any work, then PHD and very young Prof and a specialism in something so outre in the field of topology that he can only talk about it with about a dozen people in the world. But, same time, marriage, hobbies, kids, normal life. And a plain nice guy. He used to look UP to me, can you believe, when I was 25 and he was 15.
Yep, he has that I think. Romanian girl friend who represented Romania in the Olympiad (so someone he can talk to who has some clue about what he is talking about). Both at Cambridge doing their PhDs. She has now been offered a fellowship. They seem happy. Not driven by money. He was headhunted in his 2nd year and then again by another company in his 3rd year both of whom paid him eye watering amounts of money to work over the summer break. He used that to pay off his loan and put some aside and now they live off the meagre amount the Uni pays them and seem happy. Has no desire to go back to the big money sources.
My advice for the Conservatives (other than ditching Boris. I don't share loathing that some here have for the man, but he is plainly corrupt) is:-
1. Encourage lots of house-building. My own view is that owner occupation is absolutely key to future Conservative voting. If that pisses off the NIMBY's, tough.
2. Rebalance tax away from income towards capital. I'm arguing against my own interests, here, as I'll likely inherit a lot of money in the next decade, but my need is less than the needs of my own step-children, and my nephews and nieces. Work has to pay, and it doesn't when people are facing high marginal rates of income tax.
3. Put a few hundred million pounds into fixing the criminal justice system. That does not mean more police. It means providing sufficient resources to enable justice to be delivered swiftly, which is fair to both victims and defendants. This is an area that has been shamefully neglected since 2010.
None of these things guarantee victory, but they are worth doing in themselves, and 1 and 2 will yield dividends for the Conservatives in the future.
The Tory core vote of pensioners is still voting Tory because greenbelt land is not over developed and their capital is not too heavily taxed, see how badly the dementia tax went down.
Start building on greenbelt land as well as brown belt and taxing wealth and inheritance and property more and they will go LD, Independent or RefUK or even Labour and assuming the young still vote Labour and they cannot win back the middle aged they have lost since 2019 the Tories would be left with nobody and facing 1997 style wipeout.
I agree with you on 3 though
The Conservatives won't have a future if they base their electoral strategy on appealing to current pensioners. From the 1920's to the 1980's, the Conservatives understood very well that if they wished to grow their vote, housebuilding was key.
Agreed. Honing their offering to pensioners is a guaranteed slow death for the party. Quite literally.
We have an ageing population -> focusing your appeal on the elderly is probably a smart strategy.
Not if you want to counter an ageing population
Why would the Tories want to counter an ageing population?
They're quite happy that their dominant demographic continues to increase I would think.
Yet another example of the Tories putting their own narrow partisan interests before the interests of the countries.
Never really understand this inclination to play down academic achievement whether GCSEs, A-levels /degrees or pretending universities are all the same . We revere sporting success and rank that , we rank culture and talk about if a play or musical is better than another or if an actor is better than another. Life is about ranking . Nearly everyone achieves something good in life and no reason for anyone to be short changed if they have had genuine academic achievement. If we are talking about job recruitment then of course employers will rank academic prowess especially at entry level .Nothing wrong with that and if candidates who are weaker in exams than another then they have to be better in other areas to overcome that . Just the way of the world. You can get a good job without academic achievement but its harder
As ever John Harris adds something to the conversation that is worth sitting up and listening to. No one in political journalism does more thinking and scratching around beneath the headlines than this guy imho.
Thread of the evening.
John Harris @johnharris1969 · 4h You won't hear much political sociology in reporting of these election results. But a lot of them tell you about how a large chunk of the English middle class no longer meets old-fashioned stereotypes. (1)
John Harris @johnharris1969 · 4h Replying to @johnharris1969 It's increasingly liberal & worldly, thanks partly to the expansion of Higher Education, but also to how far cities' cultures now stretch well into suburbia and the commuter belt (2)
John Harris @johnharris1969 P.s Blair's expansion of Higher Education May yet prove to be as transformative as Thatcher's sale of council houses
Its a combination of the expansion of graduates with degrees of little use and the massive expansion of debt they're stuck with to get those degrees of little use.
The result is a huge number of new graduates each year who having been to university think they're entitled to a middle class lifestyle but don't have the skillset to achieve it.
Which inevitably leads them to blaming the government, the economic system, society as a whole.
And produces a class of people who require the creation of public sector middle class non-jobs for them to achieve the middle class lifestyle they think they're entitled to.
They can certainly still be middle class even if not necessarily upper middle class or rich enough to be in the top 10% of earners. That would largely have required them to go to Russell Group universities only to study law, medicine, economics or a STEM subject.
What is clear too is the expansion if graduates from about 10% of 25 year olds 40 years ago to about 40% now has also turned Labour from the party of the working class to the party of university graduates.
The Tories can still win graduates with a Cameron like leader but not a Boris type leader, although Boris has far more appeal and still does to the skilled working class voters in particular who have left Labour
That depends upon how you define middle class.
For me if you cannot afford to buy the average home in your area then you're not middle class.
That's a problem the Conservatives will have to deal with in southern England.
And promises about possible future inheritances aren't going to help.
Reading @another_richard and @HYUFD private dialogue is like dipping back into the 1950s and watching a smoke filled talking heads debate on a black and white TV
"Class depends on where one was educated, or what sort of a home one can afford". What a load of old nonsense.
Educate as many as one can to a high standard it drags up society, a nation of fewer hooligans and reprobates. Who cares if all the Baristas have a Sociology degree from the University of Worcester? Good on them.
That's fine as long as you make clear to those getting Sociology degrees from the University of Worcester that all their degree is good for is a life as a Barista. Stop coning people into thinking a degree is a gateway to a better job and a better life whilst at the same time so completely trashing the value of those degrees that in effect you are lying to them and that all you are really giving them is a lifetime of debt and low pay.
No, we must encourage employers to treat all graduates equally. It will be good for both sides and the country. Unless there really is something about an Oxford humanities degree that qualifies one to run a hedge fund or a country.
That is utter rubbish. Why should an employer put any value on a qualification which has no intrinsic value in itself and which does not in any way reflect the abilities of the candidate as a potential employee.
There are plenty of degrees that do have real world value in the specific areas they relate to but the idea that as an employer i should look favourably on someone simply because they have been through the degree factory and stayed out of gainful employment for an extra 3 years is idiotic.
Or put it the other way. Why should I look less favourably on someone who left school at 18 and went out and got a job so that by 21 they have 3 years experience of real employment compared with a graduate? That is what you are actually asking employers to do.
Or why should someone with 2 E grade A levels and straight Cs at GCSE at a new university be put on an equal plane for a job as a lawyer or doctor with someone with straight A*s at A level and GCSE with a degree from Oxbridge or another Russell Group university
Not posh enough for some people, I see.
OK if you would like to be operated on or defended in court or have a big commercial deal negotiated by someone with 2 E grades at A level, C grade gcses and a 2.2 from a new university, be my guest
OH, s\o you would rather be dealt with by a posh incompetent than someone who knew the job?!
Clearly you would rather be dealt with by an incompetent full stop, posh or not
You're misreading. I want a competent. I don't give a shite if they are cringing Royalists with a MBE that went to Christchurch at Oxford*.
*Friend of mine did. But, despite that, he's highly competent at his profession.
You just said you would be perfectly happy to be operated on by a surgeon who had got no better than C grade GCSEs, 2 E grade A levels and a 2.2 from a new university.
I didn't. I said "someone who knew the job". THat's my criterion. Not how posh this person is.
Christ, is he really arguing with you that someone’s GCSEs, A-Levels, or degree are relevant to how good they are in their profession if they rise through to a key role?
Of course they are, you don't normally get into Medical School without good GCSEs and A levels for starters and you rarely get top surgeons or lawyers without good degrees from top universities
Sorry to break it to you, but in the real world no one cares. Many of us who enjoyed our lives from 18-21 underperformed at A-Level and in our degrees. It takes a bit longer, but you be a surgeon or a barrister despite that if are good enough. Law is easiest because of conversation courses, but you can persist and become a doctor too.
Exactly. At some point fairly quickly GCSEs and A-levels stop being defining factors in the success, knowledge or ability of an individual. There's a fairly narrow window where they are of any special importance.
You're waiting on two experienced surgeons to operate on you and you have the choice, noone's going "alright, top trumps on your GCSEs for the gig".
“Dodged a bullet there - I nearly let him operate ok me but then I found out he only got a C in GCSE German”.
Latin, old boy, Latin.
Latin is for oiks. It's Greek that matters.
I think that my Standard Grade in Ancient Greek is probably my least useful qualification - the only upside came in later life when I needed a parameter for an economic model I never ran out of letters. I found the Greeks quite annoying to be honest, with their constant philosophising. The Romans might have been thugs but at least they got on with things.
Bit harsh on the Greeks, they did a fair bit of building and fighting along with the philosophy
By no means all their votes transferred to other nationalists. Another example was with a former SDLP independent in East Londonderry, who campaigned almost exclusively on abortion, and most of her votes transferred to the independent Unionist, Claire Sugden. There does seem to be a small but committed section of the population who vote across the divide on the basis of attitudes to abortion.
I see PB favourite Paul Joseph Watson has been caught airing some views that were all the rage in early 1940s Germany.
What has he said? I used to follow him, but don't now. He is always good for a laugh provided you are not easily converted by cults (I did spell that correctly). I got introduced to him by Plato.
SF 18 nc DUP 17 -1 All 11 +4 UUP 5 -1 SDLP 3 -1 oth 2 nc
So Unionist parties 23 seats (including DUP and UUP and 1 for TUV) and Nationalist parties 21 seats combining SF and SDLP.
Almost neck and neck after transfers for largest party now too
Alliance are Progressive, so 32 including SF, SDLP, and Alliance.
I'd accept SDLP as Progressive; SF not really.
They are most certainly left of centre.
Sorta like great-granny's hankies: one for show and one for blow.
SDLP is more genuinely progressive, while SF as it's aimed for mainstream and gone big-time, has become increasingly pragmatic when it comes to ideology and motivation. Whereas it's rhetoric and style has been, and remains, more populist, confrontational, anti-establishment than that of SDLP.
At least how it comes across to me. Personal sympathies being with SDLP from 1970s onward and today.
SF is a fascist party.
No. Good grief, no. Are you daft?
nationalist socialist kill opponents use intimidation to ensure conformity use political office to eliminate opposition
I could call them Baathist if it makes you feel better.
You could have just said "yes"
He’s pointing out why you are wrong
I wouldn’t say Sinn Fein are Fascist. But they are uncomfortably close to it, practically and genetically. They are half a generation from extreme violence
"I wouldn't say Sinn Fein are fascist" is the same thing I'm saying ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
No it’s not. You dismissed the idea SF are fascist as fanciful and absurd. “Good grief, no”
I’m saying it’s not fanciful at all. It’s arguable. Even if, in the end, I don’t quite buy it
Their propensity to violence was still being used by Ireland and the EU to ensure Britain kept the borders open in the last five years. “If the UK doesn’t do this Sinn Fein/IRA will start killing people again”
That’s an aspect of fascism. Illegal threats of violence as a way of advancing your politics
The spectre of an uptick in violence in Northern Ireland is not just from an IRA point of view. Depressing that this needs to be said, but there was violence by both nationalists and loyalists. If we start bandying around the f-word in Northern Ireland, do we attach it to other parties too? We know that the DUP have associations with loyalist paramilitaries too. Are we talking about fascists fighting fascists?
No, it's quite silly to apply that word and Alanbrooke's answer confirmed a veneer-thin idea of what fascism is. Not every thuggish, violent political movement is fascist. I would resile from using that word for any of the main players in Northern Ireland, without implicitly approving of any of them. Many crimes have been committed in the name of being for or against Irish unity, we don't need to butcher the language on that altar too.
- Tories losing 43% of their seats in Wales without a single gain and losing their only council. - Plaid gaining 3 Councils (albeit with small nett seat loss) - First seats for Gwlad & Propel
My faith in the Welsh electorate has been restored.
It does seem to be a particularly poor performance from the Tories in Wales, albeit the base for Wales was a good round of local elections for them in 2017, rather than a mediocre round in 2018.
Worth noting that there are 14 Tory MPs in Wales, half with a majority under 3,000. So it's not decisive for the next elections but it's a good clutch of marginals they can ill-afford to lose.
I am hoping for a complete wipe out....
Unfortunately likely to be 8 less constituencies in Wales at next GE.
My impression is that there's not much toleration for internal dissent within SF. That's enough to make me a little bit uncomfortable about Mary Lou McDonald potentially becoming Taoiseach after the next Irish general election.
LOVE this line of defence: "The voters wanted to give the gov't a kicking. They've done that. Now they'll move on." 🤣
Moylan then calls Labour "the party of Mayfair". That's Mayfair, represented by Tories until quite literally 10 hours ago, for *checks notes* 58 years. ~AA
Brilliant stuff. "The party of Mayfair". I wonder how much of a monopoly Labour now has in London. Goodbye Piccadilly, farewell Leicester Square? I guess the Conservatives won't wake up til they've lose Whitehall and Boris Johnson goes directly to jail. If they decide to keep him, they're taking a chance.
This 'Labour is for the elites because it does well in London' line is a bit of a nonsense. London votes Labour because it's a city of young diverse workers not because it's full of rich people. Some of the poorest locales in the country are in London. And most rich people in London vote Tory. You can see that if you drilldown into the voting figures by neighbourhood.
I would not be so sure post Brexit and this year. Most of the richest areas of London eg Westminster, Wandsworth and Richmond elected Labour or Liberal Democrat councillors while the Tories made gains in some relatively less well off areas of the capital like Enfield.
Outside London the Tories lost wealthy Tunbridge Wells and Wokingham but held Walsall and Harlow
I see PB favourite Paul Joseph Watson has been caught airing some views that were all the rage in early 1940s Germany.
What has he said? I used to follow him, but don't now. He is always good for a laugh provided you are not easily converted by cults (I did spell that correctly). I got introduced to him by Plato.
Scary bloke. Eyes of a suicide bomber if you ask me.
SF 18 nc DUP 17 -1 All 11 +4 UUP 5 -1 SDLP 3 -1 oth 2 nc
So Unionist parties 23 seats (including DUP and UUP and 1 for TUV) and Nationalist parties 21 seats combining SF and SDLP.
Almost neck and neck after transfers for largest party now too
Alliance are Progressive, so 32 including SF, SDLP, and Alliance.
I'd accept SDLP as Progressive; SF not really.
They are most certainly left of centre.
Sorta like great-granny's hankies: one for show and one for blow.
SDLP is more genuinely progressive, while SF as it's aimed for mainstream and gone big-time, has become increasingly pragmatic when it comes to ideology and motivation. Whereas it's rhetoric and style has been, and remains, more populist, confrontational, anti-establishment than that of SDLP.
At least how it comes across to me. Personal sympathies being with SDLP from 1970s onward and today.
SF is a fascist party.
No. Good grief, no. Are you daft?
nationalist socialist kill opponents use intimidation to ensure conformity use political office to eliminate opposition
I could call them Baathist if it makes you feel better.
You could have just said "yes"
He’s pointing out why you are wrong
I wouldn’t say Sinn Fein are Fascist. But they are uncomfortably close to it, practically and genetically. They are half a generation from extreme violence
"I wouldn't say Sinn Fein are fascist" is the same thing I'm saying ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
No it’s not. You dismissed the idea SF are fascist as fanciful and absurd. “Good grief, no”
I’m saying it’s not fanciful at all. It’s arguable. Even if, in the end, I don’t quite buy it
Their propensity to violence was still being used by Ireland and the EU to ensure Britain kept the borders open in the last five years. “If the UK doesn’t do this Sinn Fein/IRA will start killing people again”
That’s an aspect of fascism. Illegal threats of violence as a way of advancing your politics
The spectre of an uptick in violence in Northern Ireland is not just from an IRA point of view. Depressing that this needs to be said, but there was violence by both nationalists and loyalists. If we start bandying around the f-word in Northern Ireland, do we attach it to other parties too? We know that the DUP have associations with loyalist paramilitaries too. Are we talking about fascists fighting fascists?
No, it's quite silly to apply that word and Alanbrooke's answer confirmed a veneer-thin idea of what fascism is. Not every thuggish, violent political movement is fascist. I would resile from using that word for any of the main players in Northern Ireland, without implicitly approving of any of them. Many crimes have been committed in the name of being for or against Irish unity, we don't need to butcher the language on that altar too.
ROFL you really haven't a clue what you're talking about.
I see PB favourite Paul Joseph Watson has been caught airing some views that were all the rage in early 1940s Germany.
What has he said? I used to follow him, but don't now. He is always good for a laugh provided you are not easily converted by cults (I did spell that correctly). I got introduced to him by Plato.
He was caught saying he'd like to wipe Jews off the planet.
His outlook is similar to that of his near namesake, Paul Joseph Goebbels.
I see PB favourite Paul Joseph Watson has been caught airing some views that were all the rage in early 1940s Germany.
What has he said? I used to follow him, but don't now. He is always good for a laugh provided you are not easily converted by cults (I did spell that correctly). I got introduced to him by Plato.
Link to the full recording in the article but the URL covers it
By no means all their votes transferred to other nationalists. Another example was with a former SDLP independent in East Londonderry, who campaigned almost exclusively on abortion, and most of her votes transferred to the independent Unionist, Claire Sugden. There does seem to be a small but committed section of the population who vote across the divide on the basis of attitudes to abortion.
Which in context of Irish past, present AND future is probably a good thing. Same as I feel about Alliance and Greens, for same reason: breaking barriers, chains and snares of sectarianism.
I see PB favourite Paul Joseph Watson has been caught airing some views that were all the rage in early 1940s Germany.
What has he said? I used to follow him, but don't now. He is always good for a laugh provided you are not easily converted by cults (I did spell that correctly). I got introduced to him by Plato.
He was caught saying he'd like to wipe Jews off the planet.
His outlook is similar to that of his near namesake, Paul Joseph Goebbels.
Ah the horse shoe of politics, where the far left and far right are much closer to each other, than to more mainstream and centrist viewpoints.
Casino Royale said: "I'd like to see far more developments of 15-20 homes in the vernacular that complete in 12 months rather than 5 year megaplan Barratt and Persimmon monsters."
What about developments of 1 home that complete in one week? That's not a rhetorical question; that's the solution I favor for much of the United States.
Manufactured homes can be suprisingly affordable. Example: https://www.boxabl.com/ The company is advertising "Accessory Dwelling Units" (stand-alone efficiency apartments, more or less) for about 50K (dollars). They could be paid for with a 30 year mortgage of 250K per month.
Site costs and connections are extra, of course. Delivery is extra too, but these units can be shipped on ordinary trucks, since they unfold. Which means that, if you have made a mistake, or want to upgrade, the units can be removed the same way.
Oh, and Elon Musk is living in one of these ADUs, part time, down in Texas.
A little bit of thought will show you that, using modules, you could expand a small house over time, inexpensively, or assemble a medium-sized house in that same one week.
(My objective is not to advantage one party or another, but to do what's best for the nation, and I think that means -- among other things -- making houses affordable for almost all young families.)
WRT law, one can encounter a lot of very good solicitors and barristers, who went to unversities like Newcastle, Hertfordshire, Nottingham, Southampton, Reading, Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool, which all have good law departments.
That said, I think a degree in law is completely unnecessary to be a lawyer. A history degree would have been just as much use to me, and more fun.
Yes but most of those except Hertfordshire are Russell Group and I doubt you would find many QCs or partners in Magic circle law firms went to Hertfordshire
I'll bet that in the real world most employers don't even know what constitutes a 'Russell Group' institution and wouldn't care if they did. Was it even an objective thing anyway or just academics, as is their want, awarding themselves fancy titles?
It's basically a loose affiliation of Universities that want to work together to protect their interests, incorporated in (I was surprised to learn) 1994.
Their office is 5 minutes walk from me in Cambridge.
I see PB favourite Paul Joseph Watson has been caught airing some views that were all the rage in early 1940s Germany.
What has he said? I used to follow him, but don't now. He is always good for a laugh provided you are not easily converted by cults (I did spell that correctly). I got introduced to him by Plato.
He was caught saying he'd like to wipe Jews off the planet.
His outlook is similar to that of his near namesake, Paul Joseph Goebbels.
Ah the horse shoe of politics, where the far left and far right are much closer to each other, than to more mainstream and centrist viewpoints.
I see PB favourite Paul Joseph Watson has been caught airing some views that were all the rage in early 1940s Germany.
What has he said? I used to follow him, but don't now. He is always good for a laugh provided you are not easily converted by cults (I did spell that correctly). I got introduced to him by Plato.
He was caught saying he'd like to wipe Jews off the planet.
His outlook is similar to that of his near namesake, Paul Joseph Goebbels.
I wonder what prompted it. Vlad not having the best of times against Jewish Zelenskyy?
LOVE this line of defence: "The voters wanted to give the gov't a kicking. They've done that. Now they'll move on." 🤣
Moylan then calls Labour "the party of Mayfair". That's Mayfair, represented by Tories until quite literally 10 hours ago, for *checks notes* 58 years. ~AA
Brilliant stuff. "The party of Mayfair". I wonder how much of a monopoly Labour now has in London. Goodbye Piccadilly, farewell Leicester Square? I guess the Conservatives won't wake up til they've lose Whitehall and Boris Johnson goes directly to jail. If they decide to keep him, they're taking a chance.
This 'Labour is for the elites because it does well in London' line is a bit of a nonsense. London votes Labour because it's a city of young diverse workers not because it's full of rich people. Some of the poorest locales in the country are in London. And most rich people in London vote Tory. You can see that if you drilldown into the voting figures by neighbourhood.
I would not be so sure post Brexit and this year. Most of the richest areas of London eg Westminster, Wandsworth and Richmond elected Labour or Liberal Democrat councillors while the Tories made gains in some relatively less well off areas of the capital like Enfield.
Outside London the Tories lost wealthy Tunbridge Wells and Wokingham but held Walsall and Harlow
The Tories also lost a seat in Hampstead ward, formerly one of their few safe wards in Camden and lost over half their Camden councillors overall
LOVE this line of defence: "The voters wanted to give the gov't a kicking. They've done that. Now they'll move on." 🤣
Moylan then calls Labour "the party of Mayfair". That's Mayfair, represented by Tories until quite literally 10 hours ago, for *checks notes* 58 years. ~AA
Brilliant stuff. "The party of Mayfair". I wonder how much of a monopoly Labour now has in London. Goodbye Piccadilly, farewell Leicester Square? I guess the Conservatives won't wake up til they've lose Whitehall and Boris Johnson goes directly to jail. If they decide to keep him, they're taking a chance.
This 'Labour is for the elites because it does well in London' line is a bit of a nonsense. London votes Labour because it's a city of young diverse workers not because it's full of rich people. Some of the poorest locales in the country are in London. And most rich people in London vote Tory. You can see that if you drilldown into the voting figures by neighbourhood.
I would not be so sure post Brexit and this year. Most of the richest areas of London eg Westminster, Wandsworth and Richmond elected Labour or Liberal Democrat councillors while the Tories made gains in some relatively less well off areas of the capital like Enfield.
Outside London the Tories lost wealthy Tunbridge Wells and Wokingham but held Walsall and Harlow
The Tories also lost Hampstead ward to the LDs, formerly one of their few wards in Camden
But, it was in Southgate, and well-heeled parts of Enfield North, that the Conservatives did really well. The local council is definitely unpopular, however. In a better year, the Conservatives would likely have retaken Enfield.
Likewise, Harrow contains a lot of very wealthy areas, such as Stanmore, Pinner, Hatch End, Belmont, Canons Park, and Kenton.
I see PB favourite Paul Joseph Watson has been caught airing some views that were all the rage in early 1940s Germany.
What has he said? I used to follow him, but don't now. He is always good for a laugh provided you are not easily converted by cults (I did spell that correctly). I got introduced to him by Plato.
Link to the full recording in the article but the URL covers it
It was only time before he was going to get caught out I guess. Hopefully this will be the end of him. I am surprised there hasn't been anything like this on Trump. The only thing I can think of is the 'pussy' recording and that isn't remotely as bad, although still pretty awful.
Yep, it's a fair criticism (of my definition) that 'class = money' means the word isn't bringing anything to the table that isn't already there with 'rich' vs 'poor'. But this is also the point and the beauty of it.
I would say that the word *is* bringing more to the table (inevitably, because your definition is not the common one), and therefore your insistence on using it works against you by making you spend time pushing the extra stuff back off the table again.
"Imperial College announces that at least 80% of their intake this year will be drawn from kids whose parents don't have a cafetiere."
I don't think so.
...and it's exactly the ridiculousness of a policy of that sort that should be cueing you in to the idea that "working class" is not in fact the term you want to be using for policy-making and political-focus purposes.
There isn't a common definition. It's all over the place and much of it is subjective and hazy. So let's ditch all that - since it's useless for policy making - and define working class as being financially not comfortable. Easy to put numbers on it viz income and assets. Sorted. You have a genuinely useful term (for policy making) and you avoid the very absurdity you point out (and indeed I was illustrating).
So, our example, uni places -
Durham announces 50% of their intake will be working class. This defined as applicants whose parents are financially stressed (as per our definition). Now, agree or not with this policy (which is by the by) the point is it's meaningful and practical. This isn't the case otherwise. The various other wider definitions aren't workable in this sense. They can't be used for policy. Mine can. It's only mine that can.
Of course if one just wants to have a conversation about class - rather than develop policy pertaining to it - the wider aspects are both interesting and relevant. I'm not disagreeing with this. Not everything has to be about policy. But OTOH if there's *never* a link from conversation to policy, what's the actual point of it all?
The final counts in this race were of some interest. When counting stopped last night after count #6, the SDLP candidate was 71 votes ahead of the second Alliance runner, the first having been elected on her first preferences, with 204 surplus.
This morning, after redistributing surplus of 2nd DUPer elected last night in count #7, the SDLPer was just 46 ahead of Alliance. BUT when the 204 surplus from the top Alliance candidate was redistributed in count #8, transfers put the second Alliancer ahead of SDLP by 40 votes.
Thus SDLP hopeful was eliminated, and in count #9 these transfers elected the Alliance to the final seat, by 250 votes over TUV.
Incidentally, the number of valid ballot that were NOT transferable through the final count was less than 3% of the total. That is, were cast (at some point) either for one of the five elected OR the candidate who just lost out in the end.
I mentioned this on a previous thread but Aston Villa's 5 remaining premier league games include Liverpool, Manchester City and Burnley twice. So Steven Gerrard could try and do his old club a favour on the last day of the season as well as helping Everton to stay up.
Surely it's in his power to do Liverpool a favour when the teams play each other, but I'm assuming he's trying his hardest to win most games - would be odd to think he's saving his best for the last day of the season.
Gerrard and indeed Liverpool FC always strike me as having footballing integrity and doubt either would want Liverpool to win unfairly. Gerrard values loyalty as well and his loyalty will be with AV whilst employed by them
Currently 2-0 up against Burnley. I'm sure Everton fans will be grateful.
I see PB favourite Paul Joseph Watson has been caught airing some views that were all the rage in early 1940s Germany.
What has he said? I used to follow him, but don't now. He is always good for a laugh provided you are not easily converted by cults (I did spell that correctly). I got introduced to him by Plato.
He was caught saying he'd like to wipe Jews off the planet.
His outlook is similar to that of his near namesake, Paul Joseph Goebbels.
I wonder what prompted it. Vlad not having the best of times against Jewish Zelenskyy?
🟨 SNP 25.9% (19 seats, 30.2% of seats) 🟧 Lib Dem 20.5% (12 seats, 19%) 🟥 Labour 19.1% (13 seats, 20.6%) 🟦 Conservative 17.5% (9 seats, 14.3%) 🟩 Green 14.2% (10 seats, 19%) ⬛ Other 1.9% (0 seats) ⬜ Independents 0.9% (0)
I believe this is a partial glimpse into the transfers. Don't read too much into the overrepresentation of the SNP, that can come about from being the largest party. Look instead down the list at the Conservatives and Greens. I have a strong suspicion that we're seeing transfers across the union/indy divide more than previously, and unionist tactical voting reduced. Simply: Labour and Lib Dems favouring Greens more and Conservative less than last time.
Caveat: still just a hunch; I haven't dug into the data properly and this is just one council.
There is no question that the Tories were a lot less transfer friendly this time than in the last several elections. Anger at Boris, the fading memory of Ruth, the inconsistencies of Ross and a budget that in the face of a cost of living crisis did not seem to give a damn about the least well off all sickened people. The Tory brand has been retoxified and the price for that in Scotland with its STV and other proportional systems is going to be particularly high.
Are you sure? I'd arsgue that the Scottish setup is actually quite Tory-friendly; the Tories have clung on in ways which would be impossible in full FPTP systems, even to the extent of having senior MSPs totally dependent on the list system for being there in Holyrood at all. Just look at Ms-as-was Davidson and Prof Tomkins - only some of the time did she, at least, have a FPTP seat.
Quite agree, devolution, Holyrood and various associated voting systems have been the making of SCons, more so than the Ruth effect or whatever. Their negativity towards all or some of these things strikes me as most ungrateful.
Without STV this lad wouldn't have been elected in the first place to one of the poorest wards in Glasgow, let alone reelected when his colleagues were being flushed down the toilet all over Scotland.
He doesn't look like someone with a burning desire to improve the lot of the working class. Not to me he doesn't anyway.
Screw the working class! Wish I looked that good in a suit!! AND had that much hair to muck about with!!!
Perhaps he should inquire the name of Rishi Sunak's tailor next time they bump into one another?
On that subject - tailoring - I'm about to embark on getting a bespoke suit for the 1st time ever. I'll be going for a snug fit (like Rishi) but not the supershort trousers. Don't think I could carry that off the way he does.
I see PB favourite Paul Joseph Watson has been caught airing some views that were all the rage in early 1940s Germany.
What has he said? I used to follow him, but don't now. He is always good for a laugh provided you are not easily converted by cults (I did spell that correctly). I got introduced to him by Plato.
He was caught saying he'd like to wipe Jews off the planet.
His outlook is similar to that of his near namesake, Paul Joseph Goebbels.
I wonder what prompted it. Vlad not having the best of times against Jewish Zelenskyy?
🟨 SNP 25.9% (19 seats, 30.2% of seats) 🟧 Lib Dem 20.5% (12 seats, 19%) 🟥 Labour 19.1% (13 seats, 20.6%) 🟦 Conservative 17.5% (9 seats, 14.3%) 🟩 Green 14.2% (10 seats, 19%) ⬛ Other 1.9% (0 seats) ⬜ Independents 0.9% (0)
I believe this is a partial glimpse into the transfers. Don't read too much into the overrepresentation of the SNP, that can come about from being the largest party. Look instead down the list at the Conservatives and Greens. I have a strong suspicion that we're seeing transfers across the union/indy divide more than previously, and unionist tactical voting reduced. Simply: Labour and Lib Dems favouring Greens more and Conservative less than last time.
Caveat: still just a hunch; I haven't dug into the data properly and this is just one council.
There is no question that the Tories were a lot less transfer friendly this time than in the last several elections. Anger at Boris, the fading memory of Ruth, the inconsistencies of Ross and a budget that in the face of a cost of living crisis did not seem to give a damn about the least well off all sickened people. The Tory brand has been retoxified and the price for that in Scotland with its STV and other proportional systems is going to be particularly high.
Are you sure? I'd arsgue that the Scottish setup is actually quite Tory-friendly; the Tories have clung on in ways which would be impossible in full FPTP systems, even to the extent of having senior MSPs totally dependent on the list system for being there in Holyrood at all. Just look at Ms-as-was Davidson and Prof Tomkins - only some of the time did she, at least, have a FPTP seat.
Quite agree, devolution, Holyrood and various associated voting systems have been the making of SCons, more so than the Ruth effect or whatever. Their negativity towards all or some of these things strikes me as most ungrateful.
Without STV this lad wouldn't have been elected in the first place to one of the poorest wards in Glasgow, let alone reelected when his colleagues were being flushed down the toilet all over Scotland.
He doesn't look like someone with a burning desire to improve the lot of the working class. Not to me he doesn't anyway.
Screw the working class! Wish I looked that good in a suit!! AND had that much hair to muck about with!!!
Perhaps he should inquire the name of Rishi Sunak's tailor next time they bump into one another?
On that subject - tailoring - I'm about to embark on getting a bespoke suit for the 1st time ever. I'll be going for a snug fit (like Rishi) but not the supershort trousers. Don't think I could carry that off the way he does.
I never noticed. Are you going for empire-builder length?
Serious question about the STV process - if party A has 12,000 votes against a quota of 10,000 votes - leaving 2,000 votes to be redistributed - which 2,000 are selected? Is it proportionate to the 12,000 or is it an arbitrary 2,000 ??
Serious question about the STV process - if party A has 12,000 votes against a quota of 10,000 votes - leaving 2,000 votes to be redistributed - which 2,000 are selected? Is it proportionate to the 12,000 or is it an arbitrary 2,000 ??
All votes are transferred pro-rata. So five sixths of the vote stays with the first preference candidate and one sixth is transferred to the next valid choice.
It’s why the quickest way to count is to enter the ballots into a computer (or have them scanned), since counting by hand involves a lot of fiddling about with and separate bundling of fractional votes.
Serious question about the STV process - if party A has 12,000 votes against a quota of 10,000 votes - leaving 2,000 votes to be redistributed - which 2,000 are selected? Is it proportionate to the 12,000 or is it an arbitrary 2,000 ??
It's proportionate. So if say, the DUP top candidate gets 12,000 votes, and his second preferences are another DUP, 9,000, UUP, 1,800, Others 1,200, the 2,000 surplus goes DUP 1,500, UUP 300, Others 200.
I see PB favourite Paul Joseph Watson has been caught airing some views that were all the rage in early 1940s Germany.
What has he said? I used to follow him, but don't now. He is always good for a laugh provided you are not easily converted by cults (I did spell that correctly). I got introduced to him by Plato.
He was caught saying he'd like to wipe Jews off the planet.
His outlook is similar to that of his near namesake, Paul Joseph Goebbels.
Ah the horse shoe of politics, where the far left and far right are much closer to each other, than to more mainstream and centrist viewpoints.
I understand why people like this view, but it has a troubling lack of traction in reality. When I put my ideological hat on, I see the horseshoe very clearly. I'm a centrist and I see overlaps between people on the extremes in both directions, but when you study history you get a very different picture. To dive straight into the the headline-grabbing example, Fascism and Communism, you see two ideologies that were bitterly and violently in opposition. I know some people like to fall back on "sibling rivalry" as an explanation for why they went around murdering each other and ended up in a war of annihilation, but that doesn't stack up. To take the views of the proponents of both at face value is to see a an extremely bitter enmity on the most fundamental level. They very thing that makes humans more than just an animal, the way we organise ourselves into groups with a common agenda, are completely different under both ideologies. The unrelenting horizontality of Communism, where even the concept of private property is sacrificed under the guise of freeing the worker from exploitative relations of production. And with fascism, the unyielding verticality. The racial tribe is a unit that must work under the direction of a quasi-religious leader, the total submission of the individual to that authority, the preservation of some mythical purity. To put it another way, the denial of difference versus the paranoid fear of those who are different.
These are fundamentally different world views.
Part of this is muddied by the practice of authoritarianism. It's easy to see the similarity when you only think of the repressive, murderous nature of governments that are riddled with these toxic ideologies. The horrifying violence that came with both is in some ways intrinsic to them because both Communism and Fascism are unnatural and they need violence to preserve themselves. But the key point here is that authoritarianism is much wider than that again. Non-Communist non-Fascist regimes have also been that way. Indeed, probably a majority of states across the sweep of human history have been authoritarian in nature, the horror only mitigated by the level of technological advancement limiting how far and fast a psychopathic leader can stamp his authority on a people.
Democracy is right because it is fundamentally more peaceful. Power is vested in the people and the government serves at their pleasure. Communism and Fascism occupy the space outside that circle, but so does everything else. Is there really a case for saying they are similar in many other ways? I don't see it. The horseshoe doesn't work as a model once you have taken account of democracy and non-democracy. Within that non-democratic space are some pretty wild creatures, and Communism and Fascism are two big, nasty, and quite separate beasts, not the near neighbours some people want to imagine them to be.
I see PB favourite Paul Joseph Watson has been caught airing some views that were all the rage in early 1940s Germany.
What has he said? I used to follow him, but don't now. He is always good for a laugh provided you are not easily converted by cults (I did spell that correctly). I got introduced to him by Plato.
He was caught saying he'd like to wipe Jews off the planet.
His outlook is similar to that of his near namesake, Paul Joseph Goebbels.
I wonder what prompted it. Vlad not having the best of times against Jewish Zelenskyy?
I see PB favourite Paul Joseph Watson has been caught airing some views that were all the rage in early 1940s Germany.
What has he said? I used to follow him, but don't now. He is always good for a laugh provided you are not easily converted by cults (I did spell that correctly). I got introduced to him by Plato.
He was caught saying he'd like to wipe Jews off the planet.
His outlook is similar to that of his near namesake, Paul Joseph Goebbels.
I wonder what prompted it. Vlad not having the best of times against Jewish Zelenskyy?
Casino Royale said: "I'd like to see far more developments of 15-20 homes in the vernacular that complete in 12 months rather than 5 year megaplan Barratt and Persimmon monsters."
What about developments of 1 home that complete in one week? That's not a rhetorical question; that's the solution I favor for much of the United States.
Manufactured homes can be suprisingly affordable. Example: https://www.boxabl.com/ The company is advertising "Accessory Dwelling Units" (stand-alone efficiency apartments, more or less) for about 50K (dollars). They could be paid for with a 30 year mortgage of 250K per month.
Site costs and connections are extra, of course. Delivery is extra too, but these units can be shipped on ordinary trucks, since they unfold. Which means that, if you have made a mistake, or want to upgrade, the units can be removed the same way.
Oh, and Elon Musk is living in one of these ADUs, part time, down in Texas.
A little bit of thought will show you that, using modules, you could expand a small house over time, inexpensively, or assemble a medium-sized house in that same one week.
(My objective is not to advantage one party or another, but to do what's best for the nation, and I think that means -- among other things -- making houses affordable for almost all young families.)
The housing shortage isn’t down to problems with actually building houses. It is about a shortage of sites where you can build houses.
As ever John Harris adds something to the conversation that is worth sitting up and listening to. No one in political journalism does more thinking and scratching around beneath the headlines than this guy imho.
Thread of the evening.
John Harris @johnharris1969 · 4h You won't hear much political sociology in reporting of these election results. But a lot of them tell you about how a large chunk of the English middle class no longer meets old-fashioned stereotypes. (1)
John Harris @johnharris1969 · 4h Replying to @johnharris1969 It's increasingly liberal & worldly, thanks partly to the expansion of Higher Education, but also to how far cities' cultures now stretch well into suburbia and the commuter belt (2)
John Harris @johnharris1969 P.s Blair's expansion of Higher Education May yet prove to be as transformative as Thatcher's sale of council houses
Its a combination of the expansion of graduates with degrees of little use and the massive expansion of debt they're stuck with to get those degrees of little use.
The result is a huge number of new graduates each year who having been to university think they're entitled to a middle class lifestyle but don't have the skillset to achieve it.
Which inevitably leads them to blaming the government, the economic system, society as a whole.
And produces a class of people who require the creation of public sector middle class non-jobs for them to achieve the middle class lifestyle they think they're entitled to.
They can certainly still be middle class even if not necessarily upper middle class or rich enough to be in the top 10% of earners. That would largely have required them to go to Russell Group universities only to study law, medicine, economics or a STEM subject.
What is clear too is the expansion if graduates from about 10% of 25 year olds 40 years ago to about 40% now has also turned Labour from the party of the working class to the party of university graduates.
The Tories can still win graduates with a Cameron like leader but not a Boris type leader, although Boris has far more appeal and still does to the skilled working class voters in particular who have left Labour
That depends upon how you define middle class.
For me if you cannot afford to buy the average home in your area then you're not middle class.
That's a problem the Conservatives will have to deal with in southern England.
And promises about possible future inheritances aren't going to help.
Reading @another_richard and @HYUFD private dialogue is like dipping back into the 1950s and watching a smoke filled talking heads debate on a black and white TV
"Class depends on where one was educated, or what sort of a home one can afford". What a load of old nonsense.
Educate as many as one can to a high standard it drags up society, a nation of fewer hooligans and reprobates. Who cares if all the Baristas have a Sociology degree from the University of Worcester? Good on them.
That's fine as long as you make clear to those getting Sociology degrees from the University of Worcester that all their degree is good for is a life as a Barista. Stop coning people into thinking a degree is a gateway to a better job and a better life whilst at the same time so completely trashing the value of those degrees that in effect you are lying to them and that all you are really giving them is a lifetime of debt and low pay.
No, we must encourage employers to treat all graduates equally. It will be good for both sides and the country. Unless there really is something about an Oxford humanities degree that qualifies one to run a hedge fund or a country.
That is utter rubbish. Why should an employer put any value on a qualification which has no intrinsic value in itself and which does not in any way reflect the abilities of the candidate as a potential employee.
There are plenty of degrees that do have real world value in the specific areas they relate to but the idea that as an employer i should look favourably on someone simply because they have been through the degree factory and stayed out of gainful employment for an extra 3 years is idiotic.
Or put it the other way. Why should I look less favourably on someone who left school at 18 and went out and got a job so that by 21 they have 3 years experience of real employment compared with a graduate? That is what you are actually asking employers to do.
Or why should someone with 2 E grade A levels and straight Cs at GCSE at a new university be put on an equal plane for a job as a lawyer or doctor with someone with straight A*s at A level and GCSE with a degree from Oxbridge or another Russell Group university
In case you hadn't noticed, there are no Cs at GCSE any more.
Also I didn't know anyone with an A* when I was there, let alone straight A*s.
I did know lots of people with 2 E offers.
I had one friend who went to Warwick with a 2 Es offer after failing to get a place at Cambridge. None from my school got the offer of 2 Es for Oxbridge. I'm guessing they had prowess in sport or music?
It was back in the days of fourth-term entrance; you did three entrance exams set by Oxford and if they still liked you after the interview(s) then you got an "unconditional" (in practice 2 E) offer.
It made for an unstressed Y13 after Christmas...
And 2/3 of Oxbridge students got straight A*s anyway
Nope: none of those with a 2 E offer did.
Actually I know someone with an E grade offer who did indeed still get straight A*s.
And the 2 E offer is rarely given to more than a small minority of those given Oxbridge offers. The standard offer is normally at least 2 or 3 A* grades
The entrance exam was phased out in 1997; the A* was introduced in 2010.
E grade offers are still given in a few cases even without the entrance exam. Plus the most popular courses like law now have their own entry tests too as has been mentioned
My son's offer from Cambridge was lower than any other offer he received, but then he had won an international prize from Cambridge in the lower 6th for a paper he had written on game theory and did reach the final stage (all done at Cambridge) on 3 different subjects (Physics, Chemistry, Informatics) to try and get into the British Olympiad team for each of those subjects, so they did sort of know him.
Chip off ...
Sadly not. I haven't a clue what he is talking about most of the time. At least I have a maths background, my wife is even more baffled. All pure maths which loses me after the topic title. Very proud though. Has received lots of scholarships in his time, was in his College University Challenge team, etc, etc. My daughter is of normal intelligence and having someone who achieves so much is a challenge for her, but handled.
It's great so long as it's accompanied by happiness and balance. In my family it's my youngest brother. He's genius level maths. Top 1st at Imperial with hardly any work, then PHD and very young Prof and a specialism in something so outre in the field of topology that he can only talk about it with about a dozen people in the world. But, same time, marriage, hobbies, kids, normal life. And a plain nice guy. He used to look UP to me, can you believe, when I was 25 and he was 15.
Yep, he has that I think. Romanian girl friend who represented Romania in the Olympiad (so someone he can talk to who has some clue about what he is talking about). Both at Cambridge doing their PhDs. She has now been offered a fellowship. They seem happy. Not driven by money. He was headhunted in his 2nd year and then again by another company in his 3rd year both of whom paid him eye watering amounts of money to work over the summer break. He used that to pay off his loan and put some aside and now they live off the meagre amount the Uni pays them and seem happy. Has no desire to go back to the big money sources.
Great to hear. And shades of my brother again. He was offered mega money to switch from academia to the City but didn't do so. Good decision imo. Leave that to grubbers like me.
Serious question about the STV process - if party A has 12,000 votes against a quota of 10,000 votes - leaving 2,000 votes to be redistributed - which 2,000 are selected? Is it proportionate to the 12,000 or is it an arbitrary 2,000 ??
It's proportionate. So if say, the DUP top candidate gets 12,000 votes, and his second preferences are another DUP, 9,000, UUP, 1,800, Others 1,200, the 2,000 surplus goes DUP 1,500, UUP 300, Others 200.
Thanks. I was puzzled. Seems to be crying out for automated counting .....
Serious question about the STV process - if party A has 12,000 votes against a quota of 10,000 votes - leaving 2,000 votes to be redistributed - which 2,000 are selected? Is it proportionate to the 12,000 or is it an arbitrary 2,000 ??
All of them, divide by 6 in this case I think. So the the all 12000 votes are reallocated, multiplied by the 2000 that are excess, divided by the 12000 original 1st choices.
So if the second choices are 3000 for the Silly Party and 9000 for the Sensible Party, you end up with 500 transfers to Silly and 1500 to Sensible = 2000 transfers
WRT law, one can encounter a lot of very good solicitors and barristers, who went to unversities like Newcastle, Hertfordshire, Nottingham, Southampton, Reading, Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool, which all have good law departments.
That said, I think a degree in law is completely unnecessary to be a lawyer. A history degree would have been just as much use to me, and more fun.
Yes but most of those except Hertfordshire are Russell Group and I doubt you would find many QCs or partners in Magic circle law firms went to Hertfordshire
I'll bet that in the real world most employers don't even know what constitutes a 'Russell Group' institution and wouldn't care if they did. Was it even an objective thing anyway or just academics, as is their want, awarding themselves fancy titles?
Nothing wrong in having "league tables " for universities - its a competitive world .
Russel group does not fully correlate to league tables. See my uni, Bath, for evidence.
Serious question about the STV process - if party A has 12,000 votes against a quota of 10,000 votes - leaving 2,000 votes to be redistributed - which 2,000 are selected? Is it proportionate to the 12,000 or is it an arbitrary 2,000 ??
It's proportionate. So if say, the DUP top candidate gets 12,000 votes, and his second preferences are another DUP, 9,000, UUP, 1,800, Others 1,200, the 2,000 surplus goes DUP 1,500, UUP 300, Others 200.
Thanks. I was puzzled. Seems to be crying out for automated counting .....
Serious question about the STV process - if party A has 12,000 votes against a quota of 10,000 votes - leaving 2,000 votes to be redistributed - which 2,000 are selected? Is it proportionate to the 12,000 or is it an arbitrary 2,000 ??
It's proportionate. So if say, the DUP top candidate gets 12,000 votes, and his second preferences are another DUP, 9,000, UUP, 1,800, Others 1,200, the 2,000 surplus goes DUP 1,500, UUP 300, Others 200.
Thanks. I was puzzled. Seems to be crying out for automated counting .....
Sam Greene @samagreene · 13h While the Russian ruble is up 12% vs the dollar since the start of the war, the Belarusian ruble is down 24% vs USD and an even more massive 32% vs the Russian currency. The IMF is projecting the Belarusian economy to contract by 6.4% this year.
Sam Greene @samagreene · 13h In other words, Russia is sustaining itself by impoverishing its closest allies. How sustainable is that?
LOVE this line of defence: "The voters wanted to give the gov't a kicking. They've done that. Now they'll move on." 🤣
Moylan then calls Labour "the party of Mayfair". That's Mayfair, represented by Tories until quite literally 10 hours ago, for *checks notes* 58 years. ~AA
Brilliant stuff. "The party of Mayfair". I wonder how much of a monopoly Labour now has in London. Goodbye Piccadilly, farewell Leicester Square? I guess the Conservatives won't wake up til they've lose Whitehall and Boris Johnson goes directly to jail. If they decide to keep him, they're taking a chance.
This 'Labour is for the elites because it does well in London' line is a bit of a nonsense. London votes Labour because it's a city of young diverse workers not because it's full of rich people. Some of the poorest locales in the country are in London. And most rich people in London vote Tory. You can see that if you drilldown into the voting figures by neighbourhood.
Yes, exactly. This whole "elites" bollocks is naked populism, aimed squarely at people who grow up with a profound ignorance of what London and Londoners are. Just pouring oil on the smouldering anti-London resentment is a weird thing for the Conservatives to be doing. But still, "one nation Tory" and all that bollocks.
I suppose it's not weird electorally. They've written us off for seats and are using us as a bogey to keep that Brexit voting coalition riled up and in line. People v Parliament with strike Parliament and insert London.
I see PB favourite Paul Joseph Watson has been caught airing some views that were all the rage in early 1940s Germany.
What has he said? I used to follow him, but don't now. He is always good for a laugh provided you are not easily converted by cults (I did spell that correctly). I got introduced to him by Plato.
He was caught saying he'd like to wipe Jews off the planet.
His outlook is similar to that of his near namesake, Paul Joseph Goebbels.
I wonder what prompted it. Vlad not having the best of times against Jewish Zelenskyy?
You know who else had Jewish blood?
Reinhard Heydrich's case proves the opposite of what Lavrov was trying to prove. That even the hint of Jewishness instigated by one's political rivals had the potential to discredit you as a Nazi.
I see PB favourite Paul Joseph Watson has been caught airing some views that were all the rage in early 1940s Germany.
What has he said? I used to follow him, but don't now. He is always good for a laugh provided you are not easily converted by cults (I did spell that correctly). I got introduced to him by Plato.
Link to the full recording in the article but the URL covers it
It was only time before he was going to get caught out I guess. Hopefully this will be the end of him. I am surprised there hasn't been anything like this on Trump. The only thing I can think of is the 'pussy' recording and that isn't remotely as bad, although still pretty awful.
I suspect Trump is a lot more savvy about the dangers of hidden microphones. For most of his long life people have been trying to dig the dirt on him.
LOVE this line of defence: "The voters wanted to give the gov't a kicking. They've done that. Now they'll move on." 🤣
Moylan then calls Labour "the party of Mayfair". That's Mayfair, represented by Tories until quite literally 10 hours ago, for *checks notes* 58 years. ~AA
Brilliant stuff. "The party of Mayfair". I wonder how much of a monopoly Labour now has in London. Goodbye Piccadilly, farewell Leicester Square? I guess the Conservatives won't wake up til they've lose Whitehall and Boris Johnson goes directly to jail. If they decide to keep him, they're taking a chance.
This 'Labour is for the elites because it does well in London' line is a bit of a nonsense. London votes Labour because it's a city of young diverse workers not because it's full of rich people. Some of the poorest locales in the country are in London. And most rich people in London vote Tory. You can see that if you drilldown into the voting figures by neighbourhood.
I would not be so sure post Brexit and this year. Most of the richest areas of London eg Westminster, Wandsworth and Richmond elected Labour or Liberal Democrat councillors while the Tories made gains in some relatively less well off areas of the capital like Enfield.
Outside London the Tories lost wealthy Tunbridge Wells and Wokingham but held Walsall and Harlow
Yes, Brexit has done some odd things to voting habits, but still as a general rule truly wealthy people vote Tory and London's not an exception to that.
I see PB favourite Paul Joseph Watson has been caught airing some views that were all the rage in early 1940s Germany.
What has he said? I used to follow him, but don't now. He is always good for a laugh provided you are not easily converted by cults (I did spell that correctly). I got introduced to him by Plato.
He was caught saying he'd like to wipe Jews off the planet.
His outlook is similar to that of his near namesake, Paul Joseph Goebbels.
Ah the horse shoe of politics, where the far left and far right are much closer to each other, than to more mainstream and centrist viewpoints.
I understand why people like this view, but it has a troubling lack of traction in reality. When I put my ideological hat on, I see the horseshoe very clearly. I'm a centrist and I see overlaps between people on the extremes in both directions, but when you study history you get a very different picture. To dive straight into the the headline-grabbing example, Fascism and Communism, you see two ideologies that were bitterly and violently in opposition. I know some people like to fall back on "sibling rivalry" as an explanation for why they went around murdering each other and ended up in a war of annihilation, but that doesn't stack up. To take the views of the proponents of both at face value is to see a an extremely bitter enmity on the most fundamental level. They very thing that makes humans more than just an animal, the way we organise ourselves into groups with a common agenda, are completely different under both ideologies. The unrelenting horizontality of Communism, where even the concept of private property is sacrificed under the guise of freeing the worker from exploitative relations of production. And with fascism, the unyielding verticality. The racial tribe is a unit that must work under the direction of a quasi-religious leader, the total submission of the individual to that authority, the preservation of some mythical purity. To put it another way, the denial of difference versus the paranoid fear of those who are different.
These are fundamentally different world views.
Part of this is muddied by the practice of authoritarianism. It's easy to see the similarity when you only think of the repressive, murderous nature of governments that are riddled with these toxic ideologies. The horrifying violence that came with both is in some ways intrinsic to them because both Communism and Fascism are unnatural and they need violence to preserve themselves. But the key point here is that authoritarianism is much wider than that again. Non-Communist non-Fascist regimes have also been that way. Indeed, probably a majority of states across the sweep of human history have been authoritarian in nature, the horror only mitigated by the level of technological advancement limiting how far and fast a psychopathic leader can stamp his authority on a people.
Democracy is right because it is fundamentally more peaceful. Power is vested in the people and the government serves at their pleasure. Communism and Fascism occupy the space outside that circle, but so does everything else. Is there really a case for saying they are similar in many other ways? I don't see it. The horseshoe doesn't work as a model once you have taken account of democracy and non-democracy. Within that non-democratic space are some pretty wild creatures, and Communism and Fascism are two big, nasty, and quite separate beasts, not the near neighbours some people want to imagine them to be.
Communists and fascists hate each other, of course, but they hate more moderate members of their own "side" far more. On a number of issues, you'll find a kind of Red/Brown alliance, at least online. Whereas, overall, 80% of left wing voters supported Macron to 20% in round 2, those who self-identified as far left divided almost evenly between the two.
This thread by Nathan Ruser on twitter show how much land the Ukrainians have taken from Russia to the - North and North East of Kharkiv, threatening to bring the main lines of resupply from Russia into within artillery range; and - to the West of Iziyum. NASA heat maps show Ukrainian artillery hits within 600m of the town.
Serious question about the STV process - if party A has 12,000 votes against a quota of 10,000 votes - leaving 2,000 votes to be redistributed - which 2,000 are selected? Is it proportionate to the 12,000 or is it an arbitrary 2,000 ??
All of them, divide by 6 in this case I think. So the the all 12000 votes are reallocated, multiplied by the 2000 that are excess, divided by the 12000 original 1st choices.
So if the second choices are 3000 for the Silly Party and 9000 for the Sensible Party, you end up with 500 transfers to Silly and 1500 to Sensible = 2000 transfers
This is only true in some systems, usually with electronic voting and/or small constituencies like student union elections, because although very fair, it becomes quite impractical to multiply a single vote by many fractional coefficients, by hand, in an election with 10,000+ ballot papers.
In paper elections, most jurisdictions count out the second preferences and take a pro-rata share of the papers that total up to the excess over quota. Some jurisdictions will _also_ try to randomise the papers that get transferred so they don't disproportionately come from certain ballot boxes (which would perhaps skew later transfers, e.g. geographically).
Final thing to mention: if this candidate was elected later on, by transfers and not just first preferences, typically systems will say that only the last bundle of transfers get sent onward, and not the votes the successful candidate won earlier in the process. So you will sometimes see what looks like weird behaviour, that is really arising because e.g. the Tory party "surplus" is actually coming from a Plaid Cymru transfer.
Sam Greene @samagreene · 13h While the Russian ruble is up 12% vs the dollar since the start of the war, the Belarusian ruble is down 24% vs USD and an even more massive 32% vs the Russian currency. The IMF is projecting the Belarusian economy to contract by 6.4% this year.
Sam Greene @samagreene · 13h In other words, Russia is sustaining itself by impoverishing its closest allies. How sustainable is that?
How long can Lukashenko hold on to power with the war ruining his economy?
The exchange rate between the ruble and the dollar is a very red herring, because it’s almost impossible to buy dollars with rubles at the moment - so the trade is only one way, selling dollars.
The minute the markets re-open properly, the ruble will get smashed to bits again, as it was in the first days of the war.
LOVE this line of defence: "The voters wanted to give the gov't a kicking. They've done that. Now they'll move on." 🤣
Moylan then calls Labour "the party of Mayfair". That's Mayfair, represented by Tories until quite literally 10 hours ago, for *checks notes* 58 years. ~AA
Brilliant stuff. "The party of Mayfair". I wonder how much of a monopoly Labour now has in London. Goodbye Piccadilly, farewell Leicester Square? I guess the Conservatives won't wake up til they've lose Whitehall and Boris Johnson goes directly to jail. If they decide to keep him, they're taking a chance.
This 'Labour is for the elites because it does well in London' line is a bit of a nonsense. London votes Labour because it's a city of young diverse workers not because it's full of rich people. Some of the poorest locales in the country are in London. And most rich people in London vote Tory. You can see that if you drilldown into the voting figures by neighbourhood.
The Tories still have RBKC which is where all the Hedgies and non doms live.
I looked up results for my patch and, yep, the Tories generally did better in the more wealthy wards. Which is fine. It's just the misleading propaganda that's a problem.
Durham announces 50% of their intake will be working class. This defined as applicants whose parents are financially stressed (as per our definition). Now, agree or not with this policy (which is by the by) the point is it's meaningful and practical. This isn't the case otherwise. The various other wider definitions aren't workable in this sense. They can't be used for policy. Mine can. It's only mine that can.
But why should Durham announce a "50% working class" policy when they could more straightforwardly announce a "50% financially stressed families" policy that's clearer about what it means and doesn't get them into a pointless "class war" narrative in the tabloids?
I would argue that the wider definition *could* be used for policy purposes, if you want to try to tackle some of the systemic reasons that class and wealth and education are correlated. To continue our university example, you might have a policy that allots places to students who don't have parents who had a university education. And maybe you have policies in other areas that try to increase social mobility by other means, using other not-necessarily-wealth-based criteria (eg "let council housing tenants buy their houses at a discount"). Sometimes "help the working class" might bottom out to "do something that's linked to income", sometimes to "based on wealth", sometimes to something not specifically monetary. If you equate "working class" with "poor" by fiat you're either restricting your field of options, or else you really meant "poor" in your political philosophy all along, and you'd be better off just saying so.
I see PB favourite Paul Joseph Watson has been caught airing some views that were all the rage in early 1940s Germany.
What has he said? I used to follow him, but don't now. He is always good for a laugh provided you are not easily converted by cults (I did spell that correctly). I got introduced to him by Plato.
He was caught saying he'd like to wipe Jews off the planet.
His outlook is similar to that of his near namesake, Paul Joseph Goebbels.
I wonder what prompted it. Vlad not having the best of times against Jewish Zelenskyy?
You know who else had Jewish blood?
Reinhard Heydrich's case proves the opposite of what Lavrov was trying to prove. That even the hint of Jewishness instigated by one's political rivals had the potential to discredit you as a Nazi.
Even Martin Bormann came under fire, when one Nazi, Wilhelm Kube, accused his father in law of being Jewish. However, Kube came off worst.
Kube's death was an amusing one. He was made the governor of Minsk, and decided that gorgeous, blonde, Belorussian women must in reality be Aryans. He had numerous affairs, until one of his lovers placed an anti-personnel mine in his bed, cunningly disguised as a hot water bottle.
This thread by Nathan Ruser on twitter show how much land the Ukrainians have taken from Russia to the - North and North East of Kharkiv, threatening to bring the main lines of resupply from Russia into within artillery range; and - to the West of Iziyum. NASA heat maps show Ukrainian artillery hits within 600m of the town.
I had thought that the Ukrainian advances in the north around Kharkiv where mostly an indication that the Russians did not prioritise this area and therefore where the only area where the Ukrainians could advance.
But. perhaps it is part of a bigger and clever strategy? that sead there must be roads in to Russian held territory from Russia that are further south and out of range?
Comments
socialist
kill opponents
use intimidation to ensure conformity
use political office to eliminate opposition
I could call them Baathist if it makes you feel better.
Inflation is insane, they have no workers. Yet the pent up demand for travel is intense
Turkey is about the only bargain going, ATM
It comes down to Indian voters looking for a new political home, as they prosper, and the local Conservatives making a successful effort to court them.
I wouldn’t say Sinn Fein are Fascist. But they are uncomfortably close to it, practically and genetically. They are half a generation from extreme violence
78% of QC barristers went to Oxbridge
https://www.cityam.com/almost-a-third-of-trainee-lawyers-at-elite-magic-circle-law-firms-educated-at-oxbridge/
https://www.legalcheek.com/2016/02/research-over-70-of-top-judges-and-barristers-are-privately-educated-or-oxbridge-elite/
I’m saying it’s not fanciful at all. It’s arguable. Even if, in the end, I don’t quite buy it
Their propensity to violence was still being used by Ireland and the EU to ensure Britain kept the borders open in the last five years. “If the UK doesn’t do this Sinn Fein/IRA will start killing people again”
That’s an aspect of fascism. Illegal threats of violence as a way of advancing your politics
Indeed a very interesting political party, as anti-abortion breakaway from Sinn Féin (only reason I put in the accent was because I gave S grief for omitting it!)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aontú
Like SF active in Northern Ireland and the Republic. Has one member in Dáil Éireann, party founder and leader Peadar Tóibín, first elected as SF TD for Meath West (not same thing as Westmeath) in 2011 but left that party in 2018 after defying the SF whip on legislation legalizing early-term abortions.
Am sure there are plenty more Irish Republicans with similar social-conservative & religious views who have NOT forsaken or rejected SF. Will be interesting to to what extent (or not) voters in NI 2022 giving their 1st preference for Aontú transferred in subsequent to SF or other parties, or were non-transferable.
“They haven’t gone away, you know”
If we are talking about job recruitment then of course employers will rank academic prowess especially at entry level .Nothing wrong with that and if candidates who are weaker in exams than another then they have to be better in other areas to overcome that . Just the way of the world. You can get a good job without academic achievement but its harder
If we start bandying around the f-word in Northern Ireland, do we attach it to other parties too? We know that the DUP have associations with loyalist paramilitaries too. Are we talking about fascists fighting fascists?
No, it's quite silly to apply that word and Alanbrooke's answer confirmed a veneer-thin idea of what fascism is.
Not every thuggish, violent political movement is fascist. I would resile from using that word for any of the main players in Northern Ireland, without implicitly approving of any of them. Many crimes have been committed in the name of being for or against Irish unity, we don't need to butcher the language on that altar too.
Outside London the Tories lost wealthy Tunbridge Wells and Wokingham but held Walsall and Harlow
His outlook is similar to that of his near namesake, Paul Joseph Goebbels.
https://bylinetimes.com/2022/05/06/wipe-jews-off-the-face-of-the-earth-racism-and-antisemitic-slurs-of-viral-youtuber-exposed/
What about developments of 1 home that complete in one week? That's not a rhetorical question; that's the solution I favor for much of the United States.
Manufactured homes can be suprisingly affordable. Example: https://www.boxabl.com/ The company is advertising "Accessory Dwelling Units" (stand-alone efficiency apartments, more or less) for about 50K (dollars). They could be paid for with a 30 year mortgage of 250K per month.
Site costs and connections are extra, of course. Delivery is extra too, but these units can be shipped on ordinary trucks, since they unfold. Which means that, if you have made a mistake, or want to upgrade, the units can be removed the same way.
Oh, and Elon Musk is living in one of these ADUs, part time, down in Texas.
A little bit of thought will show you that, using modules, you could expand a small house over time, inexpensively, or assemble a medium-sized house in that same one week.
(My objective is not to advantage one party or another, but to do what's best for the nation, and I think that means -- among other things -- making houses affordable for almost all young families.)
Their office is 5 minutes walk from me in Cambridge.
Above all, glad to see you here stirring the PB pot!
Anyways hope your keeping well, I admire your tenacity in cross Atlantic blogging !
Likewise, Harrow contains a lot of very wealthy areas, such as Stanmore, Pinner, Hatch End, Belmont, Canons Park, and Kenton.
So, our example, uni places -
Durham announces 50% of their intake will be working class. This defined as applicants whose parents are financially stressed (as per our definition). Now, agree or not with this policy (which is by the by) the point is it's meaningful and practical. This isn't the case otherwise. The various other wider definitions aren't workable in this sense. They can't be used for policy. Mine can. It's only mine that can.
Of course if one just wants to have a conversation about class - rather than develop policy pertaining to it - the wider aspects are both interesting and relevant. I'm not disagreeing with this. Not everything has to be about policy. But OTOH if there's *never* a link from conversation to policy, what's the actual point of it all?
The final counts in this race were of some interest. When counting stopped last night after count #6, the SDLP candidate was 71 votes ahead of the second Alliance runner, the first having been elected on her first preferences, with 204 surplus.
This morning, after redistributing surplus of 2nd DUPer elected last night in count #7, the SDLPer was just 46 ahead of Alliance. BUT when the 204 surplus from the top Alliance candidate was redistributed in count #8, transfers put the second Alliancer ahead of SDLP by 40 votes.
Thus SDLP hopeful was eliminated, and in count #9 these transfers elected the Alliance to the final seat, by 250 votes over TUV.
Incidentally, the number of valid ballot that were NOT transferable through the final count was less than 3% of the total. That is, were cast (at some point) either for one of the five elected OR the candidate who just lost out in the end.
It’s why the quickest way to count is to enter the ballots into a computer (or have them scanned), since counting by hand involves a lot of fiddling about with and separate bundling of fractional votes.
When I put my ideological hat on, I see the horseshoe very clearly. I'm a centrist and I see overlaps between people on the extremes in both directions, but when you study history you get a very different picture. To dive straight into the the headline-grabbing example, Fascism and Communism, you see two ideologies that were bitterly and violently in opposition.
I know some people like to fall back on "sibling rivalry" as an explanation for why they went around murdering each other and ended up in a war of annihilation, but that doesn't stack up. To take the views of the proponents of both at face value is to see a an extremely bitter enmity on the most fundamental level. They very thing that makes humans more than just an animal, the way we organise ourselves into groups with a common agenda, are completely different under both ideologies. The unrelenting horizontality of Communism, where even the concept of private property is sacrificed under the guise of freeing the worker from exploitative relations of production. And with fascism, the unyielding verticality. The racial tribe is a unit that must work under the direction of a quasi-religious leader, the total submission of the individual to that authority, the preservation of some mythical purity.
To put it another way, the denial of difference versus the paranoid fear of those who are different.
These are fundamentally different world views.
Part of this is muddied by the practice of authoritarianism. It's easy to see the similarity when you only think of the repressive, murderous nature of governments that are riddled with these toxic ideologies. The horrifying violence that came with both is in some ways intrinsic to them because both Communism and Fascism are unnatural and they need violence to preserve themselves. But the key point here is that authoritarianism is much wider than that again. Non-Communist non-Fascist regimes have also been that way. Indeed, probably a majority of states across the sweep of human history have been authoritarian in nature, the horror only mitigated by the level of technological advancement limiting how far and fast a psychopathic leader can stamp his authority on a people.
Democracy is right because it is fundamentally more peaceful. Power is vested in the people and the government serves at their pleasure. Communism and Fascism occupy the space outside that circle, but so does everything else. Is there really a case for saying they are similar in many other ways? I don't see it. The horseshoe doesn't work as a model once you have taken account of democracy and non-democracy. Within that non-democratic space are some pretty wild creatures, and Communism and Fascism are two big, nasty, and quite separate beasts, not the near neighbours some people want to imagine them to be.
So the the all 12000 votes are reallocated, multiplied by the 2000 that are excess, divided by the 12000 original 1st choices.
So if the second choices are 3000 for the Silly Party and 9000 for the Sensible Party, you end up with 500 transfers to Silly and 1500 to Sensible = 2000 transfers
Sam Greene
@samagreene
·
13h
While the Russian ruble is up 12% vs the dollar since the start of the war, the Belarusian ruble is down 24% vs USD and an even more massive 32% vs the Russian currency. The IMF is projecting the Belarusian economy to contract by 6.4% this year.
Sam Greene
@samagreene
·
13h
In other words, Russia is sustaining itself by impoverishing its closest allies. How sustainable is that?
https://twitter.com/samagreene/status/1522751767947223046
===
How long can Lukashenko hold on to power with the war ruining his economy?
- North and North East of Kharkiv, threatening to bring the main lines of resupply from Russia into within artillery range; and
- to the West of Iziyum. NASA heat maps show Ukrainian artillery hits within 600m of the town.
https://twitter.com/Nrg8000/status/1522871820487372800
In paper elections, most jurisdictions count out the second preferences and take a pro-rata share of the papers that total up to the excess over quota. Some jurisdictions will _also_ try to randomise the papers that get transferred so they don't disproportionately come from certain ballot boxes (which would perhaps skew later transfers, e.g. geographically).
Final thing to mention: if this candidate was elected later on, by transfers and not just first preferences, typically systems will say that only the last bundle of transfers get sent onward, and not the votes the successful candidate won earlier in the process. So you will sometimes see what looks like weird behaviour, that is really arising because e.g. the Tory party "surplus" is actually coming from a Plaid Cymru transfer.
The minute the markets re-open properly, the ruble will get smashed to bits again, as it was in the first days of the war.
I would argue that the wider definition *could* be used for policy purposes, if you want to try to tackle some of the systemic reasons that class and wealth and education are correlated. To continue our university example, you might have a policy that allots places to students who don't have parents who had a university education. And maybe you have policies in other areas that try to increase social mobility by other means, using other not-necessarily-wealth-based criteria (eg "let council housing tenants buy their houses at a discount"). Sometimes "help the working class" might bottom out to "do something that's linked to income", sometimes to "based on wealth", sometimes to something not specifically monetary. If you equate "working class" with "poor" by fiat you're either restricting your field of options, or else you really meant "poor" in your political philosophy all along, and you'd be better off just saying so.
Kube's death was an amusing one. He was made the governor of Minsk, and decided that gorgeous, blonde, Belorussian women must in reality be Aryans. He had numerous affairs, until one of his lovers placed an anti-personnel mine in his bed, cunningly disguised as a hot water bottle.
But. perhaps it is part of a bigger and clever strategy? that sead there must be roads in to Russian held territory from Russia that are further south and out of range?
As for East Londonderry.... The SDLP are 17 votes ahead of Alliance for the last seat, so I think they're going for a full recount.