Some Radiologists do report scans from home, though the specs for the computer need to be quite high. Mostly it is the on call stuff, but no reason that some routine reporting could be too.
Some Radiologists do report scans from home, though the specs for the computer need to be quite high. Mostly it is the on call stuff, but no reason that some routine reporting could be too.
And there was me imagining a line of patients waiting outside the consultants house...
Fascinating to watch Putin-bot @GaryL disassemble itself in real-time, from matey chat about holidays to undisguised agitprop about “western elites”, in about 3 hours
Again, one is drawn to the conclusion that Russia is not as good at the Great Cyber Game as we all supposed
They probably just assume people in the west are as gullible as their own population while forgetting the reason they can pull the wool over the eyes of their own population is because they restrict the information flow
I'm unsure that's the entire plan. Pro-Russia bots could come in all shapes and sizes - from the 'obvious' ones - and there are plenty of those about on t'Interwebs - to the more subtle.
Putin's apparatus has shown a desire to divide his opponents; to force divisions between groups. That may be countries or groups within countries. So as well as the obvious Russian troll line, I would expect toe more capable of his agents to have looked at those fracture lines and widened them. And they might not play just one side, but both. For Putin, often what matters is not which side wins, but the divisions the arguments sow.
Let's take the example of an imaginary green group who protest on the streets. On the face of it, funding such groups goes against Russia's interests, as they are a gas-n-oil economy. But they don't expect the group to win; what they expect is for the group to disrupt things, cause trouble and widen divisions. The leaders of any such group might not even know where their funding is coming from, given the somewhat nebulous donations systems. But a few thousand roubles spent funding the 'right' people in the organisation might reap rich rewards.
It doesn't have to be green groups, either - any group that has lax systems, is nebulous but carries a loud voice would be prone to such stuff.
The Tory party?
Perhaps. But if that was Russian state funding to influence policy, then they've utterly failed given the Conservative government have been at the forefront of training and arming Ukraine.
The Russian regime's relationship with Britain is odd. Their recent words make us out to be the big bad, and Litvinenko and Salisbury show that they saw us as an enemy even back then. Might it just be that because the Russian regime disliked us, rich Russians saw us as a safeish place to stash money, one who would not do a deal with the Russian regime?
Not every Russian is pro-Putin, and the richer you were, the more connections you would have to have had. But even the Putinites might have looked for safe havens in case the regime decided they had to fall off a balcony.
Utterly failed, aside from Brexit, culture wars, and the hollowing out of Britain's own armed forces. Oh, and reducing energy security by closing nuclear power stations, and shutting our only gas storage facility. Utterly failed. They did not even get a single Russian appointed to Parliament. Or did they?
And that's all bullshit. You can't just look at things you think are wrong and ascribe them all to Russian malevolence.
And that's another nasty aspect to this: just the concept that this might happen leads some to ascribe anything that happens to Russia. This alone strengthens Russia.
Arguments everywhere, with few people actually willing to change their entrenched views, even if those views are a hairs' breadth away from those they are arguing with.
But that's enough about PB....
You think the government did these things that are in Russia's interest despite, not because of, Russian funding? Well then, I suppose you are right and the Russians were wasting their money if it all would have happened anyway.
Look at it another way: you are essentially saying that the government as no agency; it does just what the Russians want. The meta events of the last ten years say the opposite, although perhaps the biggest case for it would be Brexit.
But look at the areas where government policy has gone away from Russia's interests at a large scale: we led in sanctions against Russia. We have gone for a more distributed energy policy, including moving away from gas and oil, etc, etc.
The thesis is not so much that their propaganda sways governments in a particular direction, but rather that it is aimed to encourage and exacerbate political division within a given society.
Hard to prove the degree of success they might have had, but it's not obviously ridiculous. As you say, Brexit is an interesting case.
Or perhaps a more muscular version. "America is committed to a One China policy but that does not mean China has the jurisdiction to use force to take Taiwan,” Biden said, adding, “My expectation is that will not happen.”
Biden’s comments appeared to be a departure from the existing US policy of “strategic ambiguity” on its position on Taiwan, but shortly after he spoke a White House official said: “There is no change in US policy towards Taiwan. As the president said, our policy has not changed.”
Fascinating to watch Putin-bot @GaryL disassemble itself in real-time, from matey chat about holidays to undisguised agitprop about “western elites”, in about 3 hours
Again, one is drawn to the conclusion that Russia is not as good at the Great Cyber Game as we all supposed
They probably just assume people in the west are as gullible as their own population while forgetting the reason they can pull the wool over the eyes of their own population is because they restrict the information flow
I'm unsure that's the entire plan. Pro-Russia bots could come in all shapes and sizes - from the 'obvious' ones - and there are plenty of those about on t'Interwebs - to the more subtle.
Putin's apparatus has shown a desire to divide his opponents; to force divisions between groups. That may be countries or groups within countries. So as well as the obvious Russian troll line, I would expect toe more capable of his agents to have looked at those fracture lines and widened them. And they might not play just one side, but both. For Putin, often what matters is not which side wins, but the divisions the arguments sow.
Let's take the example of an imaginary green group who protest on the streets. On the face of it, funding such groups goes against Russia's interests, as they are a gas-n-oil economy. But they don't expect the group to win; what they expect is for the group to disrupt things, cause trouble and widen divisions. The leaders of any such group might not even know where their funding is coming from, given the somewhat nebulous donations systems. But a few thousand roubles spent funding the 'right' people in the organisation might reap rich rewards.
It doesn't have to be green groups, either - any group that has lax systems, is nebulous but carries a loud voice would be prone to such stuff.
Yes, I have to admit though, that it is very clever. It turns the notion of 'debate' in to a sham; because any political debate can be easily corrupted by malicious actors due to the essentially unlimited freedom to broadcast. The effective lack of regulation means that entire pillars of civilisation are very weak, you only need to plant a few seeds to take down the whole thing - people will happily, innocently, unknowingly and sincerely do your work for you.
Just in case anyone thinks I've taken an anti-green stance with that post, I'd point out two other areas that Russia may have wanted to 'provoke' debate - the right-wing nutters in the US and their counterparts, the left-wing nutters. The more those two sides screech at each other, the more the chasm between them grows, the weaker America becomes.
It might not just be Russia either.
And (whispers quietly); I would not be surprised if we did the same, on a smaller scale. Although the more controlled media of our likely opponents makes it harder to do.
Of course... propoganda and psych-ops have been done forever, by all sides. Putin and Russia were just far ahead of the game with regard to the opportunities posed by social media, from circa 2010 onwards.
One thing that you can see, even somewhere like PB, is a lot more sympathy over recent years towards towards the extreme left, than the extreme right. The result is that people underestimate the threat posed by the former.
I don't see much sympathy towards the 'extreme left' on here.
Crikey: nor do I !!!
The Right at the moment have FAR more of a voice amongst pb posters, only counter-balanced by:
1. Mike Smithson himself
and
2. Many Conservative supporters having the good grace and honesty to critique this buffoon in No. 10
Generally most left-of-centre viewpoints get a lot of opprobrium
Personally I think Jeremy Corbyn was a vile man. Without doubt an Anti-Semite, and a misogynist, who took his distaste for this country into the extremes of supporting those hell-bent on evil, including terrorists. He crossed a line of acceptability and some.
However, I did like a few of his radical ideas. If they hadn't been cloaked in Jew-hating more people might have listened. It's quite ironic that the Conservatives even adopted some of them.
He was as nasty a piece of work as most tory Brexiteers are imho, with the exception of Steve Baker who genuinely seems to think he's serving God.
I think it's possible to be Radical and alternative without falling into that kind of Left-wing nastiness which mirrors its opposite on the Right.
I think the problem is one of framing. ISTR that you have in the past called me a right-winger, or worse, possibly because of issues I support. I don't see myself as particularly right-wing, and certainly not a large-C Conservative. I was a voice calling Boris out about the Garden Bridge debacle, and said it showed why he was unsuitable to be PM (which I think I've been proved correct on).
Put basically, economically I'm probably traditional right wing; on social issues I'm probably more to the left; and in general I quite like a liberal let-people-do-what-they-want-as-long-as-they-dont-harm-others stick. Combine this with a evolution-is-better-than-revolution mindset (small-c conservative), and I think I've summed myself up quite well. But as ever, I am thoroughly inconsistent within those.
People are complex. The problem is that some people like to belong to a club (party), and try to wedge their views into that club. Which is why Nick Palmer could be a blessed Blair follower, one of the Miliband multitude, a Corbyn convert, and finally he dances Starmer-style.
Kudos to those on here who were keen members of a party but have left due to their poor leaders, whether it's Rochdale against Corbyn or TSE and others against Johnson.
And now I've totally forgotten what I was ranting about...
Some Radiologists do report scans from home, though the specs for the computer need to be quite high. Mostly it is the on call stuff, but no reason that some routine reporting could be too.
And there was me imagining a line of patients waiting outside the consultants house...
That s a ridiculous image. The line of patients would be in the waiting room of the consultants private practise.
In the Goode Olde Days docs lived "above the shop" in Harley Street.....
Fascinating to watch Putin-bot @GaryL disassemble itself in real-time, from matey chat about holidays to undisguised agitprop about “western elites”, in about 3 hours
Again, one is drawn to the conclusion that Russia is not as good at the Great Cyber Game as we all supposed
They probably just assume people in the west are as gullible as their own population while forgetting the reason they can pull the wool over the eyes of their own population is because they restrict the information flow
I'm unsure that's the entire plan. Pro-Russia bots could come in all shapes and sizes - from the 'obvious' ones - and there are plenty of those about on t'Interwebs - to the more subtle.
Putin's apparatus has shown a desire to divide his opponents; to force divisions between groups. That may be countries or groups within countries. So as well as the obvious Russian troll line, I would expect toe more capable of his agents to have looked at those fracture lines and widened them. And they might not play just one side, but both. For Putin, often what matters is not which side wins, but the divisions the arguments sow.
Let's take the example of an imaginary green group who protest on the streets. On the face of it, funding such groups goes against Russia's interests, as they are a gas-n-oil economy. But they don't expect the group to win; what they expect is for the group to disrupt things, cause trouble and widen divisions. The leaders of any such group might not even know where their funding is coming from, given the somewhat nebulous donations systems. But a few thousand roubles spent funding the 'right' people in the organisation might reap rich rewards.
It doesn't have to be green groups, either - any group that has lax systems, is nebulous but carries a loud voice would be prone to such stuff.
Yes, I have to admit though, that it is very clever. It turns the notion of 'debate' in to a sham; because any political debate can be easily corrupted by malicious actors due to the essentially unlimited freedom to broadcast. The effective lack of regulation means that entire pillars of civilisation are very weak, you only need to plant a few seeds to take down the whole thing - people will happily, innocently, unknowingly and sincerely do your work for you.
Just in case anyone thinks I've taken an anti-green stance with that post, I'd point out two other areas that Russia may have wanted to 'provoke' debate - the right-wing nutters in the US and their counterparts, the left-wing nutters. The more those two sides screech at each other, the more the chasm between them grows, the weaker America becomes.
It might not just be Russia either.
And (whispers quietly); I would not be surprised if we did the same, on a smaller scale. Although the more controlled media of our likely opponents makes it harder to do.
Of course... propoganda and psych-ops have been done forever, by all sides. Putin and Russia were just far ahead of the game with regard to the opportunities posed by social media, from circa 2010 onwards.
One thing that you can see, even somewhere like PB, is a lot more sympathy over recent years towards towards the extreme left, than the extreme right. The result is that people underestimate the threat posed by the former.
I don't see much sympathy towards the 'extreme left' on here.
Crikey: nor do I !!!
The Right at the moment have FAR more of a voice amongst pb posters, only counter-balanced by:
1. Mike Smithson himself
and
2. Many Conservative supporters having the good grace and honesty to critique this buffoon in No. 10
Generally most left-of-centre viewpoints get a lot of opprobrium
Personally I think Jeremy Corbyn was a vile man. Without doubt an Anti-Semite, and a misogynist, who took his distaste for this country into the extremes of supporting those hell-bent on evil, including terrorists. He crossed a line of acceptability and some.
However, I did like a few of his radical ideas. If they hadn't been cloaked in Jew-hating more people might have listened. It's quite ironic that the Conservatives even adopted some of them.
He was as nasty a piece of work as most tory Brexiteers are imho, with the exception of Steve Baker who genuinely seems to think he's serving God.
I think it's possible to be Radical and alternative without falling into that kind of Left-wing nastiness which mirrors its opposite on the Right.
I think the problem is one of framing. ISTR that you have in the past called me a right-winger, or worse, possibly because of issues I support. I don't see myself as particularly right-wing, and certainly not a large-C Conservative. I was a voice calling Boris out about the Garden Bridge debacle, and said it showed why he was unsuitable to be PM (which I think I've been proved correct on).
Put basically, economically I'm probably traditional right wing; on social issues I'm probably more to the left; and in general I quite like a liberal let-people-do-what-they-want-as-long-as-they-dont-harm-others stick. Combine this with a evolution-is-better-than-revolution mindset (small-c conservative), and I think I've summed myself up quite well. But as ever, I am thoroughly inconsistent within those.
People are complex. The problem is that some people like to belong to a club (party), and try to wedge their views into that club. Which is why Nick Palmer could be a blessed Blair follower, one of the Miliband multitude, a Corbyn convert, and finally he dances Starmer-style.
Kudos to those on here who were keen members of a party but have left due to their poor leaders, whether it's Rochdale against Corbyn or TSE and others against Johnson.
And now I've totally forgotten what I was ranting about...
Great post!
If, and it's still a big if, SKS does become PM I will be initially relieved but they are bound to make mistakes and I hope I will critique them when they do.
I like your point about complexity. I think this is partly what confused (confuses) people about me, as well as my propensity to bait, which is not because I'm evil but because I am really angry about some things this Gov't have been up to. I still find it baffling that people happily support them when, for me, they are one of the worst governments of my lifetime. And I can't really see how anyone claims Brexit has been a good thing. I think Boris is an utter schmuck: I intensely dislike him.
All that aside, I'm also a bit of a muddle. Hypocrite probably. I espouse some radical and leftist ideas but I am far from living them out in practice. I annoy myself because of it but I just can't make the leap. For example, much as I would like to support my local health food shop I find myself at the Tesco checkout: the very Tesco store I criticised when it was built.
Oh and one of my favourite governments of all time was the Coalition. I know that's an awful thing to say but it was. I relaxed under them. Possibly because I knew they could never do anything truly shocking. Unless you were a student.
Point is sensible leaders in the west realise this war is going nowhere and costing thousands of lives
Great. So when is Russia withdrawing?
Its telling that its always ukraine must surrender to save lives, never russia must give up. But then seems to me its mainly russian lives that would be being saved anyway in this war.
Fascinating to watch Putin-bot @GaryL disassemble itself in real-time, from matey chat about holidays to undisguised agitprop about “western elites”, in about 3 hours
Again, one is drawn to the conclusion that Russia is not as good at the Great Cyber Game as we all supposed
They probably just assume people in the west are as gullible as their own population while forgetting the reason they can pull the wool over the eyes of their own population is because they restrict the information flow
I'm unsure that's the entire plan. Pro-Russia bots could come in all shapes and sizes - from the 'obvious' ones - and there are plenty of those about on t'Interwebs - to the more subtle.
Putin's apparatus has shown a desire to divide his opponents; to force divisions between groups. That may be countries or groups within countries. So as well as the obvious Russian troll line, I would expect toe more capable of his agents to have looked at those fracture lines and widened them. And they might not play just one side, but both. For Putin, often what matters is not which side wins, but the divisions the arguments sow.
Let's take the example of an imaginary green group who protest on the streets. On the face of it, funding such groups goes against Russia's interests, as they are a gas-n-oil economy. But they don't expect the group to win; what they expect is for the group to disrupt things, cause trouble and widen divisions. The leaders of any such group might not even know where their funding is coming from, given the somewhat nebulous donations systems. But a few thousand roubles spent funding the 'right' people in the organisation might reap rich rewards.
It doesn't have to be green groups, either - any group that has lax systems, is nebulous but carries a loud voice would be prone to such stuff.
Yes, I have to admit though, that it is very clever. It turns the notion of 'debate' in to a sham; because any political debate can be easily corrupted by malicious actors due to the essentially unlimited freedom to broadcast. The effective lack of regulation means that entire pillars of civilisation are very weak, you only need to plant a few seeds to take down the whole thing - people will happily, innocently, unknowingly and sincerely do your work for you.
Just in case anyone thinks I've taken an anti-green stance with that post, I'd point out two other areas that Russia may have wanted to 'provoke' debate - the right-wing nutters in the US and their counterparts, the left-wing nutters. The more those two sides screech at each other, the more the chasm between them grows, the weaker America becomes.
It might not just be Russia either.
And (whispers quietly); I would not be surprised if we did the same, on a smaller scale. Although the more controlled media of our likely opponents makes it harder to do.
Of course... propoganda and psych-ops have been done forever, by all sides. Putin and Russia were just far ahead of the game with regard to the opportunities posed by social media, from circa 2010 onwards.
One thing that you can see, even somewhere like PB, is a lot more sympathy over recent years towards towards the extreme left, than the extreme right. The result is that people underestimate the threat posed by the former.
I don't see much sympathy towards the 'extreme left' on here.
Crikey: nor do I !!!
The Right at the moment have FAR more of a voice amongst pb posters, only counter-balanced by:
1. Mike Smithson himself
and
2. Many Conservative supporters having the good grace and honesty to critique this buffoon in No. 10
Generally most left-of-centre viewpoints get a lot of opprobrium
Personally I think Jeremy Corbyn was a vile man. Without doubt an Anti-Semite, and a misogynist, who took his distaste for this country into the extremes of supporting those hell-bent on evil, including terrorists. He crossed a line of acceptability and some.
However, I did like a few of his radical ideas. If they hadn't been cloaked in Jew-hating more people might have listened. It's quite ironic that the Conservatives even adopted some of them.
He was as nasty a piece of work as most tory Brexiteers are imho, with the exception of Steve Baker who genuinely seems to think he's serving God.
I think it's possible to be Radical and alternative without falling into that kind of Left-wing nastiness which mirrors its opposite on the Right.
I think the problem is one of framing. ISTR that you have in the past called me a right-winger, or worse, possibly because of issues I support. I don't see myself as particularly right-wing, and certainly not a large-C Conservative. I was a voice calling Boris out about the Garden Bridge debacle, and said it showed why he was unsuitable to be PM (which I think I've been proved correct on).
Put basically, economically I'm probably traditional right wing; on social issues I'm probably more to the left; and in general I quite like a liberal let-people-do-what-they-want-as-long-as-they-dont-harm-others stick. Combine this with a evolution-is-better-than-revolution mindset (small-c conservative), and I think I've summed myself up quite well. But as ever, I am thoroughly inconsistent within those.
People are complex. The problem is that some people like to belong to a club (party), and try to wedge their views into that club. Which is why Nick Palmer could be a blessed Blair follower, one of the Miliband multitude, a Corbyn convert, and finally he dances Starmer-style.
Kudos to those on here who were keen members of a party but have left due to their poor leaders, whether it's Rochdale against Corbyn or TSE and others against Johnson.
And now I've totally forgotten what I was ranting about...
In my experience, the nastiness comes first. The ideology is the facade.
First find an acceptable out group. Then unleash the inner SA man*. Or Reichbanner man*.
Fascinating to watch Putin-bot @GaryL disassemble itself in real-time, from matey chat about holidays to undisguised agitprop about “western elites”, in about 3 hours
Again, one is drawn to the conclusion that Russia is not as good at the Great Cyber Game as we all supposed
They probably just assume people in the west are as gullible as their own population while forgetting the reason they can pull the wool over the eyes of their own population is because they restrict the information flow
I'm unsure that's the entire plan. Pro-Russia bots could come in all shapes and sizes - from the 'obvious' ones - and there are plenty of those about on t'Interwebs - to the more subtle.
Putin's apparatus has shown a desire to divide his opponents; to force divisions between groups. That may be countries or groups within countries. So as well as the obvious Russian troll line, I would expect toe more capable of his agents to have looked at those fracture lines and widened them. And they might not play just one side, but both. For Putin, often what matters is not which side wins, but the divisions the arguments sow.
Let's take the example of an imaginary green group who protest on the streets. On the face of it, funding such groups goes against Russia's interests, as they are a gas-n-oil economy. But they don't expect the group to win; what they expect is for the group to disrupt things, cause trouble and widen divisions. The leaders of any such group might not even know where their funding is coming from, given the somewhat nebulous donations systems. But a few thousand roubles spent funding the 'right' people in the organisation might reap rich rewards.
It doesn't have to be green groups, either - any group that has lax systems, is nebulous but carries a loud voice would be prone to such stuff.
Yes, I have to admit though, that it is very clever. It turns the notion of 'debate' in to a sham; because any political debate can be easily corrupted by malicious actors due to the essentially unlimited freedom to broadcast. The effective lack of regulation means that entire pillars of civilisation are very weak, you only need to plant a few seeds to take down the whole thing - people will happily, innocently, unknowingly and sincerely do your work for you.
Just in case anyone thinks I've taken an anti-green stance with that post, I'd point out two other areas that Russia may have wanted to 'provoke' debate - the right-wing nutters in the US and their counterparts, the left-wing nutters. The more those two sides screech at each other, the more the chasm between them grows, the weaker America becomes.
It might not just be Russia either.
And (whispers quietly); I would not be surprised if we did the same, on a smaller scale. Although the more controlled media of our likely opponents makes it harder to do.
Of course... propoganda and psych-ops have been done forever, by all sides. Putin and Russia were just far ahead of the game with regard to the opportunities posed by social media, from circa 2010 onwards.
One thing that you can see, even somewhere like PB, is a lot more sympathy over recent years towards towards the extreme left, than the extreme right. The result is that people underestimate the threat posed by the former.
I don't see much sympathy towards the 'extreme left' on here.
Crikey: nor do I !!!
The Right at the moment have FAR more of a voice amongst pb posters, only counter-balanced by:
1. Mike Smithson himself
and
2. Many Conservative supporters having the good grace and honesty to critique this buffoon in No. 10
Generally most left-of-centre viewpoints get a lot of opprobrium
Personally I think Jeremy Corbyn was a vile man. Without doubt an Anti-Semite, and a misogynist, who took his distaste for this country into the extremes of supporting those hell-bent on evil, including terrorists. He crossed a line of acceptability and some.
However, I did like a few of his radical ideas. If they hadn't been cloaked in Jew-hating more people might have listened. It's quite ironic that the Conservatives even adopted some of them.
He was as nasty a piece of work as most tory Brexiteers are imho, with the exception of Steve Baker who genuinely seems to think he's serving God.
I think it's possible to be Radical and alternative without falling into that kind of Left-wing nastiness which mirrors its opposite on the Right.
To a large degree 'left' and 'right' are meaningless terms, they belong to another age. Talking about this, is a bit of a distraction really.
However, I don't see any evidence at all of 'extreme right' sympathy on PB. Most views that are sympathetic to what may be traditionally described as the 'extreme right' are effectively illegal and no longer possible to express in a public forum.
It may be more useful to think of it this way: 'progressive' ideas get a free pass. I saw this again in the last few days when I posted some stuff about the cancellation and excommunication of a leading cancer scientist in the US based on very questionable allegations of sexual impropriety. This was described in a lot of detail by Bari Weiss.
No one is leaping to the defence of concepts like the rule of law, innocent until proven guilty, what happened to due process etc etc. Instead, the typical response is 'yes, but look how bad the right are, no one is calling out that'.
Another thing I have noted, is that my posts always get a lot of 'likes' whenever I express positions that I hold that are popular with progressives; like concerns about immigration policy and the treatment of dual nationals in the UK, or support things like basic income, or say Keir Starmer would be a better PM than Boris Johnson. But if I start pointing out some of the problems and existential dangers of the 'woke' agenda, the likes are few and far between.
Or perhaps a more muscular version. "America is committed to a One China policy but that does not mean China has the jurisdiction to use force to take Taiwan,” Biden said, adding, “My expectation is that will not happen.”
Biden’s comments appeared to be a departure from the existing US policy of “strategic ambiguity” on its position on Taiwan, but shortly after he spoke a White House official said: “There is no change in US policy towards Taiwan. As the president said, our policy has not changed.”
I think the chance of the PLA invading Taiwan has dropped massively since February. One of the effects of the Russian debacle in Ukraine.
Here’s more ‘settled law’ the Republicans seem to be thinking about challenging.
"U.S. Supreme Court majority opinion (5–4) led by Chief Justice Earl Warren in Reynolds v. Sims (1964) ruled that state legislatures, unlike the U.S. Congress, needed to have representation in both houses that was based on districts containing roughly equal populations, with redistricting as needed after censuses."
Under Lopez's plan, each county would get between three and eleven electoral votes, depending not on their population, but on their voter turnout rate. As 9NEWS noted, "Colorado's rural, conservative counties had seven of the 10 highest voter turnout percentages in the 2018 race for governor. Those counties had an average of 1,077 ballots cast in the election."
Under this system, Democratic Gov. Jared Polis, who won the 2018 election by double digits, would have received 181 electoral votes to the 263 earned by his Republican opponent, Walker Stapleton. "Lopez's weighting system would have given the 2,013 combined voters in Hinsdale, Kiowa and Mineral counties a total of 33 electoral votes, more than double the 14 electoral votes of Denver, Arapahoe and Adams counties' combined 761,873 voters," said the report.
This plan would almost certainly be unconstitutional under the Supreme Court's landmark 1964 ruling in Reynolds v. Sims, which enforced the principle of "one person, one vote" in state elections. Lopez has openly admitted his plan would not count voters equally, saying, "It's not about one-person, one-vote. It's about true representation."
Lopez has also drawn controversy for his stance opposing abortion with no exceptions for rape and incest — while avoiding questions about his 1993 arrest for violently assaulting his then-pregnant wife…
Fascinating to watch Putin-bot @GaryL disassemble itself in real-time, from matey chat about holidays to undisguised agitprop about “western elites”, in about 3 hours
Again, one is drawn to the conclusion that Russia is not as good at the Great Cyber Game as we all supposed
They probably just assume people in the west are as gullible as their own population while forgetting the reason they can pull the wool over the eyes of their own population is because they restrict the information flow
I'm unsure that's the entire plan. Pro-Russia bots could come in all shapes and sizes - from the 'obvious' ones - and there are plenty of those about on t'Interwebs - to the more subtle.
Putin's apparatus has shown a desire to divide his opponents; to force divisions between groups. That may be countries or groups within countries. So as well as the obvious Russian troll line, I would expect toe more capable of his agents to have looked at those fracture lines and widened them. And they might not play just one side, but both. For Putin, often what matters is not which side wins, but the divisions the arguments sow.
Let's take the example of an imaginary green group who protest on the streets. On the face of it, funding such groups goes against Russia's interests, as they are a gas-n-oil economy. But they don't expect the group to win; what they expect is for the group to disrupt things, cause trouble and widen divisions. The leaders of any such group might not even know where their funding is coming from, given the somewhat nebulous donations systems. But a few thousand roubles spent funding the 'right' people in the organisation might reap rich rewards.
It doesn't have to be green groups, either - any group that has lax systems, is nebulous but carries a loud voice would be prone to such stuff.
Yes, I have to admit though, that it is very clever. It turns the notion of 'debate' in to a sham; because any political debate can be easily corrupted by malicious actors due to the essentially unlimited freedom to broadcast. The effective lack of regulation means that entire pillars of civilisation are very weak, you only need to plant a few seeds to take down the whole thing - people will happily, innocently, unknowingly and sincerely do your work for you.
Just in case anyone thinks I've taken an anti-green stance with that post, I'd point out two other areas that Russia may have wanted to 'provoke' debate - the right-wing nutters in the US and their counterparts, the left-wing nutters. The more those two sides screech at each other, the more the chasm between them grows, the weaker America becomes.
It might not just be Russia either.
And (whispers quietly); I would not be surprised if we did the same, on a smaller scale. Although the more controlled media of our likely opponents makes it harder to do.
Of course... propoganda and psych-ops have been done forever, by all sides. Putin and Russia were just far ahead of the game with regard to the opportunities posed by social media, from circa 2010 onwards.
One thing that you can see, even somewhere like PB, is a lot more sympathy over recent years towards towards the extreme left, than the extreme right. The result is that people underestimate the threat posed by the former.
I don't see much sympathy towards the 'extreme left' on here.
Crikey: nor do I !!!
The Right at the moment have FAR more of a voice amongst pb posters, only counter-balanced by:
1. Mike Smithson himself
and
2. Many Conservative supporters having the good grace and honesty to critique this buffoon in No. 10
Generally most left-of-centre viewpoints get a lot of opprobrium
Personally I think Jeremy Corbyn was a vile man. Without doubt an Anti-Semite, and a misogynist, who took his distaste for this country into the extremes of supporting those hell-bent on evil, including terrorists. He crossed a line of acceptability and some.
However, I did like a few of his radical ideas. If they hadn't been cloaked in Jew-hating more people might have listened. It's quite ironic that the Conservatives even adopted some of them.
He was as nasty a piece of work as most tory Brexiteers are imho, with the exception of Steve Baker who genuinely seems to think he's serving God.
I think it's possible to be Radical and alternative without falling into that kind of Left-wing nastiness which mirrors its opposite on the Right.
I think the problem is one of framing. ISTR that you have in the past called me a right-winger, or worse, possibly because of issues I support. I don't see myself as particularly right-wing, and certainly not a large-C Conservative. I was a voice calling Boris out about the Garden Bridge debacle, and said it showed why he was unsuitable to be PM (which I think I've been proved correct on).
Put basically, economically I'm probably traditional right wing; on social issues I'm probably more to the left; and in general I quite like a liberal let-people-do-what-they-want-as-long-as-they-dont-harm-others stick. Combine this with a evolution-is-better-than-revolution mindset (small-c conservative), and I think I've summed myself up quite well. But as ever, I am thoroughly inconsistent within those.
People are complex. The problem is that some people like to belong to a club (party), and try to wedge their views into that club. Which is why Nick Palmer could be a blessed Blair follower, one of the Miliband multitude, a Corbyn convert, and finally he dances Starmer-style.
Kudos to those on here who were keen members of a party but have left due to their poor leaders, whether it's Rochdale against Corbyn or TSE and others against Johnson.
And now I've totally forgotten what I was ranting about...
In my experience, the nastiness comes first. The ideology is the facade.
First find an acceptable out group. Then unleash the inner SA man*. Or Reichbanner man*.
*In a number of examples, the same person.
Hmmmm not so sure that's right or even stands up to the test of history.
There's something about ideologies themselves and support of any cause which blinds people. But it also generates its own momentum. This is demonstrable in social studies.
Take some football supporters. It's when they collect that the mob frenzy takes over. The same is true in many religions. And it extends to some fanatical political stances.
I know this bit won't meet with complete approval but I see the same swivel-eyed lunacy when Brexiteers get going. As individuals they're probably not intrinsically bad people. But get them together on this cause and they lose all sense of perspective.
The important thing in politics in my opinion is to remember that no one party has a sole monopoly on the right beliefs or policies. And that means that there is sometimes good in the other. The system in the United Kingdom is not geared up for that kind of mentality but perhaps if there's voting reform it might change.
Some Radiologists do report scans from home, though the specs for the computer need to be quite high. Mostly it is the on call stuff, but no reason that some routine reporting could be too.
And there was me imagining a line of patients waiting outside the consultants house...
That s a ridiculous image. The line of patients would be in the waiting room of the consultants private practise.
In the Goode Olde Days docs lived "above the shop" in Harley Street.....
Not just in Harley St. Out in the sticks single-handed (usually) GP's saw patients in a room in their house ..... usually a bit larger than the average..... and the patients took their prescriptions to the pharmacy, where the pharmacist lived above and behind the shop.
What will the world look like in twenty years time?
Putin will be dead and his theories of a 'creeping war' discredited. I'm sure he truly believes in what he wants to believe. A little like Stalin who never believed in Mendelian genetics, because it went against Marxist dogma. Biology was mutatable, but physics - he had to put up with.
Corbyn will still believe what he was told when he was seven, because NATO is always wrong.
However, the rest of the world will be wrong. Ironic, that Mendel and 'the father of the Big Bang' were far more open-minded. Google him for interest if you don't know who he is.
Fascinating to watch Putin-bot @GaryL disassemble itself in real-time, from matey chat about holidays to undisguised agitprop about “western elites”, in about 3 hours
Again, one is drawn to the conclusion that Russia is not as good at the Great Cyber Game as we all supposed
They probably just assume people in the west are as gullible as their own population while forgetting the reason they can pull the wool over the eyes of their own population is because they restrict the information flow
I'm unsure that's the entire plan. Pro-Russia bots could come in all shapes and sizes - from the 'obvious' ones - and there are plenty of those about on t'Interwebs - to the more subtle.
Putin's apparatus has shown a desire to divide his opponents; to force divisions between groups. That may be countries or groups within countries. So as well as the obvious Russian troll line, I would expect toe more capable of his agents to have looked at those fracture lines and widened them. And they might not play just one side, but both. For Putin, often what matters is not which side wins, but the divisions the arguments sow.
Let's take the example of an imaginary green group who protest on the streets. On the face of it, funding such groups goes against Russia's interests, as they are a gas-n-oil economy. But they don't expect the group to win; what they expect is for the group to disrupt things, cause trouble and widen divisions. The leaders of any such group might not even know where their funding is coming from, given the somewhat nebulous donations systems. But a few thousand roubles spent funding the 'right' people in the organisation might reap rich rewards.
It doesn't have to be green groups, either - any group that has lax systems, is nebulous but carries a loud voice would be prone to such stuff.
Yes, I have to admit though, that it is very clever. It turns the notion of 'debate' in to a sham; because any political debate can be easily corrupted by malicious actors due to the essentially unlimited freedom to broadcast. The effective lack of regulation means that entire pillars of civilisation are very weak, you only need to plant a few seeds to take down the whole thing - people will happily, innocently, unknowingly and sincerely do your work for you.
Just in case anyone thinks I've taken an anti-green stance with that post, I'd point out two other areas that Russia may have wanted to 'provoke' debate - the right-wing nutters in the US and their counterparts, the left-wing nutters. The more those two sides screech at each other, the more the chasm between them grows, the weaker America becomes.
It might not just be Russia either.
And (whispers quietly); I would not be surprised if we did the same, on a smaller scale. Although the more controlled media of our likely opponents makes it harder to do.
Of course... propoganda and psych-ops have been done forever, by all sides. Putin and Russia were just far ahead of the game with regard to the opportunities posed by social media, from circa 2010 onwards.
One thing that you can see, even somewhere like PB, is a lot more sympathy over recent years towards towards the extreme left, than the extreme right. The result is that people underestimate the threat posed by the former.
I don't see much sympathy towards the 'extreme left' on here.
Crikey: nor do I !!!
The Right at the moment have FAR more of a voice amongst pb posters, only counter-balanced by:
1. Mike Smithson himself
and
2. Many Conservative supporters having the good grace and honesty to critique this buffoon in No. 10
Generally most left-of-centre viewpoints get a lot of opprobrium
Personally I think Jeremy Corbyn was a vile man. Without doubt an Anti-Semite, and a misogynist, who took his distaste for this country into the extremes of supporting those hell-bent on evil, including terrorists. He crossed a line of acceptability and some.
However, I did like a few of his radical ideas. If they hadn't been cloaked in Jew-hating more people might have listened. It's quite ironic that the Conservatives even adopted some of them.
He was as nasty a piece of work as most tory Brexiteers are imho, with the exception of Steve Baker who genuinely seems to think he's serving God.
I think it's possible to be Radical and alternative without falling into that kind of Left-wing nastiness which mirrors its opposite on the Right.
I think the problem is one of framing. ISTR that you have in the past called me a right-winger, or worse, possibly because of issues I support. I don't see myself as particularly right-wing, and certainly not a large-C Conservative. I was a voice calling Boris out about the Garden Bridge debacle, and said it showed why he was unsuitable to be PM (which I think I've been proved correct on).
Put basically, economically I'm probably traditional right wing; on social issues I'm probably more to the left; and in general I quite like a liberal let-people-do-what-they-want-as-long-as-they-dont-harm-others stick. Combine this with a evolution-is-better-than-revolution mindset (small-c conservative), and I think I've summed myself up quite well. But as ever, I am thoroughly inconsistent within those.
People are complex. The problem is that some people like to belong to a club (party), and try to wedge their views into that club. Which is why Nick Palmer could be a blessed Blair follower, one of the Miliband multitude, a Corbyn convert, and finally he dances Starmer-style.
Kudos to those on here who were keen members of a party but have left due to their poor leaders, whether it's Rochdale against Corbyn or TSE and others against Johnson.
And now I've totally forgotten what I was ranting about...
Just like Pornhub, its all relative.
If you're a never kissed a Tory zealot then anyone who has ever voted or considered voting for the Tories is an extreme right extremist - in which case this site must be horrifically right wing for you.
If you're an only Tory in the village zealot who considers anyone who has ever not voted for the Tories to not be a real Tory anyway, then you might be the only Tory on this site.
Time for realpolitik guys not Marvel comic fantasies
How much Ukraine territory are you proposing to give to the fascist autocrat ? And how much next time he invades ?
Realpolitik is telling him to fuck off back to his own country.
The countries proposing a ‘deal’, with “security guarantees’ for Ukraine - France and Germany (with Italy in tow), are those who underwrote the last set of security guarantees. How did that work out ?
Why didn't we supply arms to czechoslovakia when Russia invaded in 1968
Fascinating to watch Putin-bot @GaryL disassemble itself in real-time, from matey chat about holidays to undisguised agitprop about “western elites”, in about 3 hours
Again, one is drawn to the conclusion that Russia is not as good at the Great Cyber Game as we all supposed
They probably just assume people in the west are as gullible as their own population while forgetting the reason they can pull the wool over the eyes of their own population is because they restrict the information flow
I'm unsure that's the entire plan. Pro-Russia bots could come in all shapes and sizes - from the 'obvious' ones - and there are plenty of those about on t'Interwebs - to the more subtle.
Putin's apparatus has shown a desire to divide his opponents; to force divisions between groups. That may be countries or groups within countries. So as well as the obvious Russian troll line, I would expect toe more capable of his agents to have looked at those fracture lines and widened them. And they might not play just one side, but both. For Putin, often what matters is not which side wins, but the divisions the arguments sow.
Let's take the example of an imaginary green group who protest on the streets. On the face of it, funding such groups goes against Russia's interests, as they are a gas-n-oil economy. But they don't expect the group to win; what they expect is for the group to disrupt things, cause trouble and widen divisions. The leaders of any such group might not even know where their funding is coming from, given the somewhat nebulous donations systems. But a few thousand roubles spent funding the 'right' people in the organisation might reap rich rewards.
It doesn't have to be green groups, either - any group that has lax systems, is nebulous but carries a loud voice would be prone to such stuff.
Yes, I have to admit though, that it is very clever. It turns the notion of 'debate' in to a sham; because any political debate can be easily corrupted by malicious actors due to the essentially unlimited freedom to broadcast. The effective lack of regulation means that entire pillars of civilisation are very weak, you only need to plant a few seeds to take down the whole thing - people will happily, innocently, unknowingly and sincerely do your work for you.
Just in case anyone thinks I've taken an anti-green stance with that post, I'd point out two other areas that Russia may have wanted to 'provoke' debate - the right-wing nutters in the US and their counterparts, the left-wing nutters. The more those two sides screech at each other, the more the chasm between them grows, the weaker America becomes.
It might not just be Russia either.
And (whispers quietly); I would not be surprised if we did the same, on a smaller scale. Although the more controlled media of our likely opponents makes it harder to do.
Of course... propoganda and psych-ops have been done forever, by all sides. Putin and Russia were just far ahead of the game with regard to the opportunities posed by social media, from circa 2010 onwards.
One thing that you can see, even somewhere like PB, is a lot more sympathy over recent years towards towards the extreme left, than the extreme right. The result is that people underestimate the threat posed by the former.
I don't see much sympathy towards the 'extreme left' on here.
Crikey: nor do I !!!
The Right at the moment have FAR more of a voice amongst pb posters, only counter-balanced by:
1. Mike Smithson himself
and
2. Many Conservative supporters having the good grace and honesty to critique this buffoon in No. 10
Generally most left-of-centre viewpoints get a lot of opprobrium
Personally I think Jeremy Corbyn was a vile man. Without doubt an Anti-Semite, and a misogynist, who took his distaste for this country into the extremes of supporting those hell-bent on evil, including terrorists. He crossed a line of acceptability and some.
However, I did like a few of his radical ideas. If they hadn't been cloaked in Jew-hating more people might have listened. It's quite ironic that the Conservatives even adopted some of them.
He was as nasty a piece of work as most tory Brexiteers are imho, with the exception of Steve Baker who genuinely seems to think he's serving God.
I think it's possible to be Radical and alternative without falling into that kind of Left-wing nastiness which mirrors its opposite on the Right.
I think the problem is one of framing. ISTR that you have in the past called me a right-winger, or worse, possibly because of issues I support. I don't see myself as particularly right-wing, and certainly not a large-C Conservative. I was a voice calling Boris out about the Garden Bridge debacle, and said it showed why he was unsuitable to be PM (which I think I've been proved correct on).
Put basically, economically I'm probably traditional right wing; on social issues I'm probably more to the left; and in general I quite like a liberal let-people-do-what-they-want-as-long-as-they-dont-harm-others stick. Combine this with a evolution-is-better-than-revolution mindset (small-c conservative), and I think I've summed myself up quite well. But as ever, I am thoroughly inconsistent within those.
People are complex. The problem is that some people like to belong to a club (party), and try to wedge their views into that club. Which is why Nick Palmer could be a blessed Blair follower, one of the Miliband multitude, a Corbyn convert, and finally he dances Starmer-style.
Kudos to those on here who were keen members of a party but have left due to their poor leaders, whether it's Rochdale against Corbyn or TSE and others against Johnson.
And now I've totally forgotten what I was ranting about...
In my experience, the nastiness comes first. The ideology is the facade.
First find an acceptable out group. Then unleash the inner SA man*. Or Reichbanner man*.
*In a number of examples, the same person.
Hmmmm not so sure that's right or even stands up to the test of history.
There's something about ideologies themselves and blind support of any cause which blinds people. But it also generates its own momentum. This is demonstrable in social studies.
Take some football supporters. It's when they collect that the mob frenzy takes over. The same is true in many religions. And it extends to some fanatical political stances.
I know this bit won't meet with complete approval but I see the same swivel-eyed lunacy when Brexiteers get going. As individuals they're probably not intrinsically bad people. But get them together on this cause and they lose all sense of perspective.
With football, it's the excuse to let the inner arsehole out.
As Nick Hornby pointed out in his book on being a football supporter - the policing etc has created a space for socially acceptable (in the groups in question) bad behaviour.
Time for realpolitik guys not Marvel comic fantasies
How much Ukraine territory are you proposing to give to the fascist autocrat ? And how much next time he invades ?
Realpolitik is telling him to fuck off back to his own country.
The countries proposing a ‘deal’, with “security guarantees’ for Ukraine - France and Germany (with Italy in tow), are those who underwrote the last set of security guarantees. How did that work out ?
Why didn't we supply arms to czechoslovakia when Russia invaded in 1968
No land border (Austria being neutral)
Among other things, Czechoslovakia was a massive armament exporter. They were armed to the teeth. The UK was buying weapons from *them* - armour plate especially.
Or perhaps a more muscular version. "America is committed to a One China policy but that does not mean China has the jurisdiction to use force to take Taiwan,” Biden said, adding, “My expectation is that will not happen.”
Biden’s comments appeared to be a departure from the existing US policy of “strategic ambiguity” on its position on Taiwan, but shortly after he spoke a White House official said: “There is no change in US policy towards Taiwan. As the president said, our policy has not changed.”
I think the chance of the PLA invading Taiwan has dropped massively since February. One of the effects of the Russian debacle in Ukraine.
The effectiveness of anti-ship and anti-aircraft missiles mean the crossing to Taiwan would be impossibly expensive. And if their Russian-bought kit did actually get onto a beach.....
Fascinating to watch Putin-bot @GaryL disassemble itself in real-time, from matey chat about holidays to undisguised agitprop about “western elites”, in about 3 hours
Again, one is drawn to the conclusion that Russia is not as good at the Great Cyber Game as we all supposed
They probably just assume people in the west are as gullible as their own population while forgetting the reason they can pull the wool over the eyes of their own population is because they restrict the information flow
I'm unsure that's the entire plan. Pro-Russia bots could come in all shapes and sizes - from the 'obvious' ones - and there are plenty of those about on t'Interwebs - to the more subtle.
Putin's apparatus has shown a desire to divide his opponents; to force divisions between groups. That may be countries or groups within countries. So as well as the obvious Russian troll line, I would expect toe more capable of his agents to have looked at those fracture lines and widened them. And they might not play just one side, but both. For Putin, often what matters is not which side wins, but the divisions the arguments sow.
Let's take the example of an imaginary green group who protest on the streets. On the face of it, funding such groups goes against Russia's interests, as they are a gas-n-oil economy. But they don't expect the group to win; what they expect is for the group to disrupt things, cause trouble and widen divisions. The leaders of any such group might not even know where their funding is coming from, given the somewhat nebulous donations systems. But a few thousand roubles spent funding the 'right' people in the organisation might reap rich rewards.
It doesn't have to be green groups, either - any group that has lax systems, is nebulous but carries a loud voice would be prone to such stuff.
Yes, I have to admit though, that it is very clever. It turns the notion of 'debate' in to a sham; because any political debate can be easily corrupted by malicious actors due to the essentially unlimited freedom to broadcast. The effective lack of regulation means that entire pillars of civilisation are very weak, you only need to plant a few seeds to take down the whole thing - people will happily, innocently, unknowingly and sincerely do your work for you.
Just in case anyone thinks I've taken an anti-green stance with that post, I'd point out two other areas that Russia may have wanted to 'provoke' debate - the right-wing nutters in the US and their counterparts, the left-wing nutters. The more those two sides screech at each other, the more the chasm between them grows, the weaker America becomes.
It might not just be Russia either.
And (whispers quietly); I would not be surprised if we did the same, on a smaller scale. Although the more controlled media of our likely opponents makes it harder to do.
Of course... propoganda and psych-ops have been done forever, by all sides. Putin and Russia were just far ahead of the game with regard to the opportunities posed by social media, from circa 2010 onwards.
One thing that you can see, even somewhere like PB, is a lot more sympathy over recent years towards towards the extreme left, than the extreme right. The result is that people underestimate the threat posed by the former.
I don't see much sympathy towards the 'extreme left' on here.
Crikey: nor do I !!!
The Right at the moment have FAR more of a voice amongst pb posters, only counter-balanced by:
1. Mike Smithson himself
and
2. Many Conservative supporters having the good grace and honesty to critique this buffoon in No. 10
Generally most left-of-centre viewpoints get a lot of opprobrium
Personally I think Jeremy Corbyn was a vile man. Without doubt an Anti-Semite, and a misogynist, who took his distaste for this country into the extremes of supporting those hell-bent on evil, including terrorists. He crossed a line of acceptability and some.
However, I did like a few of his radical ideas. If they hadn't been cloaked in Jew-hating more people might have listened. It's quite ironic that the Conservatives even adopted some of them.
He was as nasty a piece of work as most tory Brexiteers are imho, with the exception of Steve Baker who genuinely seems to think he's serving God.
I think it's possible to be Radical and alternative without falling into that kind of Left-wing nastiness which mirrors its opposite on the Right.
To a large degree 'left' and 'right' are meaningless terms, they belong to another age. Talking about this, is a bit of a distraction really.
However, I don't see any evidence at all of 'extreme right' sympathy on PB. Most views that are sympathetic to what may be traditionally described as the 'extreme right' are effectively illegal and no longer possible to express in a public forum.
It may be more useful to think of it this way: 'progressive' ideas get a free pass. I saw this again in the last few days when I posted some stuff about the cancellation and excommunication of a leading cancer scientist in the US based on very questionable allegations of sexual impropriety. This was described in a lot of detail by Bari Weiss.
No one is leaping to the defence of concepts like the rule of law, innocent until proven guilty, what happened to due process etc etc. Instead, the typical response is 'yes, but look how bad the right are, no one is calling out that'.
Another thing I have noted, is that my posts always get a lot of 'likes' whenever I express positions that I hold that are popular with progressives; like concerns about immigration policy and the treatment of dual nationals in the UK, or support things like basic income, or say Keir Starmer would be a better PM than Boris Johnson. But if I start pointing out some of the problems and existential dangers of the 'woke' agenda, the likes are few and far between.
In the end, you just have to think for yourself.
People do defend the rule of law and innocent till proven guilty etc. For example in relation to the recent MP investigation, pointing out how Nigel Evans was tried and found not guilty.
I hope the clerical staff will get huge pay rises then.
No chance, they will just add it on to their role and responsibilities with no increase in pay. Having an Admin and Clerical role in the NHS is a thankless job and you often feel undervalued.
Fascinating to watch Putin-bot @GaryL disassemble itself in real-time, from matey chat about holidays to undisguised agitprop about “western elites”, in about 3 hours
Again, one is drawn to the conclusion that Russia is not as good at the Great Cyber Game as we all supposed
They probably just assume people in the west are as gullible as their own population while forgetting the reason they can pull the wool over the eyes of their own population is because they restrict the information flow
I'm unsure that's the entire plan. Pro-Russia bots could come in all shapes and sizes - from the 'obvious' ones - and there are plenty of those about on t'Interwebs - to the more subtle.
Putin's apparatus has shown a desire to divide his opponents; to force divisions between groups. That may be countries or groups within countries. So as well as the obvious Russian troll line, I would expect toe more capable of his agents to have looked at those fracture lines and widened them. And they might not play just one side, but both. For Putin, often what matters is not which side wins, but the divisions the arguments sow.
Let's take the example of an imaginary green group who protest on the streets. On the face of it, funding such groups goes against Russia's interests, as they are a gas-n-oil economy. But they don't expect the group to win; what they expect is for the group to disrupt things, cause trouble and widen divisions. The leaders of any such group might not even know where their funding is coming from, given the somewhat nebulous donations systems. But a few thousand roubles spent funding the 'right' people in the organisation might reap rich rewards.
It doesn't have to be green groups, either - any group that has lax systems, is nebulous but carries a loud voice would be prone to such stuff.
Yes, I have to admit though, that it is very clever. It turns the notion of 'debate' in to a sham; because any political debate can be easily corrupted by malicious actors due to the essentially unlimited freedom to broadcast. The effective lack of regulation means that entire pillars of civilisation are very weak, you only need to plant a few seeds to take down the whole thing - people will happily, innocently, unknowingly and sincerely do your work for you.
Just in case anyone thinks I've taken an anti-green stance with that post, I'd point out two other areas that Russia may have wanted to 'provoke' debate - the right-wing nutters in the US and their counterparts, the left-wing nutters. The more those two sides screech at each other, the more the chasm between them grows, the weaker America becomes.
It might not just be Russia either.
And (whispers quietly); I would not be surprised if we did the same, on a smaller scale. Although the more controlled media of our likely opponents makes it harder to do.
Of course... propoganda and psych-ops have been done forever, by all sides. Putin and Russia were just far ahead of the game with regard to the opportunities posed by social media, from circa 2010 onwards.
One thing that you can see, even somewhere like PB, is a lot more sympathy over recent years towards towards the extreme left, than the extreme right. The result is that people underestimate the threat posed by the former.
I don't see much sympathy towards the 'extreme left' on here.
Crikey: nor do I !!!
The Right at the moment have FAR more of a voice amongst pb posters, only counter-balanced by:
1. Mike Smithson himself
and
2. Many Conservative supporters having the good grace and honesty to critique this buffoon in No. 10
Generally most left-of-centre viewpoints get a lot of opprobrium
Personally I think Jeremy Corbyn was a vile man. Without doubt an Anti-Semite, and a misogynist, who took his distaste for this country into the extremes of supporting those hell-bent on evil, including terrorists. He crossed a line of acceptability and some.
However, I did like a few of his radical ideas. If they hadn't been cloaked in Jew-hating more people might have listened. It's quite ironic that the Conservatives even adopted some of them.
He was as nasty a piece of work as most tory Brexiteers are imho, with the exception of Steve Baker who genuinely seems to think he's serving God.
I think it's possible to be Radical and alternative without falling into that kind of Left-wing nastiness which mirrors its opposite on the Right.
I think the problem is one of framing. ISTR that you have in the past called me a right-winger, or worse, possibly because of issues I support. I don't see myself as particularly right-wing, and certainly not a large-C Conservative. I was a voice calling Boris out about the Garden Bridge debacle, and said it showed why he was unsuitable to be PM (which I think I've been proved correct on).
Put basically, economically I'm probably traditional right wing; on social issues I'm probably more to the left; and in general I quite like a liberal let-people-do-what-they-want-as-long-as-they-dont-harm-others stick. Combine this with a evolution-is-better-than-revolution mindset (small-c conservative), and I think I've summed myself up quite well. But as ever, I am thoroughly inconsistent within those.
People are complex. The problem is that some people like to belong to a club (party), and try to wedge their views into that club. Which is why Nick Palmer could be a blessed Blair follower, one of the Miliband multitude, a Corbyn convert, and finally he dances Starmer-style.
Kudos to those on here who were keen members of a party but have left due to their poor leaders, whether it's Rochdale against Corbyn or TSE and others against Johnson.
And now I've totally forgotten what I was ranting about...
In my experience, the nastiness comes first. The ideology is the facade.
First find an acceptable out group. Then unleash the inner SA man*. Or Reichbanner man*.
*In a number of examples, the same person.
Hmmmm not so sure that's right or even stands up to the test of history.
There's something about ideologies themselves and blind support of any cause which blinds people. But it also generates its own momentum. This is demonstrable in social studies.
Take some football supporters. It's when they collect that the mob frenzy takes over. The same is true in many religions. And it extends to some fanatical political stances.
I know this bit won't meet with complete approval but I see the same swivel-eyed lunacy when Brexiteers get going. As individuals they're probably not intrinsically bad people. But get them together on this cause and they lose all sense of perspective.
With football, it's the excuse to let the inner arsehole out.
As Nick Hornby pointed out in his book on being a football supporter - the policing etc has created a space for socially acceptable (in the groups in question) bad behaviour.
No I'm still not sure you're quite right about this. I don't have the same negative view of individuals per se.
Mob rule: the power of the pack is the issue here. In groups those individuals gain an added momentum, an innate social power that can become like a nuclear reaction. When combined with belief in an other power, 'God' but can also be Millwall Football Club, the group frenzy can become truly frightening.
Put another way, if you strip out the individuals from many of the atrocities of the human race they were not all intrinsically as evil as the sum of their parts. They often express bewilderment at what they had done when they gathered.
I once camped in a huge reserve in central Africa. I was behind a rather weak fence but hearing the chimpanzees hunting in a pack around me was one of the most unnerving sounds I've ever heard. A really vicious mob frenzy took over.
Point is sensible leaders in the west realise this war is going nowhere and costing thousands of lives
Great. So when is Russia withdrawing?
Its telling that its always ukraine must surrender to save lives, never russia must give up. But then seems to me its mainly russian lives that would be being saved anyway in this war.
I subscribe to the series, even though it's a bit Australian (hence somewhat obscure at times to a UK reader), because it combines being seriously left/green with having a gentle sense of humour - something we don't really see enough of on my half of the spectrum.
I hope the clerical staff will get huge pay rises then.
No chance, they will just add it on to their role and responsibilities with no increase in pay. Having an Admin and Clerical role in the NHS is a thankless job and you often feel undervalued.
Fascinating to watch Putin-bot @GaryL disassemble itself in real-time, from matey chat about holidays to undisguised agitprop about “western elites”, in about 3 hours
Again, one is drawn to the conclusion that Russia is not as good at the Great Cyber Game as we all supposed
They probably just assume people in the west are as gullible as their own population while forgetting the reason they can pull the wool over the eyes of their own population is because they restrict the information flow
I'm unsure that's the entire plan. Pro-Russia bots could come in all shapes and sizes - from the 'obvious' ones - and there are plenty of those about on t'Interwebs - to the more subtle.
Putin's apparatus has shown a desire to divide his opponents; to force divisions between groups. That may be countries or groups within countries. So as well as the obvious Russian troll line, I would expect toe more capable of his agents to have looked at those fracture lines and widened them. And they might not play just one side, but both. For Putin, often what matters is not which side wins, but the divisions the arguments sow.
Let's take the example of an imaginary green group who protest on the streets. On the face of it, funding such groups goes against Russia's interests, as they are a gas-n-oil economy. But they don't expect the group to win; what they expect is for the group to disrupt things, cause trouble and widen divisions. The leaders of any such group might not even know where their funding is coming from, given the somewhat nebulous donations systems. But a few thousand roubles spent funding the 'right' people in the organisation might reap rich rewards.
It doesn't have to be green groups, either - any group that has lax systems, is nebulous but carries a loud voice would be prone to such stuff.
Yes, I have to admit though, that it is very clever. It turns the notion of 'debate' in to a sham; because any political debate can be easily corrupted by malicious actors due to the essentially unlimited freedom to broadcast. The effective lack of regulation means that entire pillars of civilisation are very weak, you only need to plant a few seeds to take down the whole thing - people will happily, innocently, unknowingly and sincerely do your work for you.
Just in case anyone thinks I've taken an anti-green stance with that post, I'd point out two other areas that Russia may have wanted to 'provoke' debate - the right-wing nutters in the US and their counterparts, the left-wing nutters. The more those two sides screech at each other, the more the chasm between them grows, the weaker America becomes.
It might not just be Russia either.
And (whispers quietly); I would not be surprised if we did the same, on a smaller scale. Although the more controlled media of our likely opponents makes it harder to do.
Of course... propoganda and psych-ops have been done forever, by all sides. Putin and Russia were just far ahead of the game with regard to the opportunities posed by social media, from circa 2010 onwards.
One thing that you can see, even somewhere like PB, is a lot more sympathy over recent years towards towards the extreme left, than the extreme right. The result is that people underestimate the threat posed by the former.
I don't see much sympathy towards the 'extreme left' on here.
Crikey: nor do I !!!
The Right at the moment have FAR more of a voice amongst pb posters, only counter-balanced by:
1. Mike Smithson himself
and
2. Many Conservative supporters having the good grace and honesty to critique this buffoon in No. 10
Generally most left-of-centre viewpoints get a lot of opprobrium
Personally I think Jeremy Corbyn was a vile man. Without doubt an Anti-Semite, and a misogynist, who took his distaste for this country into the extremes of supporting those hell-bent on evil, including terrorists. He crossed a line of acceptability and some.
However, I did like a few of his radical ideas. If they hadn't been cloaked in Jew-hating more people might have listened. It's quite ironic that the Conservatives even adopted some of them.
He was as nasty a piece of work as most tory Brexiteers are imho, with the exception of Steve Baker who genuinely seems to think he's serving God.
I think it's possible to be Radical and alternative without falling into that kind of Left-wing nastiness which mirrors its opposite on the Right.
To a large degree 'left' and 'right' are meaningless terms, they belong to another age. Talking about this, is a bit of a distraction really.
However, I don't see any evidence at all of 'extreme right' sympathy on PB. Most views that are sympathetic to what may be traditionally described as the 'extreme right' are effectively illegal and no longer possible to express in a public forum.
It may be more useful to think of it this way: 'progressive' ideas get a free pass. I saw this again in the last few days when I posted some stuff about the cancellation and excommunication of a leading cancer scientist in the US based on very questionable allegations of sexual impropriety. This was described in a lot of detail by Bari Weiss.
No one is leaping to the defence of concepts like the rule of law, innocent until proven guilty, what happened to due process etc etc. Instead, the typical response is 'yes, but look how bad the right are, no one is calling out that'.
Another thing I have noted, is that my posts always get a lot of 'likes' whenever I express positions that I hold that are popular with progressives; like concerns about immigration policy and the treatment of dual nationals in the UK, or support things like basic income, or say Keir Starmer would be a better PM than Boris Johnson. But if I start pointing out some of the problems and existential dangers of the 'woke' agenda, the likes are few and far between.
In the end, you just have to think for yourself.
Yes.
'Left' and 'right', while we all us them to name groups of parties and voters, and shifts in polling support etc are little use in UK politics.
There are two or three problems: Within mainstream parties the real and structured differences are not about left and right in the conventional sense. Brexit and post Brexit issues are not left and right issues. and these are the most divisive political issues.
When more left than now Labour went into an election decades ago wanting withdrawal. And in truth the EU is a centrist/centre right project supporting capitalism, wealth, hierarchy and elitism of all sorts.
When it comes to big ticket spending by government, all parties agree on: NHS, free education to 18, state pensions and benefits, defence, roads and housing, controlling borders, tax, child welfare, private enterprise. All the differences are small retail differences. Left and right hardly enter into it.
The other big divide is nationalism and nation status. Especially in Scotland and NI. This is not a left and right issue.
I hope the clerical staff will get huge pay rises then.
No chance, they will just add it on to their role and responsibilities with no increase in pay. Having an Admin and Clerical role in the NHS is a thankless job and you often feel undervalued.
There is a place for increasing the throughput for scans and testing - modern technology massively reduces the requirement for doctors to be present for MRIs etc.
Or perhaps a more muscular version. "America is committed to a One China policy but that does not mean China has the jurisdiction to use force to take Taiwan,” Biden said, adding, “My expectation is that will not happen.”
Biden’s comments appeared to be a departure from the existing US policy of “strategic ambiguity” on its position on Taiwan, but shortly after he spoke a White House official said: “There is no change in US policy towards Taiwan. As the president said, our policy has not changed.”
I think the chance of the PLA invading Taiwan has dropped massively since February. One of the effects of the Russian debacle in Ukraine.
That's probably true, but it's not a certainty. And no doubt China will be studying Russia's mistakes.
Note also that Chinese capabilities in terms of command and control, and electronic systems are probably well in advance of what's now available in Russia. They also are less likely to have a hollowed out military - their military budget is three to four times the size (depending on how measured), delivers real rather than Potemkin capabilities, and is more geographically focused.
Invasions of other countries are by their nature somewhat irrational gambles.
I hope the clerical staff will get huge pay rises then.
No chance, they will just add it on to their role and responsibilities with no increase in pay. Having an Admin and Clerical role in the NHS is a thankless job and you often feel undervalued.
That's what I figured.
After which the next call will be well these clerical staff are doing the scans so we should train them to interpret them and they can just refer the non clear cut cases to the consultants who are enjoying in the time saved wfgc (working from golf course)
Thanks to everyone for the interesting discussion. As for whether the ideology comes first or the nastiness, I'd like to mention an anecdote that I've posted before.
When I was 16, I was a volunteer at an organisation. I met and became friends with a farmer who was fifteen or so years older than me. He was a bit 'slow', but a hard grafter and keen. We never talked about politics or anything complex. He was good fun.
After six months, I discovered that ten years earlier he had been a neo-Nazi, and had walked on a march through a local city. I would have disbelieved this if several people had not told me independently. Yet in the years I knew him, he showed zero sign of it - and was courteously polite to my girlfriends, some of whom were foreign.
I reckon he just wanted to belong to a group. In his youth, he had chosen (or been chosen by) an evil ideology. A few years later, he was doing something very different. He was a bit of an outsider, and wanted to belong - if he had an ideology he never mentioned it.
But the thing is this: he was a hard grafter and easily led. He could be told to do something, and he would work hard at it, and do it well. That 'order' might be to feed the animals, fetch some tools, unclog a drain, or perhaps something darker.
I think many people are like this; wanting to find groups to which they 'belong'. And many people take advantage of this.
On topic - I'm unconvinced that a minority Starmer govt could get STV through.
Labour MPs would worry about their seats, and it would be very important to see how those multi-member constituencies are drawn. Presumably Labour would lose seats in London, but gain them outside of London...?
AV would be more likely to get through, but that would contradict a clear referendum result (and I'm not sure Starmer wants to be talking about overturning referenda any time soon).
Morning all! Probably already been debated to death, but the Ridge - Zaharwi interview ranks alongside Paxman - Howard for brilliant persistent questioning and a minister getting increasingly rattled and confused that their carefully-crafted excuse line had been pulled apart and thrown back at them.
Zaharwi kept repeating that Sue Gray was a woman of impeccable integrity. Yes, we know. Its the PM who has no integrity, by repeating the same thing you were pointing straight at the reality of Bonzo hauling Gray in to knobble the report.
Fabulous stuff. I assume there is enough bad in the report to make pants be shat in Number 10, hence hauling her in. I hope she doubles down.
Fascinating to watch Putin-bot @GaryL disassemble itself in real-time, from matey chat about holidays to undisguised agitprop about “western elites”, in about 3 hours
Again, one is drawn to the conclusion that Russia is not as good at the Great Cyber Game as we all supposed
They probably just assume people in the west are as gullible as their own population while forgetting the reason they can pull the wool over the eyes of their own population is because they restrict the information flow
I'm unsure that's the entire plan. Pro-Russia bots could come in all shapes and sizes - from the 'obvious' ones - and there are plenty of those about on t'Interwebs - to the more subtle.
Putin's apparatus has shown a desire to divide his opponents; to force divisions between groups. That may be countries or groups within countries. So as well as the obvious Russian troll line, I would expect toe more capable of his agents to have looked at those fracture lines and widened them. And they might not play just one side, but both. For Putin, often what matters is not which side wins, but the divisions the arguments sow.
Let's take the example of an imaginary green group who protest on the streets. On the face of it, funding such groups goes against Russia's interests, as they are a gas-n-oil economy. But they don't expect the group to win; what they expect is for the group to disrupt things, cause trouble and widen divisions. The leaders of any such group might not even know where their funding is coming from, given the somewhat nebulous donations systems. But a few thousand roubles spent funding the 'right' people in the organisation might reap rich rewards.
It doesn't have to be green groups, either - any group that has lax systems, is nebulous but carries a loud voice would be prone to such stuff.
Yes, I have to admit though, that it is very clever. It turns the notion of 'debate' in to a sham; because any political debate can be easily corrupted by malicious actors due to the essentially unlimited freedom to broadcast. The effective lack of regulation means that entire pillars of civilisation are very weak, you only need to plant a few seeds to take down the whole thing - people will happily, innocently, unknowingly and sincerely do your work for you.
Just in case anyone thinks I've taken an anti-green stance with that post, I'd point out two other areas that Russia may have wanted to 'provoke' debate - the right-wing nutters in the US and their counterparts, the left-wing nutters. The more those two sides screech at each other, the more the chasm between them grows, the weaker America becomes.
It might not just be Russia either.
And (whispers quietly); I would not be surprised if we did the same, on a smaller scale. Although the more controlled media of our likely opponents makes it harder to do.
Of course... propoganda and psych-ops have been done forever, by all sides. Putin and Russia were just far ahead of the game with regard to the opportunities posed by social media, from circa 2010 onwards.
One thing that you can see, even somewhere like PB, is a lot more sympathy over recent years towards towards the extreme left, than the extreme right. The result is that people underestimate the threat posed by the former.
I don't see much sympathy towards the 'extreme left' on here.
Crikey: nor do I !!!
The Right at the moment have FAR more of a voice amongst pb posters, only counter-balanced by:
1. Mike Smithson himself
and
2. Many Conservative supporters having the good grace and honesty to critique this buffoon in No. 10
Generally most left-of-centre viewpoints get a lot of opprobrium
Personally I think Jeremy Corbyn was a vile man. Without doubt an Anti-Semite, and a misogynist, who took his distaste for this country into the extremes of supporting those hell-bent on evil, including terrorists. He crossed a line of acceptability and some.
However, I did like a few of his radical ideas. If they hadn't been cloaked in Jew-hating more people might have listened. It's quite ironic that the Conservatives even adopted some of them.
He was as nasty a piece of work as most tory Brexiteers are imho, with the exception of Steve Baker who genuinely seems to think he's serving God.
I think it's possible to be Radical and alternative without falling into that kind of Left-wing nastiness which mirrors its opposite on the Right.
I think the problem is one of framing. ISTR that you have in the past called me a right-winger, or worse, possibly because of issues I support. I don't see myself as particularly right-wing, and certainly not a large-C Conservative. I was a voice calling Boris out about the Garden Bridge debacle, and said it showed why he was unsuitable to be PM (which I think I've been proved correct on).
Put basically, economically I'm probably traditional right wing; on social issues I'm probably more to the left; and in general I quite like a liberal let-people-do-what-they-want-as-long-as-they-dont-harm-others stick. Combine this with a evolution-is-better-than-revolution mindset (small-c conservative), and I think I've summed myself up quite well. But as ever, I am thoroughly inconsistent within those.
People are complex. The problem is that some people like to belong to a club (party), and try to wedge their views into that club. Which is why Nick Palmer could be a blessed Blair follower, one of the Miliband multitude, a Corbyn convert, and finally he dances Starmer-style.
Kudos to those on here who were keen members of a party but have left due to their poor leaders, whether it's Rochdale against Corbyn or TSE and others against Johnson.
And now I've totally forgotten what I was ranting about...
Just like Pornhub, its all relative.
If you're a never kissed a Tory zealot then anyone who has ever voted or considered voting for the Tories is an extreme right extremist - in which case this site must be horrifically right wing for you.
If you're an only Tory in the village zealot who considers anyone who has ever not voted for the Tories to not be a real Tory anyway, then you might be the only Tory on this site.
I understood only one particular area of Pornhub concerned relatives.
Thanks to everyone for the interesting discussion. As for whether the ideology comes first or the nastiness, I'd like to mention an anecdote that I've posted before.
When I was 16, I was a volunteer at an organisation. I met and became friends with a farmer who was fifteen or so years older than me. He was a bit 'slow', but a hard grafter and keen. We never talked about politics or anything complex. He was good fun.
After six months, I discovered that ten years earlier he had been a neo-Nazi, and had walked on a march through a local city. I would have disbelieved this if several people had not told me independently. Yet in the years I knew him, he showed zero sign of it - and was courteously polite to my girlfriends, some of whom were foreign.
I reckon he just wanted to belong to a group. In his youth, he had chosen (or been chosen by) an evil ideology. A few years later, he was doing something very different. He was a bit of an outsider, and wanted to belong - if he had an ideology he never mentioned it.
But the thing is this: he was a hard grafter and easily led. He could be told to do something, and he would work hard at it, and do it well. That 'order' might be to feed the animals, fetch some tools, unclog a drain, or perhaps something darker.
I think many people are like this; wanting to find groups to which they 'belong'. And many people take advantage of this.
On topic - I'm unconvinced that a minority Starmer govt could get STV through.
Labour MPs would worry about their seats, and it would be very important to see how those multi-member constituencies are drawn. Presumably Labour would lose seats in London, but gain them outside of London...?
AV would be more likely to get through, but that would contradict a clear referendum result (and I'm not sure Starmer wants to be talking about overturning referenda any time soon).
I would like to think enough mp's of all sides would rebel against any major change to our voting systems without explicit public consent.
On topic - I'm unconvinced that a minority Starmer govt could get STV through.
Labour MPs would worry about their seats, and it would be very important to see how those multi-member constituencies are drawn. Presumably Labour would lose seats in London, but gain them outside of London...?
AV would be more likely to get through, but that would contradict a clear referendum result (and I'm not sure Starmer wants to be talking about overturning referenda any time soon).
It's a few years since the referendum so maybe it could be introduced. Interestingly AV without compulsory ranking wouldn't make much difference to the result under FPTP because a lot of people would only vote for one candidate.
Morning all! Probably already been debated to death, but the Ridge - Zaharwi interview ranks alongside Paxman - Howard for brilliant persistent questioning and a minister getting increasingly rattled and confused that their carefully-crafted excuse line had been pulled apart and thrown back at them.
Zaharwi kept repeating that Sue Gray was a woman of impeccable integrity. Yes, we know. Its the PM who has no integrity, by repeating the same thing you were pointing straight at the reality of Bonzo hauling Gray in to knobble the report.
Fabulous stuff. I assume there is enough bad in the report to make pants be shat in Number 10, hence hauling her in. I hope she doubles down.
So bad that various civil servants will have to move office to show that Big Dog has got a grip. The Liar in Chief will continue on without a care.
As George Osborne has been saying he's going nowhere as no one else seems to want the crown enough to seize it.
Some Radiologists do report scans from home, though the specs for the computer need to be quite high. Mostly it is the on call stuff, but no reason that some routine reporting could be too.
And there was me imagining a line of patients waiting outside the consultants house...
That s a ridiculous image. The line of patients would be in the waiting room of the consultants private practise.
In the Goode Olde Days docs lived "above the shop" in Harley Street.....
Not just in Harley St. Out in the sticks single-handed (usually) GP's saw patients in a room in their house ..... usually a bit larger than the average..... and the patients took their prescriptions to the pharmacy, where the pharmacist lived above and behind the shop.
Excellent post from TSE, but I just wanted to flag up one point right at the end, where the Alternative Vote system was flagged up as 'Primus Inter Pares'. Presumably meant to imply that would be the optimal choice. Actually AV is in no way a proportional voting system - it is a slight improvement perhaps on our current First Past the Post, which as TSE points out often produces bizarre and inequitable outcomes. To give just one example (figures are from memory but I think they're in the right ballpark) - in I think the 2010 general election, on a similar vote share, getting approx 4 million votes, the SNP had something like 50 seats and UKIP had none. (I'm no apologist for UKIP, being the precise opposite in my political views, but it's a scandal that those voters didn't get the representation they deserved). Because of course UKIPs votes were spread around many constituencies, and the SNPs all concentrated in the Scottish constituencies. I could go on - I recall in the 1980s the LibDems were often not that far behind in percentage vote from Labour, but typically got around a tenth of the seats.
So bringing in proportional representation would be a consummation devoutly to be wished - at least that would be my view. The argument against is that it makes it less likely to get majority governments, but why should a party gaining in the mid 30s percentage vote end up with an ability to do what it likes, when two thirds of the voters voted for different parties? However AV would in no way take this forward - it is only a very slight improvement if that on FPTP in terms of proportionality. STV would be the way to go, or some other genuinely proportional system, and many parts of the UK are already using it very successfully in their elections (blowing out of the water the desperate argument 'it's too complicated for voters to understand').
Fascinating to watch Putin-bot @GaryL disassemble itself in real-time, from matey chat about holidays to undisguised agitprop about “western elites”, in about 3 hours
Again, one is drawn to the conclusion that Russia is not as good at the Great Cyber Game as we all supposed
They probably just assume people in the west are as gullible as their own population while forgetting the reason they can pull the wool over the eyes of their own population is because they restrict the information flow
I'm unsure that's the entire plan. Pro-Russia bots could come in all shapes and sizes - from the 'obvious' ones - and there are plenty of those about on t'Interwebs - to the more subtle.
Putin's apparatus has shown a desire to divide his opponents; to force divisions between groups. That may be countries or groups within countries. So as well as the obvious Russian troll line, I would expect toe more capable of his agents to have looked at those fracture lines and widened them. And they might not play just one side, but both. For Putin, often what matters is not which side wins, but the divisions the arguments sow.
Let's take the example of an imaginary green group who protest on the streets. On the face of it, funding such groups goes against Russia's interests, as they are a gas-n-oil economy. But they don't expect the group to win; what they expect is for the group to disrupt things, cause trouble and widen divisions. The leaders of any such group might not even know where their funding is coming from, given the somewhat nebulous donations systems. But a few thousand roubles spent funding the 'right' people in the organisation might reap rich rewards.
It doesn't have to be green groups, either - any group that has lax systems, is nebulous but carries a loud voice would be prone to such stuff.
Yes, I have to admit though, that it is very clever. It turns the notion of 'debate' in to a sham; because any political debate can be easily corrupted by malicious actors due to the essentially unlimited freedom to broadcast. The effective lack of regulation means that entire pillars of civilisation are very weak, you only need to plant a few seeds to take down the whole thing - people will happily, innocently, unknowingly and sincerely do your work for you.
Just in case anyone thinks I've taken an anti-green stance with that post, I'd point out two other areas that Russia may have wanted to 'provoke' debate - the right-wing nutters in the US and their counterparts, the left-wing nutters. The more those two sides screech at each other, the more the chasm between them grows, the weaker America becomes.
It might not just be Russia either.
And (whispers quietly); I would not be surprised if we did the same, on a smaller scale. Although the more controlled media of our likely opponents makes it harder to do.
Of course... propoganda and psych-ops have been done forever, by all sides. Putin and Russia were just far ahead of the game with regard to the opportunities posed by social media, from circa 2010 onwards.
One thing that you can see, even somewhere like PB, is a lot more sympathy over recent years towards towards the extreme left, than the extreme right. The result is that people underestimate the threat posed by the former.
I don't see much sympathy towards the 'extreme left' on here.
Crikey: nor do I !!!
The Right at the moment have FAR more of a voice amongst pb posters, only counter-balanced by:
1. Mike Smithson himself
and
2. Many Conservative supporters having the good grace and honesty to critique this buffoon in No. 10
Generally most left-of-centre viewpoints get a lot of opprobrium
Personally I think Jeremy Corbyn was a vile man. Without doubt an Anti-Semite, and a misogynist, who took his distaste for this country into the extremes of supporting those hell-bent on evil, including terrorists. He crossed a line of acceptability and some.
However, I did like a few of his radical ideas. If they hadn't been cloaked in Jew-hating more people might have listened. It's quite ironic that the Conservatives even adopted some of them.
He was as nasty a piece of work as most tory Brexiteers are imho, with the exception of Steve Baker who genuinely seems to think he's serving God.
I think it's possible to be Radical and alternative without falling into that kind of Left-wing nastiness which mirrors its opposite on the Right.
To a large degree 'left' and 'right' are meaningless terms, they belong to another age. Talking about this, is a bit of a distraction really.
However, I don't see any evidence at all of 'extreme right' sympathy on PB. Most views that are sympathetic to what may be traditionally described as the 'extreme right' are effectively illegal and no longer possible to express in a public forum.
It may be more useful to think of it this way: 'progressive' ideas get a free pass. I saw this again in the last few days when I posted some stuff about the cancellation and excommunication of a leading cancer scientist in the US based on very questionable allegations of sexual impropriety. This was described in a lot of detail by Bari Weiss.
No one is leaping to the defence of concepts like the rule of law, innocent until proven guilty, what happened to due process etc etc. Instead, the typical response is 'yes, but look how bad the right are, no one is calling out that'.
Another thing I have noted, is that my posts always get a lot of 'likes' whenever I express positions that I hold that are popular with progressives; like concerns about immigration policy and the treatment of dual nationals in the UK, or support things like basic income, or say Keir Starmer would be a better PM than Boris Johnson. But if I start pointing out some of the problems and existential dangers of the 'woke' agenda, the likes are few and far between.
In the end, you just have to think for yourself.
Yes.
'Left' and 'right', while we all us them to name groups of parties and voters, and shifts in polling support etc are little use in UK politics.
There are two or three problems: Within mainstream parties the real and structured differences are not about left and right in the conventional sense. Brexit and post Brexit issues are not left and right issues. and these are the most divisive political issues.
When more left than now Labour went into an election decades ago wanting withdrawal. And in truth the EU is a centrist/centre right project supporting capitalism, wealth, hierarchy and elitism of all sorts.
When it comes to big ticket spending by government, all parties agree on: NHS, free education to 18, state pensions and benefits, defence, roads and housing, controlling borders, tax, child welfare, private enterprise. All the differences are small retail differences. Left and right hardly enter into it.
The other big divide is nationalism and nation status. Especially in Scotland and NI. This is not a left and right issue.
A new language is needed.
I still use "progressive" - I know some hate that word as they consider themselves / their position / their party as not being. But it isn't party political.
Two simple examples. Today's Tory party is about as far from progressive as you can get. But Cameron's coalition legalised gay marriage and normalised so much of LGBTQwhatever that people like me felt safe coming out of the closet.
Or on the other side, Blair's Labour was definitely progressive, yet look at the cesspit that was Corbyn's Labour. Even the "we'll nationalise your broadband and make it shit" policy was regressive, never mind their views on the establishment (code for Jews), capitalism (code for Jews), international defence organisations (code for Jews) etc etc.
So I support progressive politics and policies over regressive. We need to improve all of society, nit just for a section of it at the expense of the majority.
I hope the clerical staff will get huge pay rises then.
No chance, they will just add it on to their role and responsibilities with no increase in pay. Having an Admin and Clerical role in the NHS is a thankless job and you often feel undervalued.
That's what I figured.
After which the next call will be well these clerical staff are doing the scans so we should train them to interpret them and they can just refer the non clear cut cases to the consultants who are enjoying in the time saved wfgc (working from golf course)
Indeed. Perhaps after their multi-year training courses to do all of this, we should give them a funky title? Good for moral, no cost to the NHS....
I recall an experience with private medicine. The X-ray was done within 30 min of showing up at the hospital. On a Friday evening. The MRI took longer - nearly another 45 minute. All done by nurses/dedicated technical staff. They apologised for the slowness - they were very busy. Then they told me that the consultant needed 2 hours to review the scans and since it was 9pm on a Friday, he could only do an hour before going home. So they apologised some more and asked if I could come back the next day - Saturday. Saw the consultant at 10am. First thing he did was to apologise for this all having taken so much time.....
Morning all! Probably already been debated to death, but the Ridge - Zaharwi interview ranks alongside Paxman - Howard for brilliant persistent questioning and a minister getting increasingly rattled and confused that their carefully-crafted excuse line had been pulled apart and thrown back at them.
Zaharwi kept repeating that Sue Gray was a woman of impeccable integrity. Yes, we know. Its the PM who has no integrity, by repeating the same thing you were pointing straight at the reality of Bonzo hauling Gray in to knobble the report.
Fabulous stuff. I assume there is enough bad in the report to make pants be shat in Number 10, hence hauling her in. I hope she doubles down.
So bad that various civil servants will have to move office to show that Big Dog has got a grip. The Liar in Chief will continue on without a care.
As George Osborne has been saying he's going nowhere as no one else seems to want the crown enough to seize it.
Oh sure, I expect he will stay on because too many Tory MPs have can smell the rot and have realised there is little point changing the head as the rot will still be there.
That still doesn't mean that Gray can't make the head even worse smelling than it already is.
On topic - I'm unconvinced that a minority Starmer govt could get STV through.
Labour MPs would worry about their seats, and it would be very important to see how those multi-member constituencies are drawn. Presumably Labour would lose seats in London, but gain them outside of London...?
AV would be more likely to get through, but that would contradict a clear referendum result (and I'm not sure Starmer wants to be talking about overturning referenda any time soon).
AV isn’t really true reform. It can be less proportional than FPTP.
I personally favour STV in large multi member seats where you can select your preferred candidate as opposed to a ranked party list.
Fascinating to watch Putin-bot @GaryL disassemble itself in real-time, from matey chat about holidays to undisguised agitprop about “western elites”, in about 3 hours
Again, one is drawn to the conclusion that Russia is not as good at the Great Cyber Game as we all supposed
They probably just assume people in the west are as gullible as their own population while forgetting the reason they can pull the wool over the eyes of their own population is because they restrict the information flow
I'm unsure that's the entire plan. Pro-Russia bots could come in all shapes and sizes - from the 'obvious' ones - and there are plenty of those about on t'Interwebs - to the more subtle.
Putin's apparatus has shown a desire to divide his opponents; to force divisions between groups. That may be countries or groups within countries. So as well as the obvious Russian troll line, I would expect toe more capable of his agents to have looked at those fracture lines and widened them. And they might not play just one side, but both. For Putin, often what matters is not which side wins, but the divisions the arguments sow.
Let's take the example of an imaginary green group who protest on the streets. On the face of it, funding such groups goes against Russia's interests, as they are a gas-n-oil economy. But they don't expect the group to win; what they expect is for the group to disrupt things, cause trouble and widen divisions. The leaders of any such group might not even know where their funding is coming from, given the somewhat nebulous donations systems. But a few thousand roubles spent funding the 'right' people in the organisation might reap rich rewards.
It doesn't have to be green groups, either - any group that has lax systems, is nebulous but carries a loud voice would be prone to such stuff.
Yes, I have to admit though, that it is very clever. It turns the notion of 'debate' in to a sham; because any political debate can be easily corrupted by malicious actors due to the essentially unlimited freedom to broadcast. The effective lack of regulation means that entire pillars of civilisation are very weak, you only need to plant a few seeds to take down the whole thing - people will happily, innocently, unknowingly and sincerely do your work for you.
Just in case anyone thinks I've taken an anti-green stance with that post, I'd point out two other areas that Russia may have wanted to 'provoke' debate - the right-wing nutters in the US and their counterparts, the left-wing nutters. The more those two sides screech at each other, the more the chasm between them grows, the weaker America becomes.
It might not just be Russia either.
And (whispers quietly); I would not be surprised if we did the same, on a smaller scale. Although the more controlled media of our likely opponents makes it harder to do.
Of course... propoganda and psych-ops have been done forever, by all sides. Putin and Russia were just far ahead of the game with regard to the opportunities posed by social media, from circa 2010 onwards.
One thing that you can see, even somewhere like PB, is a lot more sympathy over recent years towards towards the extreme left, than the extreme right. The result is that people underestimate the threat posed by the former.
I don't see much sympathy towards the 'extreme left' on here.
Crikey: nor do I !!!
The Right at the moment have FAR more of a voice amongst pb posters, only counter-balanced by:
1. Mike Smithson himself
and
2. Many Conservative supporters having the good grace and honesty to critique this buffoon in No. 10
Generally most left-of-centre viewpoints get a lot of opprobrium
Personally I think Jeremy Corbyn was a vile man. Without doubt an Anti-Semite, and a misogynist, who took his distaste for this country into the extremes of supporting those hell-bent on evil, including terrorists. He crossed a line of acceptability and some.
However, I did like a few of his radical ideas. If they hadn't been cloaked in Jew-hating more people might have listened. It's quite ironic that the Conservatives even adopted some of them.
He was as nasty a piece of work as most tory Brexiteers are imho, with the exception of Steve Baker who genuinely seems to think he's serving God.
I think it's possible to be Radical and alternative without falling into that kind of Left-wing nastiness which mirrors its opposite on the Right.
To a large degree 'left' and 'right' are meaningless terms, they belong to another age. Talking about this, is a bit of a distraction really.
However, I don't see any evidence at all of 'extreme right' sympathy on PB. Most views that are sympathetic to what may be traditionally described as the 'extreme right' are effectively illegal and no longer possible to express in a public forum.
It may be more useful to think of it this way: 'progressive' ideas get a free pass. I saw this again in the last few days when I posted some stuff about the cancellation and excommunication of a leading cancer scientist in the US based on very questionable allegations of sexual impropriety. This was described in a lot of detail by Bari Weiss.
No one is leaping to the defence of concepts like the rule of law, innocent until proven guilty, what happened to due process etc etc. Instead, the typical response is 'yes, but look how bad the right are, no one is calling out that'.
Another thing I have noted, is that my posts always get a lot of 'likes' whenever I express positions that I hold that are popular with progressives; like concerns about immigration policy and the treatment of dual nationals in the UK, or support things like basic income, or say Keir Starmer would be a better PM than Boris Johnson. But if I start pointing out some of the problems and existential dangers of the 'woke' agenda, the likes are few and far between.
In the end, you just have to think for yourself.
Yes.
'Left' and 'right', while we all us them to name groups of parties and voters, and shifts in polling support etc are little use in UK politics.
There are two or three problems: Within mainstream parties the real and structured differences are not about left and right in the conventional sense. Brexit and post Brexit issues are not left and right issues. and these are the most divisive political issues.
When more left than now Labour went into an election decades ago wanting withdrawal. And in truth the EU is a centrist/centre right project supporting capitalism, wealth, hierarchy and elitism of all sorts.
When it comes to big ticket spending by government, all parties agree on: NHS, free education to 18, state pensions and benefits, defence, roads and housing, controlling borders, tax, child welfare, private enterprise. All the differences are small retail differences. Left and right hardly enter into it.
The other big divide is nationalism and nation status. Especially in Scotland and NI. This is not a left and right issue.
A new language is needed.
I still use "progressive" - I know some hate that word as they consider themselves / their position / their party as not being. But it isn't party political.
Two simple examples. Today's Tory party is about as far from progressive as you can get. But Cameron's coalition legalised gay marriage and normalised so much of LGBTQwhatever that people like me felt safe coming out of the closet.
Or on the other side, Blair's Labour was definitely progressive, yet look at the cesspit that was Corbyn's Labour. Even the "we'll nationalise your broadband and make it shit" policy was regressive, never mind their views on the establishment (code for Jews), capitalism (code for Jews), international defence organisations (code for Jews) etc etc.
So I support progressive politics and policies over regressive. We need to improve all of society, nit just for a section of it at the expense of the majority.
Did he really say "..we'll make your broadband shit..."?
Fascinating to watch Putin-bot @GaryL disassemble itself in real-time, from matey chat about holidays to undisguised agitprop about “western elites”, in about 3 hours
Again, one is drawn to the conclusion that Russia is not as good at the Great Cyber Game as we all supposed
They probably just assume people in the west are as gullible as their own population while forgetting the reason they can pull the wool over the eyes of their own population is because they restrict the information flow
I'm unsure that's the entire plan. Pro-Russia bots could come in all shapes and sizes - from the 'obvious' ones - and there are plenty of those about on t'Interwebs - to the more subtle.
Putin's apparatus has shown a desire to divide his opponents; to force divisions between groups. That may be countries or groups within countries. So as well as the obvious Russian troll line, I would expect toe more capable of his agents to have looked at those fracture lines and widened them. And they might not play just one side, but both. For Putin, often what matters is not which side wins, but the divisions the arguments sow.
Let's take the example of an imaginary green group who protest on the streets. On the face of it, funding such groups goes against Russia's interests, as they are a gas-n-oil economy. But they don't expect the group to win; what they expect is for the group to disrupt things, cause trouble and widen divisions. The leaders of any such group might not even know where their funding is coming from, given the somewhat nebulous donations systems. But a few thousand roubles spent funding the 'right' people in the organisation might reap rich rewards.
It doesn't have to be green groups, either - any group that has lax systems, is nebulous but carries a loud voice would be prone to such stuff.
Yes, I have to admit though, that it is very clever. It turns the notion of 'debate' in to a sham; because any political debate can be easily corrupted by malicious actors due to the essentially unlimited freedom to broadcast. The effective lack of regulation means that entire pillars of civilisation are very weak, you only need to plant a few seeds to take down the whole thing - people will happily, innocently, unknowingly and sincerely do your work for you.
Just in case anyone thinks I've taken an anti-green stance with that post, I'd point out two other areas that Russia may have wanted to 'provoke' debate - the right-wing nutters in the US and their counterparts, the left-wing nutters. The more those two sides screech at each other, the more the chasm between them grows, the weaker America becomes.
It might not just be Russia either.
And (whispers quietly); I would not be surprised if we did the same, on a smaller scale. Although the more controlled media of our likely opponents makes it harder to do.
Of course... propoganda and psych-ops have been done forever, by all sides. Putin and Russia were just far ahead of the game with regard to the opportunities posed by social media, from circa 2010 onwards.
One thing that you can see, even somewhere like PB, is a lot more sympathy over recent years towards towards the extreme left, than the extreme right. The result is that people underestimate the threat posed by the former.
I don't see much sympathy towards the 'extreme left' on here.
Crikey: nor do I !!!
The Right at the moment have FAR more of a voice amongst pb posters, only counter-balanced by:
1. Mike Smithson himself
and
2. Many Conservative supporters having the good grace and honesty to critique this buffoon in No. 10
Generally most left-of-centre viewpoints get a lot of opprobrium
Personally I think Jeremy Corbyn was a vile man. Without doubt an Anti-Semite, and a misogynist, who took his distaste for this country into the extremes of supporting those hell-bent on evil, including terrorists. He crossed a line of acceptability and some.
However, I did like a few of his radical ideas. If they hadn't been cloaked in Jew-hating more people might have listened. It's quite ironic that the Conservatives even adopted some of them.
He was as nasty a piece of work as most tory Brexiteers are imho, with the exception of Steve Baker who genuinely seems to think he's serving God.
I think it's possible to be Radical and alternative without falling into that kind of Left-wing nastiness which mirrors its opposite on the Right.
I think the problem is one of framing. ISTR that you have in the past called me a right-winger, or worse, possibly because of issues I support. I don't see myself as particularly right-wing, and certainly not a large-C Conservative. I was a voice calling Boris out about the Garden Bridge debacle, and said it showed why he was unsuitable to be PM (which I think I've been proved correct on).
Put basically, economically I'm probably traditional right wing; on social issues I'm probably more to the left; and in general I quite like a liberal let-people-do-what-they-want-as-long-as-they-dont-harm-others stick. Combine this with a evolution-is-better-than-revolution mindset (small-c conservative), and I think I've summed myself up quite well. But as ever, I am thoroughly inconsistent within those.
People are complex. The problem is that some people like to belong to a club (party), and try to wedge their views into that club. Which is why Nick Palmer could be a blessed Blair follower, one of the Miliband multitude, a Corbyn convert, and finally he dances Starmer-style.
Kudos to those on here who were keen members of a party but have left due to their poor leaders, whether it's Rochdale against Corbyn or TSE and others against Johnson.
And now I've totally forgotten what I was ranting about...
Just like Pornhub, its all relative.
If you're a never kissed a Tory zealot then anyone who has ever voted or considered voting for the Tories is an extreme right extremist - in which case this site must be horrifically right wing for you.
If you're an only Tory in the village zealot who considers anyone who has ever not voted for the Tories to not be a real Tory anyway, then you might be the only Tory on this site.
I understood only one particular area of Pornhub concerned relatives.
If only there was an expert on pornhub on this board who could clarify that.
Point is sensible leaders in the west realise this war is going nowhere and costing thousands of lives
Great. So when is Russia withdrawing?
Its telling that its always ukraine must surrender to save lives, never russia must give up. But then seems to me its mainly russian lives that would be being saved anyway in this war.
"The war must end! Oh, not that way though".
Ukraine should fight to the bitter end and the west should support them all the way
Excellent post from TSE, but I just wanted to flag up one point right at the end, where the Alternative Vote system was flagged up as 'Primus Inter Pares'. Presumably meant to imply that would be the optimal choice. Actually AV is in no way a proportional voting system - it is a slight improvement perhaps on our current First Past the Post, which as TSE points out often produces bizarre and inequitable outcomes. To give just one example (figures are from memory but I think they're in the right ballpark) - in I think the 2010 general election, on a similar vote share, getting approx 4 million votes, the SNP had something like 50 seats and UKIP had none. (I'm no apologist for UKIP, being the precise opposite in my political views, but it's a scandal that those voters didn't get the representation they deserved). Because of course UKIPs votes were spread around many constituencies, and the SNPs all concentrated in the Scottish constituencies. I could go on - I recall in the 1980s the LibDems were often not that far behind in percentage vote from Labour, but typically got around a tenth of the seats.
So bringing in proportional representation would be a consummation devoutly to be wished - at least that would be my view. The argument against is that it makes it less likely to get majority governments, but why should a party gaining in the mid 30s percentage vote end up with an ability to do what it likes, when two thirds of the voters voted for different parties? However AV would in no way take this forward - it is only a very slight improvement if that on FPTP in terms of proportionality. STV would be the way to go, or some other genuinely proportional system, and many parts of the UK are already using it very successfully in their elections (blowing out of the water the desperate argument 'it's too complicated for voters to understand').
I am a long-standing advocate of full STV in multi-member constituencies. It fixes so many of the problems we have with our undemocratic system and offers people new opportunities. Don't like your MP because they are a knob? Go see one of the other ones, you have several!
Remember that I argue this despite had we had FPTP up here instead of STV I would have been elected to Aberdeenshire council earlier this month.
I'd also need to ensure that the new system saw some education and understanding of how the system then works. Too many people now think they vote for a Prime Minister or a government or that national % matters. So when we change the system to one fit for purpose lets ensure they understand it.
Fascinating to watch Putin-bot @GaryL disassemble itself in real-time, from matey chat about holidays to undisguised agitprop about “western elites”, in about 3 hours
Again, one is drawn to the conclusion that Russia is not as good at the Great Cyber Game as we all supposed
They probably just assume people in the west are as gullible as their own population while forgetting the reason they can pull the wool over the eyes of their own population is because they restrict the information flow
I'm unsure that's the entire plan. Pro-Russia bots could come in all shapes and sizes - from the 'obvious' ones - and there are plenty of those about on t'Interwebs - to the more subtle.
Putin's apparatus has shown a desire to divide his opponents; to force divisions between groups. That may be countries or groups within countries. So as well as the obvious Russian troll line, I would expect toe more capable of his agents to have looked at those fracture lines and widened them. And they might not play just one side, but both. For Putin, often what matters is not which side wins, but the divisions the arguments sow.
Let's take the example of an imaginary green group who protest on the streets. On the face of it, funding such groups goes against Russia's interests, as they are a gas-n-oil economy. But they don't expect the group to win; what they expect is for the group to disrupt things, cause trouble and widen divisions. The leaders of any such group might not even know where their funding is coming from, given the somewhat nebulous donations systems. But a few thousand roubles spent funding the 'right' people in the organisation might reap rich rewards.
It doesn't have to be green groups, either - any group that has lax systems, is nebulous but carries a loud voice would be prone to such stuff.
Yes, I have to admit though, that it is very clever. It turns the notion of 'debate' in to a sham; because any political debate can be easily corrupted by malicious actors due to the essentially unlimited freedom to broadcast. The effective lack of regulation means that entire pillars of civilisation are very weak, you only need to plant a few seeds to take down the whole thing - people will happily, innocently, unknowingly and sincerely do your work for you.
Just in case anyone thinks I've taken an anti-green stance with that post, I'd point out two other areas that Russia may have wanted to 'provoke' debate - the right-wing nutters in the US and their counterparts, the left-wing nutters. The more those two sides screech at each other, the more the chasm between them grows, the weaker America becomes.
It might not just be Russia either.
And (whispers quietly); I would not be surprised if we did the same, on a smaller scale. Although the more controlled media of our likely opponents makes it harder to do.
Of course... propoganda and psych-ops have been done forever, by all sides. Putin and Russia were just far ahead of the game with regard to the opportunities posed by social media, from circa 2010 onwards.
One thing that you can see, even somewhere like PB, is a lot more sympathy over recent years towards towards the extreme left, than the extreme right. The result is that people underestimate the threat posed by the former.
I don't see much sympathy towards the 'extreme left' on here.
Crikey: nor do I !!!
The Right at the moment have FAR more of a voice amongst pb posters, only counter-balanced by:
1. Mike Smithson himself
and
2. Many Conservative supporters having the good grace and honesty to critique this buffoon in No. 10
Generally most left-of-centre viewpoints get a lot of opprobrium
Personally I think Jeremy Corbyn was a vile man. Without doubt an Anti-Semite, and a misogynist, who took his distaste for this country into the extremes of supporting those hell-bent on evil, including terrorists. He crossed a line of acceptability and some.
However, I did like a few of his radical ideas. If they hadn't been cloaked in Jew-hating more people might have listened. It's quite ironic that the Conservatives even adopted some of them.
He was as nasty a piece of work as most tory Brexiteers are imho, with the exception of Steve Baker who genuinely seems to think he's serving God.
I think it's possible to be Radical and alternative without falling into that kind of Left-wing nastiness which mirrors its opposite on the Right.
To a large degree 'left' and 'right' are meaningless terms, they belong to another age. Talking about this, is a bit of a distraction really.
However, I don't see any evidence at all of 'extreme right' sympathy on PB. Most views that are sympathetic to what may be traditionally described as the 'extreme right' are effectively illegal and no longer possible to express in a public forum.
It may be more useful to think of it this way: 'progressive' ideas get a free pass. I saw this again in the last few days when I posted some stuff about the cancellation and excommunication of a leading cancer scientist in the US based on very questionable allegations of sexual impropriety. This was described in a lot of detail by Bari Weiss.
No one is leaping to the defence of concepts like the rule of law, innocent until proven guilty, what happened to due process etc etc. Instead, the typical response is 'yes, but look how bad the right are, no one is calling out that'.
Another thing I have noted, is that my posts always get a lot of 'likes' whenever I express positions that I hold that are popular with progressives; like concerns about immigration policy and the treatment of dual nationals in the UK, or support things like basic income, or say Keir Starmer would be a better PM than Boris Johnson. But if I start pointing out some of the problems and existential dangers of the 'woke' agenda, the likes are few and far between.
In the end, you just have to think for yourself.
Yes.
'Left' and 'right', while we all us them to name groups of parties and voters, and shifts in polling support etc are little use in UK politics.
There are two or three problems: Within mainstream parties the real and structured differences are not about left and right in the conventional sense. Brexit and post Brexit issues are not left and right issues. and these are the most divisive political issues.
When more left than now Labour went into an election decades ago wanting withdrawal. And in truth the EU is a centrist/centre right project supporting capitalism, wealth, hierarchy and elitism of all sorts.
When it comes to big ticket spending by government, all parties agree on: NHS, free education to 18, state pensions and benefits, defence, roads and housing, controlling borders, tax, child welfare, private enterprise. All the differences are small retail differences. Left and right hardly enter into it.
The other big divide is nationalism and nation status. Especially in Scotland and NI. This is not a left and right issue.
A new language is needed.
I still use "progressive" - I know some hate that word as they consider themselves / their position / their party as not being. But it isn't party political.
Two simple examples. Today's Tory party is about as far from progressive as you can get. But Cameron's coalition legalised gay marriage and normalised so much of LGBTQwhatever that people like me felt safe coming out of the closet.
Or on the other side, Blair's Labour was definitely progressive, yet look at the cesspit that was Corbyn's Labour. Even the "we'll nationalise your broadband and make it shit" policy was regressive, never mind their views on the establishment (code for Jews), capitalism (code for Jews), international defence organisations (code for Jews) etc etc.
So I support progressive politics and policies over regressive. We need to improve all of society, nit just for a section of it at the expense of the majority.
Did he really say "..we'll make your broadband shit..."?
Thanks to everyone for the interesting discussion. As for whether the ideology comes first or the nastiness, I'd like to mention an anecdote that I've posted before.
When I was 16, I was a volunteer at an organisation. I met and became friends with a farmer who was fifteen or so years older than me. He was a bit 'slow', but a hard grafter and keen. We never talked about politics or anything complex. He was good fun.
After six months, I discovered that ten years earlier he had been a neo-Nazi, and had walked on a march through a local city. I would have disbelieved this if several people had not told me independently. Yet in the years I knew him, he showed zero sign of it - and was courteously polite to my girlfriends, some of whom were foreign.
I reckon he just wanted to belong to a group. In his youth, he had chosen (or been chosen by) an evil ideology. A few years later, he was doing something very different. He was a bit of an outsider, and wanted to belong - if he had an ideology he never mentioned it.
But the thing is this: he was a hard grafter and easily led. He could be told to do something, and he would work hard at it, and do it well. That 'order' might be to feed the animals, fetch some tools, unclog a drain, or perhaps something darker.
I think many people are like this; wanting to find groups to which they 'belong'. And many people take advantage of this.
Yup. For the naked apes, being in an "in group" is the life goal.
I remember, at school, realising that all the rebelliousness happened with a staggering level of regimentation. Liking heavy metal without long hair and all the regalia was..... unacceptable.
Or perhaps a more muscular version. "America is committed to a One China policy but that does not mean China has the jurisdiction to use force to take Taiwan,” Biden said, adding, “My expectation is that will not happen.”
Biden’s comments appeared to be a departure from the existing US policy of “strategic ambiguity” on its position on Taiwan, but shortly after he spoke a White House official said: “There is no change in US policy towards Taiwan. As the president said, our policy has not changed.”
I think the chance of the PLA invading Taiwan has dropped massively since February. One of the effects of the Russian debacle in Ukraine.
That's probably true, but it's not a certainty. And no doubt China will be studying Russia's mistakes.
Note also that Chinese capabilities in terms of command and control, and electronic systems are probably well in advance of what's now available in Russia. They also are less likely to have a hollowed out military - their military budget is three to four times the size (depending on how measured), delivers real rather than Potemkin capabilities, and is more geographically focused.
Invasions of other countries are by their nature somewhat irrational gambles.
As against that, pulling off a seaborne invasion against a well-armed enemy, with the backing of a US fleet, is an order of magnitude more difficult than invading Ukraine from Russia. And, a lot of Chinese equipment was bought from Russia, which has proved inferior in this war.
Fascinating to watch Putin-bot @GaryL disassemble itself in real-time, from matey chat about holidays to undisguised agitprop about “western elites”, in about 3 hours
Again, one is drawn to the conclusion that Russia is not as good at the Great Cyber Game as we all supposed
They probably just assume people in the west are as gullible as their own population while forgetting the reason they can pull the wool over the eyes of their own population is because they restrict the information flow
I'm unsure that's the entire plan. Pro-Russia bots could come in all shapes and sizes - from the 'obvious' ones - and there are plenty of those about on t'Interwebs - to the more subtle.
Putin's apparatus has shown a desire to divide his opponents; to force divisions between groups. That may be countries or groups within countries. So as well as the obvious Russian troll line, I would expect toe more capable of his agents to have looked at those fracture lines and widened them. And they might not play just one side, but both. For Putin, often what matters is not which side wins, but the divisions the arguments sow.
Let's take the example of an imaginary green group who protest on the streets. On the face of it, funding such groups goes against Russia's interests, as they are a gas-n-oil economy. But they don't expect the group to win; what they expect is for the group to disrupt things, cause trouble and widen divisions. The leaders of any such group might not even know where their funding is coming from, given the somewhat nebulous donations systems. But a few thousand roubles spent funding the 'right' people in the organisation might reap rich rewards.
It doesn't have to be green groups, either - any group that has lax systems, is nebulous but carries a loud voice would be prone to such stuff.
The Tory party?
Perhaps. But if that was Russian state funding to influence policy, then they've utterly failed given the Conservative government have been at the forefront of training and arming Ukraine.
The Russian regime's relationship with Britain is odd. Their recent words make us out to be the big bad, and Litvinenko and Salisbury show that they saw us as an enemy even back then. Might it just be that because the Russian regime disliked us, rich Russians saw us as a safeish place to stash money, one who would not do a deal with the Russian regime?
Not every Russian is pro-Putin, and the richer you were, the more connections you would have to have had. But even the Putinites might have looked for safe havens in case the regime decided they had to fall off a balcony.
Utterly failed, aside from Brexit, culture wars, and the hollowing out of Britain's own armed forces. Oh, and reducing energy security by closing nuclear power stations, and shutting our only gas storage facility. Utterly failed. They did not even get a single Russian appointed to Parliament. Or did they?
And that's all bullshit. You can't just look at things you think are wrong and ascribe them all to Russian malevolence.
And that's another nasty aspect to this: just the concept that this might happen leads some to ascribe anything that happens to Russia. This alone strengthens Russia.
Arguments everywhere, with few people actually willing to change their entrenched views, even if those views are a hairs' breadth away from those they are arguing with.
But that's enough about PB....
If the Russians bought the Conservative Party, they got very poor value for money.
Mr. B, that was definitely a smarter bet than mine.
Slightly irked with myself for not going for the Russell podium bet, but it's always easier picking winners when you know the result.
I think Perez has been much closer to Verstappen this year generally.
He has, but unless circumstance makes it unavoidable, I don't think Red Bull will ever let him win if there's a possibility Verstappen can - as shown this weekend, when every strategy call was at his expense, even before they ordered him to let Verstappen through.
That makes even fairly long odds bets on his winning not so smart from now on - the opportunities to trade out profitably are likely to be much reduced.
Or perhaps a more muscular version. "America is committed to a One China policy but that does not mean China has the jurisdiction to use force to take Taiwan,” Biden said, adding, “My expectation is that will not happen.”
Biden’s comments appeared to be a departure from the existing US policy of “strategic ambiguity” on its position on Taiwan, but shortly after he spoke a White House official said: “There is no change in US policy towards Taiwan. As the president said, our policy has not changed.”
I think the chance of the PLA invading Taiwan has dropped massively since February. One of the effects of the Russian debacle in Ukraine.
That's probably true, but it's not a certainty. And no doubt China will be studying Russia's mistakes.
Note also that Chinese capabilities in terms of command and control, and electronic systems are probably well in advance of what's now available in Russia. They also are less likely to have a hollowed out military - their military budget is three to four times the size (depending on how measured), delivers real rather than Potemkin capabilities, and is more geographically focused.
Invasions of other countries are by their nature somewhat irrational gambles.
As against that, pulling off a seaborne invasion against a well-armed enemy, with the backing of a US fleet, is an order of magnitude more difficult than invading Ukraine from Russia. And, a lot of Chinese equipment was bought from Russia, which has proved inferior in this war.
And even where they use Russian designs, they fit more modern electronics, which is where the Russian deficit is greatest - see for example their version of the S-300: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HQ-9
I'm not arguing that an invasion is likely, just that their trying something stupid this decade is far from impossible.
@GaryL - any particular reason why your IP address shows up in blacklists:
Oh are you planning to ban me rcs I must admit I'm surprised that someone with your high education level and financial success is so insecure they can't take a bit of robust debate however in this you seem typical of many of the western elites Let me continue to speak my good friend and you will go up in my estimation considerably
Nice flattery.
But how about you explain why your IP address (which you can find by Googling "what's my IP address") is in the Spamhaus database?
To get there, one of two things is normally the case:
(1) Your day job is sending unsolicited emails or (2) You are accessing the Internet via a compromised PC
Of course, you could just be stupendously unlucky and it is the case that your own machine has been compromised. In which case, I'd advise you to backup any files you need to a USB drive, and then reformat your hard drive and start over.
Maybe I'm just unlucky Not everything is a conspiracy
Time for realpolitik guys not Marvel comic fantasies
How much Ukraine territory are you proposing to give to the fascist autocrat ? And how much next time he invades ?
Realpolitik is telling him to fuck off back to his own country.
The countries proposing a ‘deal’, with “security guarantees’ for Ukraine - France and Germany (with Italy in tow), are those who underwrote the last set of security guarantees. How did that work out ?
Why didn't we supply arms to czechoslovakia when Russia invaded in 1968
It was more about spheres of influence. the Americans didn't want to intervene directly in a Communist country controlled by the Russians particularly not while they were in such a mess in Vietnam.
Comments
Hard to prove the degree of success they might have had, but it's not obviously ridiculous. As you say, Brexit is an interesting case.
US would defend Taiwan if attacked by China, says Joe Biden
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/23/us-would-defend-taiwan-if-attacked-by-china-says-joe-biden
Or perhaps a more muscular version.
"America is committed to a One China policy but that does not mean China has the jurisdiction to use force to take Taiwan,” Biden said, adding, “My expectation is that will not happen.”
Biden’s comments appeared to be a departure from the existing US policy of “strategic ambiguity” on its position on Taiwan, but shortly after he spoke a White House official said: “There is no change in US policy towards Taiwan. As the president said, our policy has not changed.”
I will have to be content with my small profit on Perez.
Put basically, economically I'm probably traditional right wing; on social issues I'm probably more to the left; and in general I quite like a liberal let-people-do-what-they-want-as-long-as-they-dont-harm-others stick. Combine this with a evolution-is-better-than-revolution mindset (small-c conservative), and I think I've summed myself up quite well. But as ever, I am thoroughly inconsistent within those.
People are complex. The problem is that some people like to belong to a club (party), and try to wedge their views into that club. Which is why Nick Palmer could be a blessed Blair follower, one of the Miliband multitude, a Corbyn convert, and finally he dances Starmer-style.
Kudos to those on here who were keen members of a party but have left due to their poor leaders, whether it's Rochdale against Corbyn or TSE and others against Johnson.
And now I've totally forgotten what I was ranting about...
In the Goode Olde Days docs lived "above the shop" in Harley Street.....
If, and it's still a big if, SKS does become PM I will be initially relieved but they are bound to make mistakes and I hope I will critique them when they do.
I like your point about complexity. I think this is partly what confused (confuses) people about me, as well as my propensity to bait, which is not because I'm evil but because I am really angry about some things this Gov't have been up to. I still find it baffling that people happily support them when, for me, they are one of the worst governments of my lifetime. And I can't really see how anyone claims Brexit has been a good thing. I think Boris is an utter schmuck: I intensely dislike him.
All that aside, I'm also a bit of a muddle. Hypocrite probably. I espouse some radical and leftist ideas but I am far from living them out in practice. I annoy myself because of it but I just can't make the leap. For example, much as I would like to support my local health food shop I find myself at the Tesco checkout: the very Tesco store I criticised when it was built.
Oh and one of my favourite governments of all time was the Coalition. I know that's an awful thing to say but it was. I relaxed under them. Possibly because I knew they could never do anything truly shocking. Unless you were a student.
First find an acceptable out group. Then unleash the inner SA man*. Or Reichbanner man*.
*In a number of examples, the same person.
However, I don't see any evidence at all of 'extreme right' sympathy on PB. Most views that are sympathetic to what may be traditionally described as the 'extreme right' are effectively illegal and no longer possible to express in a public forum.
It may be more useful to think of it this way: 'progressive' ideas get a free pass. I saw this again in the last few days when I posted some stuff about the cancellation and excommunication of a leading cancer scientist in the US based on very questionable allegations of sexual impropriety. This was described in a lot of detail by Bari Weiss.
No one is leaping to the defence of concepts like the rule of law, innocent until proven guilty, what happened to due process etc etc. Instead, the typical response is 'yes, but look how bad the right are, no one is calling out that'.
Another thing I have noted, is that my posts always get a lot of 'likes' whenever I express positions that I hold that are popular with progressives; like concerns about immigration policy and the treatment of dual nationals in the UK, or support things like basic income, or say Keir Starmer would be a better PM than Boris Johnson. But if I start pointing out some of the problems and existential dangers of the 'woke' agenda, the likes are few and far between.
In the end, you just have to think for yourself.
There's something about ideologies themselves and support of any cause which blinds people. But it also generates its own momentum. This is demonstrable in social studies.
Take some football supporters. It's when they collect that the mob frenzy takes over. The same is true in many religions. And it extends to some fanatical political stances.
I know this bit won't meet with complete approval but I see the same swivel-eyed lunacy when Brexiteers get going. As individuals they're probably not intrinsically bad people. But get them together on this cause and they lose all sense of perspective.
The important thing in politics in my opinion is to remember that no one party has a sole monopoly on the right beliefs or policies. And that means that there is sometimes good in the other. The system in the United Kingdom is not geared up for that kind of mentality but perhaps if there's voting reform it might change.
And Good Morning to one and all.
Putin will be dead and his theories of a 'creeping war' discredited. I'm sure he truly believes in what he wants to believe. A little like Stalin who never believed in Mendelian genetics, because it went against Marxist dogma. Biology was mutatable, but physics - he had to put up with.
Corbyn will still believe what he was told when he was seven, because NATO is always wrong.
However, the rest of the world will be wrong. Ironic, that Mendel and 'the father of the Big Bang' were far more open-minded. Google him for interest if you don't know who he is.
If you're a never kissed a Tory zealot then anyone who has ever voted or considered voting for the Tories is an extreme right extremist - in which case this site must be horrifically right wing for you.
If you're an only Tory in the village zealot who considers anyone who has ever not voted for the Tories to not be a real Tory anyway, then you might be the only Tory on this site.
As Nick Hornby pointed out in his book on being a football supporter - the policing etc has created a space for socially acceptable (in the groups in question) bad behaviour.
Taiwan has never looked safer.
Mob rule: the power of the pack is the issue here. In groups those individuals gain an added momentum, an innate social power that can become like a nuclear reaction. When combined with belief in an other power, 'God' but can also be Millwall Football Club, the group frenzy can become truly frightening.
Put another way, if you strip out the individuals from many of the atrocities of the human race they were not all intrinsically as evil as the sum of their parts. They often express bewilderment at what they had done when they gathered.
I once camped in a huge reserve in central Africa. I was behind a rather weak fence but hearing the chimpanzees hunting in a pack around me was one of the most unnerving sounds I've ever heard. A really vicious mob frenzy took over.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/may/23/is-it-really-true-surely-there-is-a-false-dawn-are-they-really-gone-prime-minister-albo?utm_term=628b36ec639e1e97ff524c6292694d54&utm_campaign=FirstDogOnTheMoon&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&CMP=firstdog_email
I subscribe to the series, even though it's a bit Australian (hence somewhat obscure at times to a UK reader), because it combines being seriously left/green with having a gentle sense of humour - something we don't really see enough of on my half of the spectrum.
'Left' and 'right', while we all us them to name groups of parties and voters, and shifts in polling support etc are little use in UK politics.
There are two or three problems: Within mainstream parties the real and structured differences are not about left and right in the conventional sense. Brexit and post Brexit issues are not left and right issues. and these are the most divisive political issues.
When more left than now Labour went into an election decades ago wanting withdrawal. And in truth the EU is a centrist/centre right project supporting capitalism, wealth, hierarchy and elitism of all sorts.
When it comes to big ticket spending by government, all parties agree on: NHS, free education to 18, state pensions and benefits, defence, roads and housing, controlling borders, tax, child welfare, private enterprise. All the differences are small retail differences. Left and right hardly enter into it.
The other big divide is nationalism and nation status. Especially in Scotland and NI. This is not a left and right issue.
A new language is needed.
And no doubt China will be studying Russia's mistakes.
Note also that Chinese capabilities in terms of command and control, and electronic systems are probably well in advance of what's now available in Russia. They also are less likely to have a hollowed out military - their military budget is three to four times the size (depending on how measured), delivers real rather than Potemkin capabilities, and is more geographically focused.
Invasions of other countries are by their nature somewhat irrational gambles.
When I was 16, I was a volunteer at an organisation. I met and became friends with a farmer who was fifteen or so years older than me. He was a bit 'slow', but a hard grafter and keen. We never talked about politics or anything complex. He was good fun.
After six months, I discovered that ten years earlier he had been a neo-Nazi, and had walked on a march through a local city. I would have disbelieved this if several people had not told me independently. Yet in the years I knew him, he showed zero sign of it - and was courteously polite to my girlfriends, some of whom were foreign.
I reckon he just wanted to belong to a group. In his youth, he had chosen (or been chosen by) an evil ideology. A few years later, he was doing something very different. He was a bit of an outsider, and wanted to belong - if he had an ideology he never mentioned it.
But the thing is this: he was a hard grafter and easily led. He could be told to do something, and he would work hard at it, and do it well. That 'order' might be to feed the animals, fetch some tools, unclog a drain, or perhaps something darker.
I think many people are like this; wanting to find groups to which they 'belong'. And many people take advantage of this.
Labour MPs would worry about their seats, and it would be very important to see how those multi-member constituencies are drawn. Presumably Labour would lose seats in London, but gain them outside of London...?
AV would be more likely to get through, but that would contradict a clear referendum result (and I'm not sure Starmer wants to be talking about overturning referenda any time soon).
Zaharwi kept repeating that Sue Gray was a woman of impeccable integrity. Yes, we know. Its the PM who has no integrity, by repeating the same thing you were pointing straight at the reality of Bonzo hauling Gray in to knobble the report.
Fabulous stuff. I assume there is enough bad in the report to make pants be shat in Number 10, hence hauling her in. I hope she doubles down.
https://twitter.com/KateEMcCann/status/1528488834912112641
I think Laura Farris MP just resigned her position as a PPS live on
@BBCWestminHour - she said she doesn’t believe she can be on the Privileges Committee and remain a PPS in the Government and would prefer to stay on the committee
Slightly irked with myself for not going for the Russell podium bet, but it's always easier picking winners when you know the result.
I think Perez has been much closer to Verstappen this year generally.
just saw this perhaps GaryL would like to comment about how well Russia is doing again?
As George Osborne has been saying he's going nowhere as no one else seems to want the crown enough to seize it.
So bringing in proportional representation would be a consummation devoutly to be wished - at least that would be my view. The argument against is that it makes it less likely to get majority governments, but why should a party gaining in the mid 30s percentage vote end up with an ability to do what it likes, when two thirds of the voters voted for different parties? However AV would in no way take this forward - it is only a very slight improvement if that on FPTP in terms of proportionality. STV would be the way to go, or some other genuinely proportional system, and many parts of the UK are already using it very successfully in their elections (blowing out of the water the desperate argument 'it's too complicated for voters to understand').
Two simple examples. Today's Tory party is about as far from progressive as you can get. But Cameron's coalition legalised gay marriage and normalised so much of LGBTQwhatever that people like me felt safe coming out of the closet.
Or on the other side, Blair's Labour was definitely progressive, yet look at the cesspit that was Corbyn's Labour. Even the "we'll nationalise your broadband and make it shit" policy was regressive, never mind their views on the establishment (code for Jews), capitalism (code for Jews), international defence organisations (code for Jews) etc etc.
So I support progressive politics and policies over regressive. We need to improve all of society, nit just for a section of it at the expense of the majority.
I recall an experience with private medicine. The X-ray was done within 30 min of showing up at the hospital. On a Friday evening. The MRI took longer - nearly another 45 minute. All done by nurses/dedicated technical staff. They apologised for the slowness - they were very busy. Then they told me that the consultant needed 2 hours to review the scans and since it was 9pm on a Friday, he could only do an hour before going home. So they apologised some more and asked if I could come back the next day - Saturday. Saw the consultant at 10am. First thing he did was to apologise for this all having taken so much time.....
That still doesn't mean that Gray can't make the head even worse smelling than it already is.
I personally favour STV in large multi member seats where you can select your preferred candidate as opposed to a ranked party list.
Remember that I argue this despite had we had FPTP up here instead of STV I would have been elected to Aberdeenshire council earlier this month.
I'd also need to ensure that the new system saw some education and understanding of how the system then works. Too many people now think they vote for a Prime Minister or a government or that national % matters. So when we change the system to one fit for purpose lets ensure they understand it.
I remember, at school, realising that all the rebelliousness happened with a staggering level of regimentation. Liking heavy metal without long hair and all the regalia was..... unacceptable.
That makes even fairly long odds bets on his winning not so smart from now on - the opportunities to trade out profitably are likely to be much reduced.
For example, their last generation guided missile destroyer:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_052D_destroyer
The replacement, which has started to enter service is even more capable:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_055_destroyer
And even where they use Russian designs, they fit more modern electronics, which is where the Russian deficit is greatest - see for example their version of the S-300:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HQ-9
I'm not arguing that an invasion is likely, just that their trying something stupid this decade is far from impossible.
West Germany had a border with Czechoslovakia.
It was more about spheres of influence. the Americans didn't want to intervene directly in a Communist country controlled by the Russians particularly not while they were in such a mess in Vietnam.