Why do racists object to people criticising racism or white supremacy?
It is truly a mystery for our age. 🤔
To be fair some the language that is used in those documents does not make much sense to me and other parts are clearly hyperbolic. I don't think they are generally helpful or balanced. But nor are they an attack on white people themselves.
I think that line sadly has been crossed at times. The "White silence is violence" chant springs to mind. The hyperbolic shouty left in the USA tends to be quite white mind, black people tend to have more sense - Bernie Sanders always hits a brick wall when the Democrat primaries head to places like Virginia & the carolinas.
Yes, one tremendous irony in all this is the most extreme Wokeness - especially in academe, education, etc- is nearly always driven by white middle class liberals. Apart from a few activists, in BLM etc, it is white Democrats pushing this White Supremacy stuff. And many if not most of the authors of the crucial CRT texts are white. Robin de Angelo, Richard Delgado, David Goldberg, Gary Peller...
So crucial, the only person who ever seems to mention any of those names is . . . you.
If it weren't for you, I'd never have heard of Robin de Angelo etc, so not especially crucial.
Seems to be a modern day equivalent of Noam Chomsky trying to end capitalism, which didn't exactly get far. Why not just ignore her and let her be niche rather than constantly magnifying what she has to say?
What the F are you on about?
Robin de Angelo's White Fragility was a massive NYT bestseller and has 150,000 ratings on Goodreads: that's HUGE
See here:
‘White Fragility’ Is Everywhere. But Does Antiracism Training Work? Robin DiAngelo’s best seller is giving white Americans a new way to talk about race. "
I think it behoves us all to read this document on getting racism out of maths, a document which is now part of the Californian education system. Here's an excerpt about "white supremacy" in the mathematics classroom
NOTES ON TERMS The terms used in the engagement section of this resource are ideas presented in the dismantling Racism workbook (2016) notebook, grounded on the work of Jones and Okun (2001). It is important to read this article first to fully understand the terms that are identified as characteristics of white supremacy culture in organizations. We contextualize these ideas into the math classroom to make visible how white supremacy culture plays out in these spaces.
As a visual indicator, we italicize the terms used to identify white supremacy characteristics as defined by Jones and Okun (2001). They are as follows:
• Perfectionism • Sense of Urgency • Defensiveness • Quantity Over Quality • Worship of the Written Word • Paternalism • Either/Or Thinking • Power Hoarding • Fear of Open Conflict • Individualism • Only One Right Way • Progress is Bigger, More • Objectivity • Right to Comfort
Damn those white kids doing maths with their "objectivity", "sense of urgency", perfectionism", and "fear of open conflict", what maths needs is "subjectivity", "a sense of Whatever", "who cares if its right", and "open conflict"
This culture war shit of yours is so boring. The British economy is heading down the toilet thanks to Tory incompetence, no wonder you are so desperate to distract. Where are the answers on the Right? There are none. But oh look, maths in California has gone woke! Chicks with dicks in your toilet! Critical race theory is doubling the price of your weekly shop! Aslef is turning our kids gay! Brown people are coming in dinghies and Christmas is getting cancelled!
Quite so. It is also important that we do THIS:
"Expose students to mathematicians of color, particularly women of color and queer mathematicians of color"
It's time the many thousands of famously gay Nigerian mathematicians we're brought back into the curriculum
There's tons of influential black mathematicians in these categories today. It's not about bringing their work into the primary and secondary curriculum, it's about showing their faces and talking about their achievements, more as part of the history of science. Just like we talk about Mary Anning's story to kids when we introduce them to the fossil record. We choose the stories we tell, and it influences the way we see any academic discipline.
As a slight tangent: one of the worst stories we tell is the "lone genius" (almost always a white guy).
When in fact almost every great discoverer of the last 150 years or so was supported (technically) by dozens of people (let alone all the people that enabled him the privilege of doing the work in the first place).
There's a great Stanford GR lecture series where an equation is derived quite simply and then the guy says "but if you want to calculate anything from that; turn to a nearby mathematician. Einstein almost certainly did none of those calculations himself, he had a whole team of people." (And in fact you'd probably turn to solver software today).
GR is an exceptionally bad example.
The creation of GR really is the best example ever of "lone genius" in science.
If Einstein had never lived, we'd still be waiting for GR.
Apart from Marcel Grossmann, I am not sure anyone had much of an influence on Einstein's thought.
And what is this BS about "Einstein almost certainly did none of those calculations himself, he had a whole team of people."
There are other stunning examples of the lone genius in the evolution of gravity theory.
We would have waited a fair while for someone other than Newton to realise that gravity actually exists. It is not at all obvious that matter attracts matter even when you tell someone that it does. (Unlike say Natural Selection when once you have accepted that life changes it is kind of obvious that only successful organisms will endure.)
The one I like best is Karl Schwartzschild who essentially derived the first exact non-trivial solution (a simple black hole) to the Einstein equations while serving on the Russian front, where one imagines the opportunities for collaboration were limited. He died months later.
Karl S. only went to the Russian front in the first place having been spurred by an antisemitic remark. "You Jewish Professors never go and fight like the real Germans ... " He wrote the paper on the Schwarzschild solution at the front.
Feynman would be another good example of a lone genius. We would not have gotten Feynman diagrams without crazy Feynman, although for sure we would have had QFT.
What is really helpful in scientific fame is .... something really unfair ... longevity. It helps to live a long, long time.
Hard to assess how great Karl S would have been if he had not died so young.
Starmer in hiding and some of his mps are trying to hide their RMT connections while other PPS stand in open defiance of the leadership
Yesterday afternoon Labour York MP Rachael Maskell stood up to ask a point of order, after Grant Shapps had spent an hour having fun pointing out all the Labour MPs who stood up to ask questions in defence of the strikes, without declaring their interests after pocketing thousands from the RMT Union. Following the question session Maskell stood up to complain to the deputy speaker that this was very unfair:
“You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that many members of the Labour party have a relationship with the trade unions that we are incredibly proud of, including with the RMT. The advice that I received from the Standards Commissioner ahead of that debate, and therefore ahead of today, stated under the requirements for declaration:
“Members are required, subject to the paragraphs below, to declare any financial interests which satisfy the test of relevance, including:
a) past financial interests (normally limited to those active within the last twelve months)”.
It is my recollection that the general election was two and a half years ago, so can you advise, Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether a declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests should keep being raised two and a half years after it has been made?”
To paraphrase Eleanor Laing’s no-nonsense response, she told MPs to present the whole truth when representing their union paymasters, not just try and get away without a declaration because of a small technicality in the members’ rule book.
My reading of party workers comments was that things were a shade gloomy at the end of last week, but certainly since the weekend they been quite the opposite, yesterday appears to have been very good, but tomorrow .......
Sorry I was talking about Lib Dem party workers!!!
Thanks for clarifying
I did think your first post referred to Tory workers - and was puzzled at such a nuanced view from a group that rarely show discrimination of any kind. See-sawing assessments of your party's prospects is far, far, more the LibDem way of campaigning. There's one activist in my street who consistently exudes pessimism even at the end of counts the rest of us KNOW we've won with 60% or more of the vote.
Why do racists object to people criticising racism or white supremacy?
It is truly a mystery for our age. 🤔
To be fair some the language that is used in those documents does not make much sense to me and other parts are clearly hyperbolic. I don't think they are generally helpful or balanced. But nor are they an attack on white people themselves.
I think that line sadly has been crossed at times. The "White silence is violence" chant springs to mind. The hyperbolic shouty left in the USA tends to be quite white mind, black people tend to have more sense - Bernie Sanders always hits a brick wall when the Democrat primaries head to places like Virginia & the carolinas.
Yes, one tremendous irony in all this is the most extreme Wokeness - especially in academe, education, etc- is nearly always driven by white middle class liberals. Apart from a few activists, in BLM etc, it is white Democrats pushing this White Supremacy stuff. And many if not most of the authors of the crucial CRT texts are white. Robin de Angelo, Richard Delgado, David Goldberg, Gary Peller...
So crucial, the only person who ever seems to mention any of those names is . . . you.
If it weren't for you, I'd never have heard of Robin de Angelo etc, so not especially crucial.
Seems to be a modern day equivalent of Noam Chomsky trying to end capitalism, which didn't exactly get far. Why not just ignore her and let her be niche rather than constantly magnifying what she has to say?
What the F are you on about?
Robin de Angelo's White Fragility was a massive NYT bestseller and has 150,000 ratings on Goodreads: that's HUGE
See here:
‘White Fragility’ Is Everywhere. But Does Antiracism Training Work? Robin DiAngelo’s best seller is giving white Americans a new way to talk about race. "
I don't pay much attention to this stuff, but isn't the idea of white fragility that it's what happens when some white people react to conversations about race and systemic racism by claiming that it is an attack on all white people, that they are personally not racist and they object to being accused of having any role in systemic racism, and that society is now colour blind because discrimination is illegal so anyone still talking about racism is simply stirring up trouble or trying to cover for their own inadequacies? Does that not strike you as a concept that probably has some truth in it? I can certainly think of examples I have witnessed from my own life that fall into this kind of area.
I think it behoves us all to read this document on getting racism out of maths, a document which is now part of the Californian education system. Here's an excerpt about "white supremacy" in the mathematics classroom
NOTES ON TERMS The terms used in the engagement section of this resource are ideas presented in the dismantling Racism workbook (2016) notebook, grounded on the work of Jones and Okun (2001). It is important to read this article first to fully understand the terms that are identified as characteristics of white supremacy culture in organizations. We contextualize these ideas into the math classroom to make visible how white supremacy culture plays out in these spaces.
As a visual indicator, we italicize the terms used to identify white supremacy characteristics as defined by Jones and Okun (2001). They are as follows:
• Perfectionism • Sense of Urgency • Defensiveness • Quantity Over Quality • Worship of the Written Word • Paternalism • Either/Or Thinking • Power Hoarding • Fear of Open Conflict • Individualism • Only One Right Way • Progress is Bigger, More • Objectivity • Right to Comfort
Damn those white kids doing maths with their "objectivity", "sense of urgency", perfectionism", and "fear of open conflict", what maths needs is "subjectivity", "a sense of Whatever", "who cares if its right", and "open conflict"
This culture war shit of yours is so boring. The British economy is heading down the toilet thanks to Tory incompetence, no wonder you are so desperate to distract. Where are the answers on the Right? There are none. But oh look, maths in California has gone woke! Chicks with dicks in your toilet! Critical race theory is doubling the price of your weekly shop! Aslef is turning our kids gay! Brown people are coming in dinghies and Christmas is getting cancelled!
Quite so. It is also important that we do THIS:
"Expose students to mathematicians of color, particularly women of color and queer mathematicians of color"
It's time the many thousands of famously gay Nigerian mathematicians we're brought back into the curriculum
There's tons of influential black mathematicians in these categories today. It's not about bringing their work into the primary and secondary curriculum, it's about showing their faces and talking about their achievements, more as part of the history of science. Just like we talk about Mary Anning's story to kids when we introduce them to the fossil record. We choose the stories we tell, and it influences the way we see any academic discipline.
As a slight tangent: one of the worst stories we tell is the "lone genius" (almost always a white guy).
When in fact almost every great discoverer of the last 150 years or so was supported (technically) by dozens of people (let alone all the people that enabled him the privilege of doing the work in the first place).
There's a great Stanford GR lecture series where an equation is derived quite simply and then the guy says "but if you want to calculate anything from that; turn to a nearby mathematician. Einstein almost certainly did none of those calculations himself, he had a whole team of people." (And in fact you'd probably turn to solver software today).
GR is an exceptionally bad example.
The creation of GR really is the best example ever of "lone genius" in science.
If Einstein had never lived, we'd still be waiting for GR.
Apart from Marcel Grossmann, I am not sure anyone had much of an influence on Einstein's thought.
And what is this BS about "Einstein almost certainly did none of those calculations himself, he had a whole team of people."
Not deriving the equation. Solving it for various situations.
Not that there wasn't a single individual to whom we can ascribe a breakthrough, but that they did the work building on that of others, and supported by many others.
Not diminishing an individual genius but contextualising them in the conversations of the time. And the way their ideas changed and were influenced by contemporaries (e.g. the introduction, removal, and reintroduction of the cosmological constant).
Co-pilots even get charged (£25k?) for their 737 type rating (which the company sees as a profit centre)
I reckon that's fair enough given there is effectively an infinite number of dreamers who want to get into civil aviation and Ryanair don't bond their cadets like other operators.
I have an old shipmate who is 737 captain based in MLA and he reckons they are good to work for. (He is a former Sea King driver so he's possibly not "all there".) The two other captains I know (BA and EK) have NOTHING good to say about their employers.
Nothing like having a £25k loan, to add to the other £100k of loans to get to a CPL(IR) in the first place, on the day you start your £50/hour, zero hours contract working for a random accounting company.
There’s stories of them living in cars at the airport, most of them having borrowed the six figures against their parents’ house, in a desparate attempt to survive the first few years until they can get an unrestricted ATPL at 1,500 hours - and with it, that coveted third stripe on their epaulettes.
Captains, as your old shipmate friend suggests, are treated somewhat differently. Not even Ryanair is that stupid, there’s not infinite supply of grey hair and experience.
Unsurprisingly if you add 300k population but don't add ~300k bedrooms per annum then you end up with house prices going up. Who could have guessed that?
Someone said yesterday that the number of bedrooms per capita has increased - ie we have built more than 300k bedrooms per annum.
There's no guarantee that if you build even more bedrooms that they will be distributed to those who need them but can't currently afford them.
The extra bedrooms may simply be consumed by people who want a home office, or a bar at home, or a pension investment, and can outbid those who want the bedroom for their future children.
The problem is distributional at least as much as it is about aggregate supply.
Why do racists object to people criticising racism or white supremacy?
It is truly a mystery for our age. 🤔
To be fair some the language that is used in those documents does not make much sense to me and other parts are clearly hyperbolic. I don't think they are generally helpful or balanced. But nor are they an attack on white people themselves.
I think that line sadly has been crossed at times. The "White silence is violence" chant springs to mind. The hyperbolic shouty left in the USA tends to be quite white mind, black people tend to have more sense - Bernie Sanders always hits a brick wall when the Democrat primaries head to places like Virginia & the carolinas.
Yes, one tremendous irony in all this is the most extreme Wokeness - especially in academe, education, etc- is nearly always driven by white middle class liberals. Apart from a few activists, in BLM etc, it is white Democrats pushing this White Supremacy stuff. And many if not most of the authors of the crucial CRT texts are white. Robin de Angelo, Richard Delgado, David Goldberg, Gary Peller...
So crucial, the only person who ever seems to mention any of those names is . . . you.
If it weren't for you, I'd never have heard of Robin de Angelo etc, so not especially crucial.
Seems to be a modern day equivalent of Noam Chomsky trying to end capitalism, which didn't exactly get far. Why not just ignore her and let her be niche rather than constantly magnifying what she has to say?
I think it behoves us all to read this document on getting racism out of maths, a document which is now part of the Californian education system. Here's an excerpt about "white supremacy" in the mathematics classroom
NOTES ON TERMS The terms used in the engagement section of this resource are ideas presented in the dismantling Racism workbook (2016) notebook, grounded on the work of Jones and Okun (2001). It is important to read this article first to fully understand the terms that are identified as characteristics of white supremacy culture in organizations. We contextualize these ideas into the math classroom to make visible how white supremacy culture plays out in these spaces.
As a visual indicator, we italicize the terms used to identify white supremacy characteristics as defined by Jones and Okun (2001). They are as follows:
• Perfectionism • Sense of Urgency • Defensiveness • Quantity Over Quality • Worship of the Written Word • Paternalism • Either/Or Thinking • Power Hoarding • Fear of Open Conflict • Individualism • Only One Right Way • Progress is Bigger, More • Objectivity • Right to Comfort
Damn those white kids doing maths with their "objectivity", "sense of urgency", perfectionism", and "fear of open conflict", what maths needs is "subjectivity", "a sense of Whatever", "who cares if its right", and "open conflict"
This culture war shit of yours is so boring. The British economy is heading down the toilet thanks to Tory incompetence, no wonder you are so desperate to distract. Where are the answers on the Right? There are none. But oh look, maths in California has gone woke! Chicks with dicks in your toilet! Critical race theory is doubling the price of your weekly shop! Aslef is turning our kids gay! Brown people are coming in dinghies and Christmas is getting cancelled!
Quite so. It is also important that we do THIS:
"Expose students to mathematicians of color, particularly women of color and queer mathematicians of color"
It's time the many thousands of famously gay Nigerian mathematicians we're brought back into the curriculum
I offer you Nira Chamberlain - lovely man I met when he recieved his honorary degree from Bath recently. Was old at school that maths wasn't for people like him...
Starmer in hiding and some of his mps are trying to hide their RMT connections while other PPS stand in open defiance of the leadership
Yesterday afternoon Labour York MP Rachael Maskell stood up to ask a point of order, after Grant Shapps had spent an hour having fun pointing out all the Labour MPs who stood up to ask questions in defence of the strikes, without declaring their interests after pocketing thousands from the RMT Union. Following the question session Maskell stood up to complain to the deputy speaker that this was very unfair:
“You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that many members of the Labour party have a relationship with the trade unions that we are incredibly proud of, including with the RMT. The advice that I received from the Standards Commissioner ahead of that debate, and therefore ahead of today, stated under the requirements for declaration:
“Members are required, subject to the paragraphs below, to declare any financial interests which satisfy the test of relevance, including:
a) past financial interests (normally limited to those active within the last twelve months)”.
It is my recollection that the general election was two and a half years ago, so can you advise, Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether a declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests should keep being raised two and a half years after it has been made?”
To paraphrase Eleanor Laing’s no-nonsense response, she told MPs to present the whole truth when representing their union paymasters, not just try and get away without a declaration because of a small technicality in the members’ rule book.
Labour MPs should be supportive of the strikes. I'll be off to my nearest picket line with some drinks and donuts this afternoon. Any Labour who doesn't support it should have a word with themselves.
Why do racists object to people criticising racism or white supremacy?
It is truly a mystery for our age. 🤔
To be fair some the language that is used in those documents does not make much sense to me and other parts are clearly hyperbolic. I don't think they are generally helpful or balanced. But nor are they an attack on white people themselves.
I think that line sadly has been crossed at times. The "White silence is violence" chant springs to mind. The hyperbolic shouty left in the USA tends to be quite white mind, black people tend to have more sense - Bernie Sanders always hits a brick wall when the Democrat primaries head to places like Virginia & the carolinas.
Yes, one tremendous irony in all this is the most extreme Wokeness - especially in academe, education, etc- is nearly always driven by white middle class liberals. Apart from a few activists, in BLM etc, it is white Democrats pushing this White Supremacy stuff. And many if not most of the authors of the crucial CRT texts are white. Robin de Angelo, Richard Delgado, David Goldberg, Gary Peller...
So crucial, the only person who ever seems to mention any of those names is . . . you.
If it weren't for you, I'd never have heard of Robin de Angelo etc, so not especially crucial.
Seems to be a modern day equivalent of Noam Chomsky trying to end capitalism, which didn't exactly get far. Why not just ignore her and let her be niche rather than constantly magnifying what she has to say?
She's a bestseller.
More crucially, she makes her money running training courses, something which are increasingly being bought into by large corporates and public sector organisations.
The result of which, is that people start getting treated according to the colour of their skin, rather than the content of their character. Didn’t they legally abolish this several decades ago?
California tried last year to revoke by referendum, the Civil Rights Act, specifically to allow them to introduce racist policies.
Why do racists object to people criticising racism or white supremacy?
It is truly a mystery for our age. 🤔
To be fair some the language that is used in those documents does not make much sense to me and other parts are clearly hyperbolic. I don't think they are generally helpful or balanced. But nor are they an attack on white people themselves.
I think that line sadly has been crossed at times. The "White silence is violence" chant springs to mind. The hyperbolic shouty left in the USA tends to be quite white mind, black people tend to have more sense - Bernie Sanders always hits a brick wall when the Democrat primaries head to places like Virginia & the carolinas.
Yes, one tremendous irony in all this is the most extreme Wokeness - especially in academe, education, etc- is nearly always driven by white middle class liberals. Apart from a few activists, in BLM etc, it is white Democrats pushing this White Supremacy stuff. And many if not most of the authors of the crucial CRT texts are white. Robin de Angelo, Richard Delgado, David Goldberg, Gary Peller...
So crucial, the only person who ever seems to mention any of those names is . . . you.
If it weren't for you, I'd never have heard of Robin de Angelo etc, so not especially crucial.
Seems to be a modern day equivalent of Noam Chomsky trying to end capitalism, which didn't exactly get far. Why not just ignore her and let her be niche rather than constantly magnifying what she has to say?
What the F are you on about?
Robin de Angelo's White Fragility was a massive NYT bestseller and has 150,000 ratings on Goodreads: that's HUGE
See here:
‘White Fragility’ Is Everywhere. But Does Antiracism Training Work? Robin DiAngelo’s best seller is giving white Americans a new way to talk about race. "
How many NYT best sellers has Noam Chomsky had? Did that mean that capitalism died etc?
Niche extremes have always existed, and it doesn't take much to reach the NYT best sellers list.
I think, in this instance, you are - like some other PB-ers - simple misinformed. You aren’t following the debate in the USA, you don’t understand the issues, you opine without the knowledge to back it up. And fair enough, I have been known to do that myself. I will probably do it later today
But on this subject I am highly informed, because it interests me, and I read a lot
Tho Armenian monasteries interest me just as much, and I won’t be I in Armenia much longer. So I really must go
Starmer in hiding and some of his mps are trying to hide their RMT connections while other PPS stand in open defiance of the leadership
Yesterday afternoon Labour York MP Rachael Maskell stood up to ask a point of order, after Grant Shapps had spent an hour having fun pointing out all the Labour MPs who stood up to ask questions in defence of the strikes, without declaring their interests after pocketing thousands from the RMT Union. Following the question session Maskell stood up to complain to the deputy speaker that this was very unfair:
“You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that many members of the Labour party have a relationship with the trade unions that we are incredibly proud of, including with the RMT. The advice that I received from the Standards Commissioner ahead of that debate, and therefore ahead of today, stated under the requirements for declaration:
“Members are required, subject to the paragraphs below, to declare any financial interests which satisfy the test of relevance, including:
a) past financial interests (normally limited to those active within the last twelve months)”.
It is my recollection that the general election was two and a half years ago, so can you advise, Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether a declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests should keep being raised two and a half years after it has been made?”
To paraphrase Eleanor Laing’s no-nonsense response, she told MPs to present the whole truth when representing their union paymasters, not just try and get away without a declaration because of a small technicality in the members’ rule book.
If only Sebastian Fox and the Tory shills weren't lying when they said the RMT and Labour are in cahoots! Are the RMT affiliated to the party? No! Is Grant Shapps the one person that could have stopped the strike? Yes!
Have you seen the various clips of that idiot minister on TV last night? Embarrassing - for people like your good self who still parrots the Tory lie as a kind of muscle memory.
Starmer in hiding and some of his mps are trying to hide their RMT connections while other PPS stand in open defiance of the leadership
Yesterday afternoon Labour York MP Rachael Maskell stood up to ask a point of order, after Grant Shapps had spent an hour having fun pointing out all the Labour MPs who stood up to ask questions in defence of the strikes, without declaring their interests after pocketing thousands from the RMT Union. Following the question session Maskell stood up to complain to the deputy speaker that this was very unfair:
“You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that many members of the Labour party have a relationship with the trade unions that we are incredibly proud of, including with the RMT. The advice that I received from the Standards Commissioner ahead of that debate, and therefore ahead of today, stated under the requirements for declaration:
“Members are required, subject to the paragraphs below, to declare any financial interests which satisfy the test of relevance, including:
a) past financial interests (normally limited to those active within the last twelve months)”.
It is my recollection that the general election was two and a half years ago, so can you advise, Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether a declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests should keep being raised two and a half years after it has been made?”
To paraphrase Eleanor Laing’s no-nonsense response, she told MPs to present the whole truth when representing their union paymasters, not just try and get away without a declaration because of a small technicality in the members’ rule book.
Labour MPs should be supportive of the strikes. I'll be off to my nearest picket line with some drinks and donuts this afternoon. Any Labour who doesn't support it should have a word with themselves.
Seems Starmer doesn't agree instructing his shadow cabinet and pps not to attend picket lines
I think it behoves us all to read this document on getting racism out of maths, a document which is now part of the Californian education system. Here's an excerpt about "white supremacy" in the mathematics classroom
NOTES ON TERMS The terms used in the engagement section of this resource are ideas presented in the dismantling Racism workbook (2016) notebook, grounded on the work of Jones and Okun (2001). It is important to read this article first to fully understand the terms that are identified as characteristics of white supremacy culture in organizations. We contextualize these ideas into the math classroom to make visible how white supremacy culture plays out in these spaces.
As a visual indicator, we italicize the terms used to identify white supremacy characteristics as defined by Jones and Okun (2001). They are as follows:
• Perfectionism • Sense of Urgency • Defensiveness • Quantity Over Quality • Worship of the Written Word • Paternalism • Either/Or Thinking • Power Hoarding • Fear of Open Conflict • Individualism • Only One Right Way • Progress is Bigger, More • Objectivity • Right to Comfort
Damn those white kids doing maths with their "objectivity", "sense of urgency", perfectionism", and "fear of open conflict", what maths needs is "subjectivity", "a sense of Whatever", "who cares if its right", and "open conflict"
This culture war shit of yours is so boring. The British economy is heading down the toilet thanks to Tory incompetence, no wonder you are so desperate to distract. Where are the answers on the Right? There are none. But oh look, maths in California has gone woke! Chicks with dicks in your toilet! Critical race theory is doubling the price of your weekly shop! Aslef is turning our kids gay! Brown people are coming in dinghies and Christmas is getting cancelled!
Quite so. It is also important that we do THIS:
"Expose students to mathematicians of color, particularly women of color and queer mathematicians of color"
It's time the many thousands of famously gay Nigerian mathematicians we're brought back into the curriculum
There's tons of influential black mathematicians in these categories today. It's not about bringing their work into the primary and secondary curriculum, it's about showing their faces and talking about their achievements, more as part of the history of science. Just like we talk about Mary Anning's story to kids when we introduce them to the fossil record. We choose the stories we tell, and it influences the way we see any academic discipline.
As a slight tangent: one of the worst stories we tell is the "lone genius" (almost always a white guy).
When in fact almost every great discoverer of the last 150 years or so was supported (technically) by dozens of people (let alone all the people that enabled him the privilege of doing the work in the first place).
There's a great Stanford GR lecture series where an equation is derived quite simply and then the guy says "but if you want to calculate anything from that; turn to a nearby mathematician. Einstein almost certainly did none of those calculations himself, he had a whole team of people." (And in fact you'd probably turn to solver software today).
GR is an exceptionally bad example.
The creation of GR really is the best example ever of "lone genius" in science.
If Einstein had never lived, we'd still be waiting for GR.
Apart from Marcel Grossmann, I am not sure anyone had much of an influence on Einstein's thought.
And what is this BS about "Einstein almost certainly did none of those calculations himself, he had a whole team of people."
Not deriving the equation. Solving it for various situations.
Not that there wasn't a single individual to whom we can ascribe a breakthrough, but that they did the work building on that of others, and supported by many others.
Not diminishing an individual genius but contextualising them in the conversations of the time. And the way their ideas changed and were influenced by contemporaries (e.g. the introduction, removal, and reintroduction of the cosmological constant).
Unsurprisingly if you add 300k population but don't add ~300k bedrooms per annum then you end up with house prices going up. Who could have guessed that?
Someone said yesterday that the number of bedrooms per capita has increased - ie we have built more than 300k bedrooms per annum.
There's no guarantee that if you build even more bedrooms that they will be distributed to those who need them but can't currently afford them.
The extra bedrooms may simply be consumed by people who want a home office, or a bar at home, or a pension investment, and can outbid those who want the bedroom for their future children.
The problem is distributional at least as much as it is about aggregate supply.
The numbers are interesting to dive into. For example, ensuite bathrooms are being counted. So the modern fashion for an ensuite per bedroom(s) minus 1 - so 4 beds, 3 ensuites - means the number of rooms has soared.
Not many people can live in the ensuite shower/toilet, though.
Unsurprisingly if you add 300k population but don't add ~300k bedrooms per annum then you end up with house prices going up. Who could have guessed that?
Someone said yesterday that the number of bedrooms per capita has increased - ie we have built more than 300k bedrooms per annum.
There's no guarantee that if you build even more bedrooms that they will be distributed to those who need them but can't currently afford them.
The extra bedrooms may simply be consumed by people who want a home office, or a bar at home, or a pension investment, and can outbid those who want the bedroom for their future children.
The problem is distributional at least as much as it is about aggregate supply.
I call bullshit on the idea that bedrooms per capita has increased since prices started getting out of whack at the turn of the century. I'll eat my hat if that's true.
However over a long-term they need to have raised to counter two growing trends: living longer, and divorce/living alone.
Increased life expectancy means that people who still got a 3-4 bedroom house while they were parents with children who needed the rooms, can often remain living in that same house "they've always lived in" for many decades after their children or even their children's children now have become grown up and need a home of their own.
Queue of about 50 for 5 gates so a doddle. Passport stamped. No e-gates. Crutch was put through scanner this time so no 'Day of the Jackal' opportunities this time unlike coming out.
And just to really annoy @Leon there was a notice when we got through about the to be implemented e-gates. Apply to 5 nationalities including UK, but guess what the final instruction is? Yep you have it. You have to queue to get your passport stamped by a human at the end.
I love getting my passport stamped because it shows exactly where you've been, unlike with e-gates.
Starmer in hiding and some of his mps are trying to hide their RMT connections while other PPS stand in open defiance of the leadership
Yesterday afternoon Labour York MP Rachael Maskell stood up to ask a point of order, after Grant Shapps had spent an hour having fun pointing out all the Labour MPs who stood up to ask questions in defence of the strikes, without declaring their interests after pocketing thousands from the RMT Union. Following the question session Maskell stood up to complain to the deputy speaker that this was very unfair:
“You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that many members of the Labour party have a relationship with the trade unions that we are incredibly proud of, including with the RMT. The advice that I received from the Standards Commissioner ahead of that debate, and therefore ahead of today, stated under the requirements for declaration:
“Members are required, subject to the paragraphs below, to declare any financial interests which satisfy the test of relevance, including:
a) past financial interests (normally limited to those active within the last twelve months)”.
It is my recollection that the general election was two and a half years ago, so can you advise, Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether a declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests should keep being raised two and a half years after it has been made?”
To paraphrase Eleanor Laing’s no-nonsense response, she told MPs to present the whole truth when representing their union paymasters, not just try and get away without a declaration because of a small technicality in the members’ rule book.
If only Sebastian Fox and the Tory shills weren't lying when they said the RMT and Labour are in cahoots! Are the RMT affiliated to the party? No! Is Grant Shapps the one person that could have stopped the strike? Yes!
Have you seen the various clips of that idiot minister on TV last night? Embarrassing - for people like your good self who still parrots the Tory lie as a kind of muscle memory.
The RMT are funding some labour mps and what should embarrass labour is they are all over the place even trying to hide their sponsorship
Frankly I agree with Shapp's that HMG sets the parameters but it is upto the unions and employers to come to agreement on pay and modernisation including redundancies that are inevitable
Unsurprisingly if you add 300k population but don't add ~300k bedrooms per annum then you end up with house prices going up. Who could have guessed that?
Someone said yesterday that the number of bedrooms per capita has increased - ie we have built more than 300k bedrooms per annum.
There's no guarantee that if you build even more bedrooms that they will be distributed to those who need them but can't currently afford them.
The extra bedrooms may simply be consumed by people who want a home office, or a bar at home, or a pension investment, and can outbid those who want the bedroom for their future children.
The problem is distributional at least as much as it is about aggregate supply.
The numbers are interesting to dive into. For example, ensuite bathrooms are being counted. So the modern fashion for an ensuite per bedroom(s) minus 1 - so 4 beds, 3 ensuites - means the number of rooms has soared.
Not many people can live in the ensuite shower/toilet, though.
So the number of rooms per person was rising steadily, countering longer life expectancy factor I mentioned etc, until 2000.
After 2000 it stopped rising, and hey guess what that's when price earnings ratios got out of hand, even though interest rates were much higher then than they are now.
Gee, supply and demand works. Economically illiterate my ass.
🥀 Labour once again failed to condemn this week's strikes.
❌ Strikes that will hit workers, students, and our Armed Forces.
#StopLaboursStrikes
Sorry does anyone here believe this crap?
Daily Express editors?
I'm genuinely concerned the public does.
How on Earth can it be Labour's fault, they haven't been in Government for 13 years!
In London Johnson lost more days than Khan has! Are the London strikes Johnson's strikes?
When we had the train drivers striking in Scotland, it was wall to wall "Nicola's" fault from the Tories on here (counting BigG as one). Dispute now settled, at a fairly reasonable price in the circs.
But do the PBTories blame HMG in London for making a much worse mess? No, they do not.
Politics was always thus. It is an international phenomenon.
My favourite is when Drakeford and Sarwar say the diametric opposite:
Why do racists object to people criticising racism or white supremacy?
It is truly a mystery for our age. 🤔
To be fair some the language that is used in those documents does not make much sense to me and other parts are clearly hyperbolic. I don't think they are generally helpful or balanced. But nor are they an attack on white people themselves.
I think that line sadly has been crossed at times. The "White silence is violence" chant springs to mind. The hyperbolic shouty left in the USA tends to be quite white mind, black people tend to have more sense - Bernie Sanders always hits a brick wall when the Democrat primaries head to places like Virginia & the carolinas.
Yes, one tremendous irony in all this is the most extreme Wokeness - especially in academe, education, etc- is nearly always driven by white middle class liberals. Apart from a few activists, in BLM etc, it is white Democrats pushing this White Supremacy stuff. And many if not most of the authors of the crucial CRT texts are white. Robin de Angelo, Richard Delgado, David Goldberg, Gary Peller...
So crucial, the only person who ever seems to mention any of those names is . . . you.
If it weren't for you, I'd never have heard of Robin de Angelo etc, so not especially crucial.
Seems to be a modern day equivalent of Noam Chomsky trying to end capitalism, which didn't exactly get far. Why not just ignore her and let her be niche rather than constantly magnifying what she has to say?
Why do racists object to people criticising racism or white supremacy?
It is truly a mystery for our age. 🤔
To be fair some the language that is used in those documents does not make much sense to me and other parts are clearly hyperbolic. I don't think they are generally helpful or balanced. But nor are they an attack on white people themselves.
I think that line sadly has been crossed at times. The "White silence is violence" chant springs to mind. The hyperbolic shouty left in the USA tends to be quite white mind, black people tend to have more sense - Bernie Sanders always hits a brick wall when the Democrat primaries head to places like Virginia & the carolinas.
Yes, one tremendous irony in all this is the most extreme Wokeness - especially in academe, education, etc- is nearly always driven by white middle class liberals. Apart from a few activists, in BLM etc, it is white Democrats pushing this White Supremacy stuff. And many if not most of the authors of the crucial CRT texts are white. Robin de Angelo, Richard Delgado, David Goldberg, Gary Peller...
So crucial, the only person who ever seems to mention any of those names is . . . you.
If it weren't for you, I'd never have heard of Robin de Angelo etc, so not especially crucial.
Seems to be a modern day equivalent of Noam Chomsky trying to end capitalism, which didn't exactly get far. Why not just ignore her and let her be niche rather than constantly magnifying what she has to say?
She's a bestseller.
More crucially, she makes her money running training courses, something which are increasingly being bought into by large corporates and public sector organisations.
The result of which, is that people start getting treated according to the colour of their skin, rather than the content of their character. Didn’t they legally abolish this several decades ago?
California tried last year to revoke by referendum, the Civil Rights Act, specifically to allow them to introduce racist policies.
I'm actually pretty confident the UK will eventually snuff this shit out and get the balance right - we're wired that way.
Starmer in hiding and some of his mps are trying to hide their RMT connections while other PPS stand in open defiance of the leadership
Yesterday afternoon Labour York MP Rachael Maskell stood up to ask a point of order, after Grant Shapps had spent an hour having fun pointing out all the Labour MPs who stood up to ask questions in defence of the strikes, without declaring their interests after pocketing thousands from the RMT Union. Following the question session Maskell stood up to complain to the deputy speaker that this was very unfair:
“You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that many members of the Labour party have a relationship with the trade unions that we are incredibly proud of, including with the RMT. The advice that I received from the Standards Commissioner ahead of that debate, and therefore ahead of today, stated under the requirements for declaration:
“Members are required, subject to the paragraphs below, to declare any financial interests which satisfy the test of relevance, including:
a) past financial interests (normally limited to those active within the last twelve months)”.
It is my recollection that the general election was two and a half years ago, so can you advise, Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether a declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests should keep being raised two and a half years after it has been made?”
To paraphrase Eleanor Laing’s no-nonsense response, she told MPs to present the whole truth when representing their union paymasters, not just try and get away without a declaration because of a small technicality in the members’ rule book.
If only Sebastian Fox and the Tory shills weren't lying when they said the RMT and Labour are in cahoots! Are the RMT affiliated to the party? No! Is Grant Shapps the one person that could have stopped the strike? Yes!
Have you seen the various clips of that idiot minister on TV last night? Embarrassing - for people like your good self who still parrots the Tory lie as a kind of muscle memory.
The RMT are funding some labour mps and what should embarrass labour is they are all over the place even trying to hide their sponsorship
Frankly I agree with Shapp's that HMG sets the parameters but it is upto the unions and employers to come to agreement on pay and modernisation including redundancies that are inevitable
Given that all rail companies have been nationalised and can't even fart let alone spend a single £ without Shapp's prior approval - Mr Shapp is playing games here.
Starmer in hiding and some of his mps are trying to hide their RMT connections while other PPS stand in open defiance of the leadership
Yesterday afternoon Labour York MP Rachael Maskell stood up to ask a point of order, after Grant Shapps had spent an hour having fun pointing out all the Labour MPs who stood up to ask questions in defence of the strikes, without declaring their interests after pocketing thousands from the RMT Union. Following the question session Maskell stood up to complain to the deputy speaker that this was very unfair:
“You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that many members of the Labour party have a relationship with the trade unions that we are incredibly proud of, including with the RMT. The advice that I received from the Standards Commissioner ahead of that debate, and therefore ahead of today, stated under the requirements for declaration:
“Members are required, subject to the paragraphs below, to declare any financial interests which satisfy the test of relevance, including:
a) past financial interests (normally limited to those active within the last twelve months)”.
It is my recollection that the general election was two and a half years ago, so can you advise, Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether a declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests should keep being raised two and a half years after it has been made?”
To paraphrase Eleanor Laing’s no-nonsense response, she told MPs to present the whole truth when representing their union paymasters, not just try and get away without a declaration because of a small technicality in the members’ rule book.
If only Sebastian Fox and the Tory shills weren't lying when they said the RMT and Labour are in cahoots! Are the RMT affiliated to the party? No! Is Grant Shapps the one person that could have stopped the strike? Yes!
Have you seen the various clips of that idiot minister on TV last night? Embarrassing - for people like your good self who still parrots the Tory lie as a kind of muscle memory.
The RMT are funding some labour mps and what should embarrass labour is they are all over the place even trying to hide their sponsorship
Frankly I agree with Shapp's that HMG sets the parameters but it is upto the unions and employers to come to agreement on pay and modernisation including redundancies that are inevitable
But the government is the employer. Network Rail can't negotiate without direct government approval. Same with any of the directly operated rail franchises - everything goes through the DfT.
As for the sponsorship thing - a few MPs getting cash directly from a union isn't hidden - its declared. Do the Tories really want to open the can of worms about who funds individual MPs?
As the RMT boss said last night on Channel 4. He doesn't know or care what Keir Starmer thinks. "He runs a political party, we aren't affiliated to that party, I'm not a member of that party". To listen to your parroting of the spin line you'd believe that Starmer and the RMT are in cahoots.
Why do racists object to people criticising racism or white supremacy?
It is truly a mystery for our age. 🤔
To be fair some the language that is used in those documents does not make much sense to me and other parts are clearly hyperbolic. I don't think they are generally helpful or balanced. But nor are they an attack on white people themselves.
I think that line sadly has been crossed at times. The "White silence is violence" chant springs to mind. The hyperbolic shouty left in the USA tends to be quite white mind, black people tend to have more sense - Bernie Sanders always hits a brick wall when the Democrat primaries head to places like Virginia & the carolinas.
Yes, one tremendous irony in all this is the most extreme Wokeness - especially in academe, education, etc- is nearly always driven by white middle class liberals. Apart from a few activists, in BLM etc, it is white Democrats pushing this White Supremacy stuff. And many if not most of the authors of the crucial CRT texts are white. Robin de Angelo, Richard Delgado, David Goldberg, Gary Peller...
So crucial, the only person who ever seems to mention any of those names is . . . you.
If it weren't for you, I'd never have heard of Robin de Angelo etc, so not especially crucial.
Seems to be a modern day equivalent of Noam Chomsky trying to end capitalism, which didn't exactly get far. Why not just ignore her and let her be niche rather than constantly magnifying what she has to say?
What the F are you on about?
Robin de Angelo's White Fragility was a massive NYT bestseller and has 150,000 ratings on Goodreads: that's HUGE
See here:
‘White Fragility’ Is Everywhere. But Does Antiracism Training Work? Robin DiAngelo’s best seller is giving white Americans a new way to talk about race. "
How many NYT best sellers has Noam Chomsky had? Did that mean that capitalism died etc?
Niche extremes have always existed, and it doesn't take much to reach the NYT best sellers list.
I think, in this instance, you are - like some other PB-ers - simple misinformed. You aren’t following the debate in the USA, you don’t understand the issues, you opine without the knowledge to back it up. And fair enough, I have been known to do that myself. I will probably do it later today
But on this subject I am highly informed, because it interests me, and I read a lot
Tho Armenian monasteries interest me just as much, and I won’t be I in Armenia much longer. So I really must go
I can tell you read a lot on this subject, I would politely suggest, that's part of the problem.
Perhaps reading a bit less on the subject would be good for your blood pressure and allow you to be a bit happier by realising that actually, this subject is just niche nonsense to the overwhelming majority of people.
One day Tories will lift their gaze and see the world as she really is, not as they imagine her to be. Their Enlightenment is not going to be a pleasant experience.
Right now, I'm listening to my wife having a flaming hot row - in Bulgarian, so I can't understand - about the Ukraine war with her parents, who are in their 60s. I'm awkwardly browsing my phone.
Pro-Russian sentiment is very strong amongst older Bulgarians, who refer to Russians as "brothers" and I've seen more than one Bulgarian home fly the Russian flag as well as their own.
Starmer in hiding and some of his mps are trying to hide their RMT connections while other PPS stand in open defiance of the leadership
Yesterday afternoon Labour York MP Rachael Maskell stood up to ask a point of order, after Grant Shapps had spent an hour having fun pointing out all the Labour MPs who stood up to ask questions in defence of the strikes, without declaring their interests after pocketing thousands from the RMT Union. Following the question session Maskell stood up to complain to the deputy speaker that this was very unfair:
“You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that many members of the Labour party have a relationship with the trade unions that we are incredibly proud of, including with the RMT. The advice that I received from the Standards Commissioner ahead of that debate, and therefore ahead of today, stated under the requirements for declaration:
“Members are required, subject to the paragraphs below, to declare any financial interests which satisfy the test of relevance, including:
a) past financial interests (normally limited to those active within the last twelve months)”.
It is my recollection that the general election was two and a half years ago, so can you advise, Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether a declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests should keep being raised two and a half years after it has been made?”
To paraphrase Eleanor Laing’s no-nonsense response, she told MPs to present the whole truth when representing their union paymasters, not just try and get away without a declaration because of a small technicality in the members’ rule book.
If only Sebastian Fox and the Tory shills weren't lying when they said the RMT and Labour are in cahoots! Are the RMT affiliated to the party? No! Is Grant Shapps the one person that could have stopped the strike? Yes!
Have you seen the various clips of that idiot minister on TV last night? Embarrassing - for people like your good self who still parrots the Tory lie as a kind of muscle memory.
The RMT are funding some labour mps and what should embarrass labour is they are all over the place even trying to hide their sponsorship
Frankly I agree with Shapp's that HMG sets the parameters but it is upto the unions and employers to come to agreement on pay and modernisation including redundancies that are inevitable
But the government is the employer. Network Rail can't negotiate without direct government approval. Same with any of the directly operated rail franchises - everything goes through the DfT.
There is a landing place but I prefer HMG to be on the side of tax payers and to be seen to be
Starmer in hiding and some of his mps are trying to hide their RMT connections while other PPS stand in open defiance of the leadership
Yesterday afternoon Labour York MP Rachael Maskell stood up to ask a point of order, after Grant Shapps had spent an hour having fun pointing out all the Labour MPs who stood up to ask questions in defence of the strikes, without declaring their interests after pocketing thousands from the RMT Union. Following the question session Maskell stood up to complain to the deputy speaker that this was very unfair:
“You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that many members of the Labour party have a relationship with the trade unions that we are incredibly proud of, including with the RMT. The advice that I received from the Standards Commissioner ahead of that debate, and therefore ahead of today, stated under the requirements for declaration:
“Members are required, subject to the paragraphs below, to declare any financial interests which satisfy the test of relevance, including:
a) past financial interests (normally limited to those active within the last twelve months)”.
It is my recollection that the general election was two and a half years ago, so can you advise, Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether a declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests should keep being raised two and a half years after it has been made?”
To paraphrase Eleanor Laing’s no-nonsense response, she told MPs to present the whole truth when representing their union paymasters, not just try and get away without a declaration because of a small technicality in the members’ rule book.
If only Sebastian Fox and the Tory shills weren't lying when they said the RMT and Labour are in cahoots! Are the RMT affiliated to the party? No! Is Grant Shapps the one person that could have stopped the strike? Yes!
Have you seen the various clips of that idiot minister on TV last night? Embarrassing - for people like your good self who still parrots the Tory lie as a kind of muscle memory.
The RMT are funding some labour mps and what should embarrass labour is they are all over the place even trying to hide their sponsorship
Frankly I agree with Shapp's that HMG sets the parameters but it is upto the unions and employers to come to agreement on pay and modernisation including redundancies that are inevitable
Given that all rail companies have been nationalised and can't even fart let alone spend a single £ without Shapp's prior approval - Mr Shapp is playing games here.
I'm reminded of that day earlier on this year when Shapps announced his big integrated rail plan and Big G lapped it all up whereas those of us who use the railways a lot realised it was a load of bollocks.
Starmer in hiding and some of his mps are trying to hide their RMT connections while other PPS stand in open defiance of the leadership
Yesterday afternoon Labour York MP Rachael Maskell stood up to ask a point of order, after Grant Shapps had spent an hour having fun pointing out all the Labour MPs who stood up to ask questions in defence of the strikes, without declaring their interests after pocketing thousands from the RMT Union. Following the question session Maskell stood up to complain to the deputy speaker that this was very unfair:
“You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that many members of the Labour party have a relationship with the trade unions that we are incredibly proud of, including with the RMT. The advice that I received from the Standards Commissioner ahead of that debate, and therefore ahead of today, stated under the requirements for declaration:
“Members are required, subject to the paragraphs below, to declare any financial interests which satisfy the test of relevance, including:
a) past financial interests (normally limited to those active within the last twelve months)”.
It is my recollection that the general election was two and a half years ago, so can you advise, Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether a declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests should keep being raised two and a half years after it has been made?”
To paraphrase Eleanor Laing’s no-nonsense response, she told MPs to present the whole truth when representing their union paymasters, not just try and get away without a declaration because of a small technicality in the members’ rule book.
If only Sebastian Fox and the Tory shills weren't lying when they said the RMT and Labour are in cahoots! Are the RMT affiliated to the party? No! Is Grant Shapps the one person that could have stopped the strike? Yes!
Have you seen the various clips of that idiot minister on TV last night? Embarrassing - for people like your good self who still parrots the Tory lie as a kind of muscle memory.
The RMT are funding some labour mps and what should embarrass labour is they are all over the place even trying to hide their sponsorship
Frankly I agree with Shapp's that HMG sets the parameters but it is upto the unions and employers to come to agreement on pay and modernisation including redundancies that are inevitable
Given that all rail companies have been nationalised and can't even fart let alone spend a single £ without Shapp's prior approval - Mr Shapp is playing games here.
BigG was only too happy to repeatedly blame the SNP for the rail strikes in Scotland. But now, when it comes to HMG ...
Presumably this was around the time that the shrinkage of the labour market meant that road hauliers and fruit farmers were going to pay £600 an hour. Perhaps it happened though - this soaring inflation has to be fuelled by something.
Starmer in hiding and some of his mps are trying to hide their RMT connections while other PPS stand in open defiance of the leadership
Yesterday afternoon Labour York MP Rachael Maskell stood up to ask a point of order, after Grant Shapps had spent an hour having fun pointing out all the Labour MPs who stood up to ask questions in defence of the strikes, without declaring their interests after pocketing thousands from the RMT Union. Following the question session Maskell stood up to complain to the deputy speaker that this was very unfair:
“You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that many members of the Labour party have a relationship with the trade unions that we are incredibly proud of, including with the RMT. The advice that I received from the Standards Commissioner ahead of that debate, and therefore ahead of today, stated under the requirements for declaration:
“Members are required, subject to the paragraphs below, to declare any financial interests which satisfy the test of relevance, including:
a) past financial interests (normally limited to those active within the last twelve months)”.
It is my recollection that the general election was two and a half years ago, so can you advise, Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether a declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests should keep being raised two and a half years after it has been made?”
To paraphrase Eleanor Laing’s no-nonsense response, she told MPs to present the whole truth when representing their union paymasters, not just try and get away without a declaration because of a small technicality in the members’ rule book.
Labour MPs should be supportive of the strikes. I'll be off to my nearest picket line with some drinks and donuts this afternoon. Any Labour who doesn't support it should have a word with themselves.
I think it behoves us all to read this document on getting racism out of maths, a document which is now part of the Californian education system. Here's an excerpt about "white supremacy" in the mathematics classroom
NOTES ON TERMS The terms used in the engagement section of this resource are ideas presented in the dismantling Racism workbook (2016) notebook, grounded on the work of Jones and Okun (2001). It is important to read this article first to fully understand the terms that are identified as characteristics of white supremacy culture in organizations. We contextualize these ideas into the math classroom to make visible how white supremacy culture plays out in these spaces.
As a visual indicator, we italicize the terms used to identify white supremacy characteristics as defined by Jones and Okun (2001). They are as follows:
• Perfectionism • Sense of Urgency • Defensiveness • Quantity Over Quality • Worship of the Written Word • Paternalism • Either/Or Thinking • Power Hoarding • Fear of Open Conflict • Individualism • Only One Right Way • Progress is Bigger, More • Objectivity • Right to Comfort
Damn those white kids doing maths with their "objectivity", "sense of urgency", perfectionism", and "fear of open conflict", what maths needs is "subjectivity", "a sense of Whatever", "who cares if its right", and "open conflict"
This culture war shit of yours is so boring. The British economy is heading down the toilet thanks to Tory incompetence, no wonder you are so desperate to distract. Where are the answers on the Right? There are none. But oh look, maths in California has gone woke! Chicks with dicks in your toilet! Critical race theory is doubling the price of your weekly shop! Aslef is turning our kids gay! Brown people are coming in dinghies and Christmas is getting cancelled!
Quite so. It is also important that we do THIS:
"Expose students to mathematicians of color, particularly women of color and queer mathematicians of color"
It's time the many thousands of famously gay Nigerian mathematicians we're brought back into the curriculum
There's tons of influential black mathematicians in these categories today. It's not about bringing their work into the primary and secondary curriculum, it's about showing their faces and talking about their achievements, more as part of the history of science. Just like we talk about Mary Anning's story to kids when we introduce them to the fossil record. We choose the stories we tell, and it influences the way we see any academic discipline.
As a slight tangent: one of the worst stories we tell is the "lone genius" (almost always a white guy).
When in fact almost every great discoverer of the last 150 years or so was supported (technically) by dozens of people (let alone all the people that enabled him the privilege of doing the work in the first place).
There's a great Stanford GR lecture series where an equation is derived quite simply and then the guy says "but if you want to calculate anything from that; turn to a nearby mathematician. Einstein almost certainly did none of those calculations himself, he had a whole team of people." (And in fact you'd probably turn to solver software today).
GR is an exceptionally bad example.
The creation of GR really is the best example ever of "lone genius" in science.
If Einstein had never lived, we'd still be waiting for GR.
Apart from Marcel Grossmann, I am not sure anyone had much of an influence on Einstein's thought.
And what is this BS about "Einstein almost certainly did none of those calculations himself, he had a whole team of people."
Not deriving the equation. Solving it for various situations.
Not that there wasn't a single individual to whom we can ascribe a breakthrough, but that they did the work building on that of others, and supported by many others.
Not diminishing an individual genius but contextualising them in the conversations of the time. And the way their ideas changed and were influenced by contemporaries (e.g. the introduction, removal, and reintroduction of the cosmological constant).
I am not quite sure what you mean.
:..., but that they did the work building on that of others, and supported by many others."
GR actually is perhaps the worst example you could have chosen to demonstrate your thesis. It did not build on the work of others. (SR did, but GR did not).
It was a remarkable example of a lone genius, unaided by experiments, constructed a theory of gracity by a priori methods on his own (with the help of Grossman who taught him pseudo-Riemannian geometry).
I think your hypothesis is wrong.
Many people can do research, and make contributions -- but their contributions are small. The cumulative effect can be substantial (such as the changing ideas on the cosmological constant that you quote).
But, it is not true that all scientific advances are a collective effort. Some really do come from out of the blue, from genuinely creative individuals. There are lone geniuses.
And an excellent example is the person you said you did not want to mention, because ....
Ramanujan had no formal training and was indebted to no-one.
What did Hardy say on receiving his manuscripts. " The theorems had to be true because they were so fantastical noone could have invented them".
In fact, it is a touching story. A non-white mathematician from a poverty-stricken colonial background was brought to Cambridge by a white, gay, wealthy, public-school educated patrician mathematician.
It is a story full of human virtue. A story that shows that people can behave well, irrespective of the boundaries of class and race.
I'm convinced there won't be an election until the new boundaries are ready, which is supposed to be the second half of next year.
Same for me. Much as there are some arguments for going this year (sow discord with the unions, get in around the time the extra money for CoL is hitting etc) the downsides of going before the new boundaries + the current majority allowing you to stay in office until Jan 2025 (although more likely May 2024) are just too big in the other direction.
I'm convinced there won't be an election until the new boundaries are ready, which is supposed to be the second half of next year.
Yep September/October 2023 for the new boundaries so an election in October / November 2023.
However if things look bad now they are going to look way, way way worse in 2023 so if Bozo wants to win* an election he needs to call one sooner rather than later
* now he hasn't got a chance of winning one this year but he has less chance next year so....
Starmer in hiding and some of his mps are trying to hide their RMT connections while other PPS stand in open defiance of the leadership
Yesterday afternoon Labour York MP Rachael Maskell stood up to ask a point of order, after Grant Shapps had spent an hour having fun pointing out all the Labour MPs who stood up to ask questions in defence of the strikes, without declaring their interests after pocketing thousands from the RMT Union. Following the question session Maskell stood up to complain to the deputy speaker that this was very unfair:
“You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that many members of the Labour party have a relationship with the trade unions that we are incredibly proud of, including with the RMT. The advice that I received from the Standards Commissioner ahead of that debate, and therefore ahead of today, stated under the requirements for declaration:
“Members are required, subject to the paragraphs below, to declare any financial interests which satisfy the test of relevance, including:
a) past financial interests (normally limited to those active within the last twelve months)”.
It is my recollection that the general election was two and a half years ago, so can you advise, Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether a declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests should keep being raised two and a half years after it has been made?”
To paraphrase Eleanor Laing’s no-nonsense response, she told MPs to present the whole truth when representing their union paymasters, not just try and get away without a declaration because of a small technicality in the members’ rule book.
If only Sebastian Fox and the Tory shills weren't lying when they said the RMT and Labour are in cahoots! Are the RMT affiliated to the party? No! Is Grant Shapps the one person that could have stopped the strike? Yes!
Have you seen the various clips of that idiot minister on TV last night? Embarrassing - for people like your good self who still parrots the Tory lie as a kind of muscle memory.
The RMT are funding some labour mps and what should embarrass labour is they are all over the place even trying to hide their sponsorship
Frankly I agree with Shapp's that HMG sets the parameters but it is upto the unions and employers to come to agreement on pay and modernisation including redundancies that are inevitable
Given that all rail companies have been nationalised and can't even fart let alone spend a single £ without Shapp's prior approval - Mr Shapp is playing games here.
BigG was only too happy to repeatedly blame the SNP for the rail strikes in Scotland. But now, when it comes to HMG ...
I blamed the SNP for the huge number of rail journeys cancelled in Scotland
I'm convinced there won't be an election until the new boundaries are ready, which is supposed to be the second half of next year.
Yep September/October 2023 for the new boundaries so an election in October / November 2023.
However if things look bad now they are going to look way, way way worse in 2023 so if Bozo wants to win* an election he needs to call one sooner rather than later
* now he hasn't got a chance of winning one this year but he has less chance next year so....
That does assume he is still Leader of the "Conservatives".
Also - if SKS has to commit seppuku with a curry spork then the temptation must be great.
Why do racists object to people criticising racism or white supremacy?
It is truly a mystery for our age. 🤔
To be fair some the language that is used in those documents does not make much sense to me and other parts are clearly hyperbolic. I don't think they are generally helpful or balanced. But nor are they an attack on white people themselves.
I think that line sadly has been crossed at times. The "White silence is violence" chant springs to mind. The hyperbolic shouty left in the USA tends to be quite white mind, black people tend to have more sense - Bernie Sanders always hits a brick wall when the Democrat primaries head to places like Virginia & the carolinas.
Yes, one tremendous irony in all this is the most extreme Wokeness - especially in academe, education, etc- is nearly always driven by white middle class liberals. Apart from a few activists, in BLM etc, it is white Democrats pushing this White Supremacy stuff. And many if not most of the authors of the crucial CRT texts are white. Robin de Angelo, Richard Delgado, David Goldberg, Gary Peller...
So crucial, the only person who ever seems to mention any of those names is . . . you.
If it weren't for you, I'd never have heard of Robin de Angelo etc, so not especially crucial.
Seems to be a modern day equivalent of Noam Chomsky trying to end capitalism, which didn't exactly get far. Why not just ignore her and let her be niche rather than constantly magnifying what she has to say?
She's a bestseller.
More crucially, she makes her money running training courses, something which are increasingly being bought into by large corporates and public sector organisations.
The result of which, is that people start getting treated according to the colour of their skin, rather than the content of their character. Didn’t they legally abolish this several decades ago?
California tried last year to revoke by referendum, the Civil Rights Act, specifically to allow them to introduce racist policies.
I'm actually pretty confident the UK will eventually snuff this shit out and get the balance right - we're wired that way.
It's America I worry about.
I agree.
The complicating issue in the States is the recent history of active racism, within living memory, which often leads to problems of social class being mislabelled as problems of race.
Their politics is close to breaking point, with two sides shouting past each other, each thinking the other is acting in bad faith, with extreme messaging being amplified by media at the expense of moderate argument.
Hopefully someone can come along as a centrist and uniting figure - but it’s hard to identify one at the moment.
Starmer in hiding and some of his mps are trying to hide their RMT connections while other PPS stand in open defiance of the leadership
Yesterday afternoon Labour York MP Rachael Maskell stood up to ask a point of order, after Grant Shapps had spent an hour having fun pointing out all the Labour MPs who stood up to ask questions in defence of the strikes, without declaring their interests after pocketing thousands from the RMT Union. Following the question session Maskell stood up to complain to the deputy speaker that this was very unfair:
“You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that many members of the Labour party have a relationship with the trade unions that we are incredibly proud of, including with the RMT. The advice that I received from the Standards Commissioner ahead of that debate, and therefore ahead of today, stated under the requirements for declaration:
“Members are required, subject to the paragraphs below, to declare any financial interests which satisfy the test of relevance, including:
a) past financial interests (normally limited to those active within the last twelve months)”.
It is my recollection that the general election was two and a half years ago, so can you advise, Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether a declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests should keep being raised two and a half years after it has been made?”
To paraphrase Eleanor Laing’s no-nonsense response, she told MPs to present the whole truth when representing their union paymasters, not just try and get away without a declaration because of a small technicality in the members’ rule book.
If only Sebastian Fox and the Tory shills weren't lying when they said the RMT and Labour are in cahoots! Are the RMT affiliated to the party? No! Is Grant Shapps the one person that could have stopped the strike? Yes!
Have you seen the various clips of that idiot minister on TV last night? Embarrassing - for people like your good self who still parrots the Tory lie as a kind of muscle memory.
The RMT are funding some labour mps and what should embarrass labour is they are all over the place even trying to hide their sponsorship
Frankly I agree with Shapp's that HMG sets the parameters but it is upto the unions and employers to come to agreement on pay and modernisation including redundancies that are inevitable
But the government is the employer. Network Rail can't negotiate without direct government approval. Same with any of the directly operated rail franchises - everything goes through the DfT.
There is a landing place but I prefer HMG to be on the side of tax payers and to be seen to be
You said "it is upto the unions and employers to come to agreement on pay and modernisation". But the government IS the employer. So when Michael Green goes on TV as Transport Secretary and says "nothing to do with me" he is LYING.
I assume you don't want to be on the side of liars...
Starmer in hiding and some of his mps are trying to hide their RMT connections while other PPS stand in open defiance of the leadership
Yesterday afternoon Labour York MP Rachael Maskell stood up to ask a point of order, after Grant Shapps had spent an hour having fun pointing out all the Labour MPs who stood up to ask questions in defence of the strikes, without declaring their interests after pocketing thousands from the RMT Union. Following the question session Maskell stood up to complain to the deputy speaker that this was very unfair:
“You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that many members of the Labour party have a relationship with the trade unions that we are incredibly proud of, including with the RMT. The advice that I received from the Standards Commissioner ahead of that debate, and therefore ahead of today, stated under the requirements for declaration:
“Members are required, subject to the paragraphs below, to declare any financial interests which satisfy the test of relevance, including:
a) past financial interests (normally limited to those active within the last twelve months)”.
It is my recollection that the general election was two and a half years ago, so can you advise, Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether a declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests should keep being raised two and a half years after it has been made?”
To paraphrase Eleanor Laing’s no-nonsense response, she told MPs to present the whole truth when representing their union paymasters, not just try and get away without a declaration because of a small technicality in the members’ rule book.
If only Sebastian Fox and the Tory shills weren't lying when they said the RMT and Labour are in cahoots! Are the RMT affiliated to the party? No! Is Grant Shapps the one person that could have stopped the strike? Yes!
Have you seen the various clips of that idiot minister on TV last night? Embarrassing - for people like your good self who still parrots the Tory lie as a kind of muscle memory.
The RMT are funding some labour mps and what should embarrass labour is they are all over the place even trying to hide their sponsorship
Frankly I agree with Shapp's that HMG sets the parameters but it is upto the unions and employers to come to agreement on pay and modernisation including redundancies that are inevitable
Given that all rail companies have been nationalised and can't even fart let alone spend a single £ without Shapp's prior approval - Mr Shapp is playing games here.
BigG was only too happy to repeatedly blame the SNP for the rail strikes in Scotland. But now, when it comes to HMG ...
I blamed the SNP for the huge number of rail journeys cancelled in Scotland
Starmer in hiding and some of his mps are trying to hide their RMT connections while other PPS stand in open defiance of the leadership
Yesterday afternoon Labour York MP Rachael Maskell stood up to ask a point of order, after Grant Shapps had spent an hour having fun pointing out all the Labour MPs who stood up to ask questions in defence of the strikes, without declaring their interests after pocketing thousands from the RMT Union. Following the question session Maskell stood up to complain to the deputy speaker that this was very unfair:
“You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that many members of the Labour party have a relationship with the trade unions that we are incredibly proud of, including with the RMT. The advice that I received from the Standards Commissioner ahead of that debate, and therefore ahead of today, stated under the requirements for declaration:
“Members are required, subject to the paragraphs below, to declare any financial interests which satisfy the test of relevance, including:
a) past financial interests (normally limited to those active within the last twelve months)”.
It is my recollection that the general election was two and a half years ago, so can you advise, Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether a declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests should keep being raised two and a half years after it has been made?”
To paraphrase Eleanor Laing’s no-nonsense response, she told MPs to present the whole truth when representing their union paymasters, not just try and get away without a declaration because of a small technicality in the members’ rule book.
If only Sebastian Fox and the Tory shills weren't lying when they said the RMT and Labour are in cahoots! Are the RMT affiliated to the party? No! Is Grant Shapps the one person that could have stopped the strike? Yes!
Have you seen the various clips of that idiot minister on TV last night? Embarrassing - for people like your good self who still parrots the Tory lie as a kind of muscle memory.
The RMT are funding some labour mps and what should embarrass labour is they are all over the place even trying to hide their sponsorship
Frankly I agree with Shapp's that HMG sets the parameters but it is upto the unions and employers to come to agreement on pay and modernisation including redundancies that are inevitable
Given that all rail companies have been nationalised and can't even fart let alone spend a single £ without Shapp's prior approval - Mr Shapp is playing games here.
I'm reminded of that day earlier on this year when Shapps announced his big integrated rail plan and Big G lapped it all up whereas those of us who use the railways a lot realised it was a load of bollocks.
Notable that the amount of follow-up work that has been done to flesh out the baseless lies told by Shapps and parroted (sadly) by Big G is precisely zero.
Starmer in hiding and some of his mps are trying to hide their RMT connections while other PPS stand in open defiance of the leadership
Yesterday afternoon Labour York MP Rachael Maskell stood up to ask a point of order, after Grant Shapps had spent an hour having fun pointing out all the Labour MPs who stood up to ask questions in defence of the strikes, without declaring their interests after pocketing thousands from the RMT Union. Following the question session Maskell stood up to complain to the deputy speaker that this was very unfair:
“You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that many members of the Labour party have a relationship with the trade unions that we are incredibly proud of, including with the RMT. The advice that I received from the Standards Commissioner ahead of that debate, and therefore ahead of today, stated under the requirements for declaration:
“Members are required, subject to the paragraphs below, to declare any financial interests which satisfy the test of relevance, including:
a) past financial interests (normally limited to those active within the last twelve months)”.
It is my recollection that the general election was two and a half years ago, so can you advise, Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether a declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests should keep being raised two and a half years after it has been made?”
To paraphrase Eleanor Laing’s no-nonsense response, she told MPs to present the whole truth when representing their union paymasters, not just try and get away without a declaration because of a small technicality in the members’ rule book.
If only Sebastian Fox and the Tory shills weren't lying when they said the RMT and Labour are in cahoots! Are the RMT affiliated to the party? No! Is Grant Shapps the one person that could have stopped the strike? Yes!
Have you seen the various clips of that idiot minister on TV last night? Embarrassing - for people like your good self who still parrots the Tory lie as a kind of muscle memory.
The RMT are funding some labour mps and what should embarrass labour is they are all over the place even trying to hide their sponsorship
Frankly I agree with Shapp's that HMG sets the parameters but it is upto the unions and employers to come to agreement on pay and modernisation including redundancies that are inevitable
Given that all rail companies have been nationalised and can't even fart let alone spend a single £ without Shapp's prior approval - Mr Shapp is playing games here.
I'm reminded of that day earlier on this year when Shapps announced his big integrated rail plan and Big G lapped it all up whereas those of us who use the railways a lot realised it was a load of bollocks.
Notable that the amount of follow-up work that has been done to flesh out the baseless lies told by Shapps and parroted (sadly) by Big G is precisely zero.
It isn't a plan. It never was a plan.
Still love the 38 minutes from York to Manchester moment.
If the government can afford to pay billions for HS2 then they should have the money to pay the rail staff more.
What ridiculous Brownian bullshit. 🤦♂️
The government can have a sensible role to play in long-term investments in infrastructure that will take decades to go through.
Paying the day-to-day staff wages of private businesses though should fall upon those businesses customers.
Getting new track built is an "investment". Getting a new hospital built is an "investment". Increasing staff wages, paying the same nurses or signal staff or anyone else more is not "investing" in rails or the NHS etc
Regardless of what Brown liked to say. I'm disappointed to see you parroting such Brownian bullshit.
Starmer in hiding and some of his mps are trying to hide their RMT connections while other PPS stand in open defiance of the leadership
Yesterday afternoon Labour York MP Rachael Maskell stood up to ask a point of order, after Grant Shapps had spent an hour having fun pointing out all the Labour MPs who stood up to ask questions in defence of the strikes, without declaring their interests after pocketing thousands from the RMT Union. Following the question session Maskell stood up to complain to the deputy speaker that this was very unfair:
“You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that many members of the Labour party have a relationship with the trade unions that we are incredibly proud of, including with the RMT. The advice that I received from the Standards Commissioner ahead of that debate, and therefore ahead of today, stated under the requirements for declaration:
“Members are required, subject to the paragraphs below, to declare any financial interests which satisfy the test of relevance, including:
a) past financial interests (normally limited to those active within the last twelve months)”.
It is my recollection that the general election was two and a half years ago, so can you advise, Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether a declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests should keep being raised two and a half years after it has been made?”
To paraphrase Eleanor Laing’s no-nonsense response, she told MPs to present the whole truth when representing their union paymasters, not just try and get away without a declaration because of a small technicality in the members’ rule book.
If only Sebastian Fox and the Tory shills weren't lying when they said the RMT and Labour are in cahoots! Are the RMT affiliated to the party? No! Is Grant Shapps the one person that could have stopped the strike? Yes!
Have you seen the various clips of that idiot minister on TV last night? Embarrassing - for people like your good self who still parrots the Tory lie as a kind of muscle memory.
The RMT are funding some labour mps and what should embarrass labour is they are all over the place even trying to hide their sponsorship
Frankly I agree with Shapp's that HMG sets the parameters but it is upto the unions and employers to come to agreement on pay and modernisation including redundancies that are inevitable
But the government is the employer. Network Rail can't negotiate without direct government approval. Same with any of the directly operated rail franchises - everything goes through the DfT.
There is a landing place but I prefer HMG to be on the side of tax payers and to be seen to be
You said "it is upto the unions and employers to come to agreement on pay and modernisation". But the government IS the employer. So when Michael Green goes on TV as Transport Secretary and says "nothing to do with me" he is LYING.
I assume you don't want to be on the side of liars...
I want a settlement but not at any price
To all those attacking HMG maybe they should reveal just where they see a fair settlement on this is
It will be interesting to see where public opinion falls on this
If the government can afford to pay billions for HS2 then they should have the money to pay the rail staff more.
It's a poor point.
HS2 is capital expenditure spread over 10-20 years which will generate a economic RoR for the UK economy once complete.
This is increasing OpEx year on year with virtually no economic benefit.
But Shapps is saying things like "railways are competing with Zoom", which is true, but then the next question is "why build more of them?"
And also, the government should not be saying things like the tax payer has bailed out the railways during COVID. Again, if the government wants to get all Dr Beeching, then don't build new railways.
Why do racists object to people criticising racism or white supremacy?
It is truly a mystery for our age. 🤔
To be fair some the language that is used in those documents does not make much sense to me and other parts are clearly hyperbolic. I don't think they are generally helpful or balanced. But nor are they an attack on white people themselves.
I think that line sadly has been crossed at times. The "White silence is violence" chant springs to mind. The hyperbolic shouty left in the USA tends to be quite white mind, black people tend to have more sense - Bernie Sanders always hits a brick wall when the Democrat primaries head to places like Virginia & the carolinas.
Yes, one tremendous irony in all this is the most extreme Wokeness - especially in academe, education, etc- is nearly always driven by white middle class liberals. Apart from a few activists, in BLM etc, it is white Democrats pushing this White Supremacy stuff. And many if not most of the authors of the crucial CRT texts are white. Robin de Angelo, Richard Delgado, David Goldberg, Gary Peller...
So crucial, the only person who ever seems to mention any of those names is . . . you.
If it weren't for you, I'd never have heard of Robin de Angelo etc, so not especially crucial.
Seems to be a modern day equivalent of Noam Chomsky trying to end capitalism, which didn't exactly get far. Why not just ignore her and let her be niche rather than constantly magnifying what she has to say?
She's a bestseller.
More crucially, she makes her money running training courses, something which are increasingly being bought into by large corporates and public sector organisations.
The result of which, is that people start getting treated according to the colour of their skin, rather than the content of their character. Didn’t they legally abolish this several decades ago?
California tried last year to revoke by referendum, the Civil Rights Act, specifically to allow them to introduce racist policies.
I'm actually pretty confident the UK will eventually snuff this shit out and get the balance right - we're wired that way.
It's America I worry about.
I agree.
The complicating issue in the States is the recent history of active racism, within living memory, which often leads to problems of social class being mislabelled as problems of race.
Their politics is close to breaking point, with two sides shouting past each other, each thinking the other is acting in bad faith, with extreme messaging being amplified by media at the expense of moderate argument.
Hopefully someone can come along as a centrist and uniting figure - but it’s hard to identify one at the moment.
Dolly Parton is the only one both sides would listen to. She's also smarter and a better person than about 99% of US politicians. I would vote for her in a heartbeat.
Unsurprisingly if you add 300k population but don't add ~300k bedrooms per annum then you end up with house prices going up. Who could have guessed that?
Someone said yesterday that the number of bedrooms per capita has increased - ie we have built more than 300k bedrooms per annum.
There's no guarantee that if you build even more bedrooms that they will be distributed to those who need them but can't currently afford them.
The extra bedrooms may simply be consumed by people who want a home office, or a bar at home, or a pension investment, and can outbid those who want the bedroom for their future children.
The problem is distributional at least as much as it is about aggregate supply.
The numbers are interesting to dive into. For example, ensuite bathrooms are being counted. So the modern fashion for an ensuite per bedroom(s) minus 1 - so 4 beds, 3 ensuites - means the number of rooms has soared.
Not many people can live in the ensuite shower/toilet, though.
From your link:
"The 2011 Census asked about the number of rooms available for use by a household, including all rooms except bathrooms, toilets, halls, landings and any rooms that could only be used for storage such as cupboards."
Though it does say the threshold for counting kitchens has changed, so the figures are not always directly comparable.
Starmer in hiding and some of his mps are trying to hide their RMT connections while other PPS stand in open defiance of the leadership
Yesterday afternoon Labour York MP Rachael Maskell stood up to ask a point of order, after Grant Shapps had spent an hour having fun pointing out all the Labour MPs who stood up to ask questions in defence of the strikes, without declaring their interests after pocketing thousands from the RMT Union. Following the question session Maskell stood up to complain to the deputy speaker that this was very unfair:
“You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that many members of the Labour party have a relationship with the trade unions that we are incredibly proud of, including with the RMT. The advice that I received from the Standards Commissioner ahead of that debate, and therefore ahead of today, stated under the requirements for declaration:
“Members are required, subject to the paragraphs below, to declare any financial interests which satisfy the test of relevance, including:
a) past financial interests (normally limited to those active within the last twelve months)”.
It is my recollection that the general election was two and a half years ago, so can you advise, Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether a declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests should keep being raised two and a half years after it has been made?”
To paraphrase Eleanor Laing’s no-nonsense response, she told MPs to present the whole truth when representing their union paymasters, not just try and get away without a declaration because of a small technicality in the members’ rule book.
If only Sebastian Fox and the Tory shills weren't lying when they said the RMT and Labour are in cahoots! Are the RMT affiliated to the party? No! Is Grant Shapps the one person that could have stopped the strike? Yes!
Have you seen the various clips of that idiot minister on TV last night? Embarrassing - for people like your good self who still parrots the Tory lie as a kind of muscle memory.
The RMT are funding some labour mps and what should embarrass labour is they are all over the place even trying to hide their sponsorship
Frankly I agree with Shapp's that HMG sets the parameters but it is upto the unions and employers to come to agreement on pay and modernisation including redundancies that are inevitable
But the government is the employer. Network Rail can't negotiate without direct government approval. Same with any of the directly operated rail franchises - everything goes through the DfT.
There is a landing place but I prefer HMG to be on the side of tax payers and to be seen to be
You said "it is upto the unions and employers to come to agreement on pay and modernisation". But the government IS the employer. So when Michael Green goes on TV as Transport Secretary and says "nothing to do with me" he is LYING.
I assume you don't want to be on the side of liars...
I want a settlement but not at any price
To all those attacking HMG maybe they should reveal just where they see a fair settlement on this is
It will be interesting to see where public opinion falls on this
Listen to what I am saying. HMG are not proposing ANY settlement. They have actively pushed this strike to go ahead. The Scottish government managed to get a deal done up here, yet the DfT has zero interest in even trying. They are too busy lying on TV to weaponise "Labour's strike" as if the RMT would listen to Starmer.
Why do racists object to people criticising racism or white supremacy?
It is truly a mystery for our age. 🤔
To be fair some the language that is used in those documents does not make much sense to me and other parts are clearly hyperbolic. I don't think they are generally helpful or balanced. But nor are they an attack on white people themselves.
I think that line sadly has been crossed at times. The "White silence is violence" chant springs to mind. The hyperbolic shouty left in the USA tends to be quite white mind, black people tend to have more sense - Bernie Sanders always hits a brick wall when the Democrat primaries head to places like Virginia & the carolinas.
Yes, one tremendous irony in all this is the most extreme Wokeness - especially in academe, education, etc- is nearly always driven by white middle class liberals. Apart from a few activists, in BLM etc, it is white Democrats pushing this White Supremacy stuff. And many if not most of the authors of the crucial CRT texts are white. Robin de Angelo, Richard Delgado, David Goldberg, Gary Peller...
So crucial, the only person who ever seems to mention any of those names is . . . you.
If it weren't for you, I'd never have heard of Robin de Angelo etc, so not especially crucial.
Seems to be a modern day equivalent of Noam Chomsky trying to end capitalism, which didn't exactly get far. Why not just ignore her and let her be niche rather than constantly magnifying what she has to say?
She's a bestseller.
More crucially, she makes her money running training courses, something which are increasingly being bought into by large corporates and public sector organisations.
The result of which, is that people start getting treated according to the colour of their skin, rather than the content of their character. Didn’t they legally abolish this several decades ago?
California tried last year to revoke by referendum, the Civil Rights Act, specifically to allow them to introduce racist policies.
I'm actually pretty confident the UK will eventually snuff this shit out and get the balance right - we're wired that way.
It's America I worry about.
I agree.
The complicating issue in the States is the recent history of active racism, within living memory, which often leads to problems of social class being mislabelled as problems of race.
Their politics is close to breaking point, with two sides shouting past each other, each thinking the other is acting in bad faith, with extreme messaging being amplified by media at the expense of moderate argument.
Hopefully someone can come along as a centrist and uniting figure - but it’s hard to identify one at the moment.
Dolly Parton is the only one both sides would listen to. She's also smarter and a better person than about 99% of US politicians. I would vote for her in a heartbeat.
Not a bad shout - you’re right that someone not a politician might be what they need.
Having said that, the last not-a-politician turned out to be one of the more divisive figures in recent American history!
The other option is that someone close to the centre wins their party’s nomination, and picks someone from across the aisle as their running mate, campaigning positively on bringing the country back together.
Why do racists object to people criticising racism or white supremacy?
It is truly a mystery for our age. 🤔
To be fair some the language that is used in those documents does not make much sense to me and other parts are clearly hyperbolic. I don't think they are generally helpful or balanced. But nor are they an attack on white people themselves.
I think that line sadly has been crossed at times. The "White silence is violence" chant springs to mind. The hyperbolic shouty left in the USA tends to be quite white mind, black people tend to have more sense - Bernie Sanders always hits a brick wall when the Democrat primaries head to places like Virginia & the carolinas.
Yes, one tremendous irony in all this is the most extreme Wokeness - especially in academe, education, etc- is nearly always driven by white middle class liberals. Apart from a few activists, in BLM etc, it is white Democrats pushing this White Supremacy stuff. And many if not most of the authors of the crucial CRT texts are white. Robin de Angelo, Richard Delgado, David Goldberg, Gary Peller...
So crucial, the only person who ever seems to mention any of those names is . . . you.
If it weren't for you, I'd never have heard of Robin de Angelo etc, so not especially crucial.
Seems to be a modern day equivalent of Noam Chomsky trying to end capitalism, which didn't exactly get far. Why not just ignore her and let her be niche rather than constantly magnifying what she has to say?
She's a bestseller.
More crucially, she makes her money running training courses, something which are increasingly being bought into by large corporates and public sector organisations.
The result of which, is that people start getting treated according to the colour of their skin, rather than the content of their character. Didn’t they legally abolish this several decades ago?
California tried last year to revoke by referendum, the Civil Rights Act, specifically to allow them to introduce racist policies.
I'm actually pretty confident the UK will eventually snuff this shit out and get the balance right - we're wired that way.
It's America I worry about.
I agree.
The complicating issue in the States is the recent history of active racism, within living memory, which often leads to problems of social class being mislabelled as problems of race.
Their politics is close to breaking point, with two sides shouting past each other, each thinking the other is acting in bad faith, with extreme messaging being amplified by media at the expense of moderate argument.
Hopefully someone can come along as a centrist and uniting figure - but it’s hard to identify one at the moment.
Dolly Parton is the only one both sides would listen to. She's also smarter and a better person than about 99% of US politicians. I would vote for her in a heartbeat.
How disappointing though that the only name that can be thought of is another septuagenarian.
She is about the only one who could cut out the red and blue nonsense, to make a coat of many colours.
Why do racists object to people criticising racism or white supremacy?
It is truly a mystery for our age. 🤔
To be fair some the language that is used in those documents does not make much sense to me and other parts are clearly hyperbolic. I don't think they are generally helpful or balanced. But nor are they an attack on white people themselves.
I think that line sadly has been crossed at times. The "White silence is violence" chant springs to mind. The hyperbolic shouty left in the USA tends to be quite white mind, black people tend to have more sense - Bernie Sanders always hits a brick wall when the Democrat primaries head to places like Virginia & the carolinas.
Yes, one tremendous irony in all this is the most extreme Wokeness - especially in academe, education, etc- is nearly always driven by white middle class liberals. Apart from a few activists, in BLM etc, it is white Democrats pushing this White Supremacy stuff. And many if not most of the authors of the crucial CRT texts are white. Robin de Angelo, Richard Delgado, David Goldberg, Gary Peller...
So crucial, the only person who ever seems to mention any of those names is . . . you.
If it weren't for you, I'd never have heard of Robin de Angelo etc, so not especially crucial.
Seems to be a modern day equivalent of Noam Chomsky trying to end capitalism, which didn't exactly get far. Why not just ignore her and let her be niche rather than constantly magnifying what she has to say?
She's a bestseller.
More crucially, she makes her money running training courses, something which are increasingly being bought into by large corporates and public sector organisations.
The result of which, is that people start getting treated according to the colour of their skin, rather than the content of their character. Didn’t they legally abolish this several decades ago?
California tried last year to revoke by referendum, the Civil Rights Act, specifically to allow them to introduce racist policies.
I'm actually pretty confident the UK will eventually snuff this shit out and get the balance right - we're wired that way.
It's America I worry about.
I agree.
The complicating issue in the States is the recent history of active racism, within living memory, which often leads to problems of social class being mislabelled as problems of race.
Their politics is close to breaking point, with two sides shouting past each other, each thinking the other is acting in bad faith, with extreme messaging being amplified by media at the expense of moderate argument.
Hopefully someone can come along as a centrist and uniting figure - but it’s hard to identify one at the moment.
Dolly Parton is the only one both sides would listen to. She's also smarter and a better person than about 99% of US politicians. I would vote for her in a heartbeat.
Not a bad shout - you’re right that someone not a politician might be what they need.
Having said that, the last not-a-politician turned out to be one of more divisive figures of recent American history!
I can't see how any figure can unite them. If you think the liberals are out to usher in Satan and the government are after your guns, you aren't going to compromise quickly regardless of who is the candidate.
Why do racists object to people criticising racism or white supremacy?
It is truly a mystery for our age. 🤔
To be fair some the language that is used in those documents does not make much sense to me and other parts are clearly hyperbolic. I don't think they are generally helpful or balanced. But nor are they an attack on white people themselves.
I think that line sadly has been crossed at times. The "White silence is violence" chant springs to mind. The hyperbolic shouty left in the USA tends to be quite white mind, black people tend to have more sense - Bernie Sanders always hits a brick wall when the Democrat primaries head to places like Virginia & the carolinas.
Yes, one tremendous irony in all this is the most extreme Wokeness - especially in academe, education, etc- is nearly always driven by white middle class liberals. Apart from a few activists, in BLM etc, it is white Democrats pushing this White Supremacy stuff. And many if not most of the authors of the crucial CRT texts are white. Robin de Angelo, Richard Delgado, David Goldberg, Gary Peller...
So crucial, the only person who ever seems to mention any of those names is . . . you.
If it weren't for you, I'd never have heard of Robin de Angelo etc, so not especially crucial.
Seems to be a modern day equivalent of Noam Chomsky trying to end capitalism, which didn't exactly get far. Why not just ignore her and let her be niche rather than constantly magnifying what she has to say?
She's a bestseller.
More crucially, she makes her money running training courses, something which are increasingly being bought into by large corporates and public sector organisations.
The result of which, is that people start getting treated according to the colour of their skin, rather than the content of their character. Didn’t they legally abolish this several decades ago?
California tried last year to revoke by referendum, the Civil Rights Act, specifically to allow them to introduce racist policies.
I'm actually pretty confident the UK will eventually snuff this shit out and get the balance right - we're wired that way.
It's America I worry about.
I agree.
The complicating issue in the States is the recent history of active racism, within living memory, which often leads to problems of social class being mislabelled as problems of race.
Their politics is close to breaking point, with two sides shouting past each other, each thinking the other is acting in bad faith, with extreme messaging being amplified by media at the expense of moderate argument.
Hopefully someone can come along as a centrist and uniting figure - but it’s hard to identify one at the moment.
Dolly Parton is the only one both sides would listen to. She's also smarter and a better person than about 99% of US politicians. I would vote for her in a heartbeat.
Not a bad shout - you’re right that someone not a politician might be what they need.
Having said that, the last not-a-politician turned out to be one of more divisive figures of recent American history!
True. But despite bring new to politics Trump had a long history of being a terrible person that should have alerted anyone who was paying attention to what a shitshow his presidency would turn out to be.
Why do racists object to people criticising racism or white supremacy?
It is truly a mystery for our age. 🤔
To be fair some the language that is used in those documents does not make much sense to me and other parts are clearly hyperbolic. I don't think they are generally helpful or balanced. But nor are they an attack on white people themselves.
I think that line sadly has been crossed at times. The "White silence is violence" chant springs to mind. The hyperbolic shouty left in the USA tends to be quite white mind, black people tend to have more sense - Bernie Sanders always hits a brick wall when the Democrat primaries head to places like Virginia & the carolinas.
Yes, one tremendous irony in all this is the most extreme Wokeness - especially in academe, education, etc- is nearly always driven by white middle class liberals. Apart from a few activists, in BLM etc, it is white Democrats pushing this White Supremacy stuff. And many if not most of the authors of the crucial CRT texts are white. Robin de Angelo, Richard Delgado, David Goldberg, Gary Peller...
So crucial, the only person who ever seems to mention any of those names is . . . you.
If it weren't for you, I'd never have heard of Robin de Angelo etc, so not especially crucial.
Seems to be a modern day equivalent of Noam Chomsky trying to end capitalism, which didn't exactly get far. Why not just ignore her and let her be niche rather than constantly magnifying what she has to say?
She's a bestseller.
More crucially, she makes her money running training courses, something which are increasingly being bought into by large corporates and public sector organisations.
The result of which, is that people start getting treated according to the colour of their skin, rather than the content of their character. Didn’t they legally abolish this several decades ago?
California tried last year to revoke by referendum, the Civil Rights Act, specifically to allow them to introduce racist policies.
I'm actually pretty confident the UK will eventually snuff this shit out and get the balance right - we're wired that way.
It's America I worry about.
I agree.
The complicating issue in the States is the recent history of active racism, within living memory, which often leads to problems of social class being mislabelled as problems of race.
Their politics is close to breaking point, with two sides shouting past each other, each thinking the other is acting in bad faith, with extreme messaging being amplified by media at the expense of moderate argument.
Hopefully someone can come along as a centrist and uniting figure - but it’s hard to identify one at the moment.
Dolly Parton is the only one both sides would listen to. She's also smarter and a better person than about 99% of US politicians. I would vote for her in a heartbeat.
How disappointing though that the only name that can be thought of is another septuagenarian.
She is about the only one who could cut out the red and blue nonsense, to make a coat of many colours.
She would also work 9 to 5 for the benefit of her fellow Americans.
If the government can afford to pay billions for HS2 then they should have the money to pay the rail staff more.
Capital versus Operational Expenditure. I was in a lift in the Shard some years ago when a gnarly old consulting pro stated that we had less to worry about from the latest economic scare, because it was easier for people to sign off on CapEx, especially if you could argue it would reduce OpEx.
"Tiverton and Honiton by-election polls: New Lib Dem poll suggests potential disaster for Boris Johnson
Both Lib Dem Richard Foord and Conservative Helen Hurford have 45% support from voters with just two full days left before voting open on Thursday, a survey suggests"
Why do racists object to people criticising racism or white supremacy?
It is truly a mystery for our age. 🤔
To be fair some the language that is used in those documents does not make much sense to me and other parts are clearly hyperbolic. I don't think they are generally helpful or balanced. But nor are they an attack on white people themselves.
I think that line sadly has been crossed at times. The "White silence is violence" chant springs to mind. The hyperbolic shouty left in the USA tends to be quite white mind, black people tend to have more sense - Bernie Sanders always hits a brick wall when the Democrat primaries head to places like Virginia & the carolinas.
Yes, one tremendous irony in all this is the most extreme Wokeness - especially in academe, education, etc- is nearly always driven by white middle class liberals. Apart from a few activists, in BLM etc, it is white Democrats pushing this White Supremacy stuff. And many if not most of the authors of the crucial CRT texts are white. Robin de Angelo, Richard Delgado, David Goldberg, Gary Peller...
So crucial, the only person who ever seems to mention any of those names is . . . you.
If it weren't for you, I'd never have heard of Robin de Angelo etc, so not especially crucial.
Seems to be a modern day equivalent of Noam Chomsky trying to end capitalism, which didn't exactly get far. Why not just ignore her and let her be niche rather than constantly magnifying what she has to say?
She's a bestseller.
More crucially, she makes her money running training courses, something which are increasingly being bought into by large corporates and public sector organisations.
The result of which, is that people start getting treated according to the colour of their skin, rather than the content of their character. Didn’t they legally abolish this several decades ago?
California tried last year to revoke by referendum, the Civil Rights Act, specifically to allow them to introduce racist policies.
I'm actually pretty confident the UK will eventually snuff this shit out and get the balance right - we're wired that way.
It's America I worry about.
I agree.
The complicating issue in the States is the recent history of active racism, within living memory, which often leads to problems of social class being mislabelled as problems of race.
Their politics is close to breaking point, with two sides shouting past each other, each thinking the other is acting in bad faith, with extreme messaging being amplified by media at the expense of moderate argument.
Hopefully someone can come along as a centrist and uniting figure - but it’s hard to identify one at the moment.
Dolly Parton is the only one both sides would listen to. She's also smarter and a better person than about 99% of US politicians. I would vote for her in a heartbeat.
Random factoid of the day: when Peter Gabriel wrote "Don't give up", he had Dolly Parton in mind to sing it with him, rather than Kate Bush.
If the government can afford to pay billions for HS2 then they should have the money to pay the rail staff more.
It's a poor point.
HS2 is capital expenditure spread over 10-20 years which will generate a economic RoR for the UK economy once complete.
This is increasing OpEx year on year with virtually no economic benefit.
But Shapps is saying things like "railways are competing with Zoom", which is true, but then the next question is "why build more of them?"
And also, the government should not be saying things like the tax payer has bailed out the railways during COVID. Again, if the government wants to get all Dr Beeching, then don't build new railways.
But no journalist has raised this with Shapps.
The other point is that rail usage is currently at 75% of 2019 figures (275m journeys from Jan to Mar 2022). Which sounds bad until I point out that those figures are very similar to 2008/9 and most networks weren't running full timetables in January to March...
Starmer in hiding and some of his mps are trying to hide their RMT connections while other PPS stand in open defiance of the leadership
Yesterday afternoon Labour York MP Rachael Maskell stood up to ask a point of order, after Grant Shapps had spent an hour having fun pointing out all the Labour MPs who stood up to ask questions in defence of the strikes, without declaring their interests after pocketing thousands from the RMT Union. Following the question session Maskell stood up to complain to the deputy speaker that this was very unfair:
“You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that many members of the Labour party have a relationship with the trade unions that we are incredibly proud of, including with the RMT. The advice that I received from the Standards Commissioner ahead of that debate, and therefore ahead of today, stated under the requirements for declaration:
“Members are required, subject to the paragraphs below, to declare any financial interests which satisfy the test of relevance, including:
a) past financial interests (normally limited to those active within the last twelve months)”.
It is my recollection that the general election was two and a half years ago, so can you advise, Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether a declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests should keep being raised two and a half years after it has been made?”
To paraphrase Eleanor Laing’s no-nonsense response, she told MPs to present the whole truth when representing their union paymasters, not just try and get away without a declaration because of a small technicality in the members’ rule book.
If only Sebastian Fox and the Tory shills weren't lying when they said the RMT and Labour are in cahoots! Are the RMT affiliated to the party? No! Is Grant Shapps the one person that could have stopped the strike? Yes!
Have you seen the various clips of that idiot minister on TV last night? Embarrassing - for people like your good self who still parrots the Tory lie as a kind of muscle memory.
The RMT are funding some labour mps and what should embarrass labour is they are all over the place even trying to hide their sponsorship
Frankly I agree with Shapp's that HMG sets the parameters but it is upto the unions and employers to come to agreement on pay and modernisation including redundancies that are inevitable
Given that all rail companies have been nationalised and can't even fart let alone spend a single £ without Shapp's prior approval - Mr Shapp is playing games here.
I'm reminded of that day earlier on this year when Shapps announced his big integrated rail plan and Big G lapped it all up whereas those of us who use the railways a lot realised it was a load of bollocks.
A load of bollocks in what sense? I'm no fan of Grant Shapps / Michael Green but at least he has had the cojones to abolish the moronic franchising system – an international laughing stock – after decades of fiasco and farce.
If the government can afford to pay billions for HS2 then they should have the money to pay the rail staff more.
Capital versus Operational Expenditure. I was in a lift in the Shard some years ago when a gnarly old consulting pro stated that we had less to worry about from the latest economic scare, because it was easier for people to sign off on CapEx, especially if you could argue it would reduce OpEx.
Cloud computing was sold on the opposite basis: convert capex to opex.
Starmer in hiding and some of his mps are trying to hide their RMT connections while other PPS stand in open defiance of the leadership
Yesterday afternoon Labour York MP Rachael Maskell stood up to ask a point of order, after Grant Shapps had spent an hour having fun pointing out all the Labour MPs who stood up to ask questions in defence of the strikes, without declaring their interests after pocketing thousands from the RMT Union. Following the question session Maskell stood up to complain to the deputy speaker that this was very unfair:
“You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that many members of the Labour party have a relationship with the trade unions that we are incredibly proud of, including with the RMT. The advice that I received from the Standards Commissioner ahead of that debate, and therefore ahead of today, stated under the requirements for declaration:
“Members are required, subject to the paragraphs below, to declare any financial interests which satisfy the test of relevance, including:
a) past financial interests (normally limited to those active within the last twelve months)”.
It is my recollection that the general election was two and a half years ago, so can you advise, Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether a declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests should keep being raised two and a half years after it has been made?”
To paraphrase Eleanor Laing’s no-nonsense response, she told MPs to present the whole truth when representing their union paymasters, not just try and get away without a declaration because of a small technicality in the members’ rule book.
If only Sebastian Fox and the Tory shills weren't lying when they said the RMT and Labour are in cahoots! Are the RMT affiliated to the party? No! Is Grant Shapps the one person that could have stopped the strike? Yes!
Have you seen the various clips of that idiot minister on TV last night? Embarrassing - for people like your good self who still parrots the Tory lie as a kind of muscle memory.
The RMT are funding some labour mps and what should embarrass labour is they are all over the place even trying to hide their sponsorship
Frankly I agree with Shapp's that HMG sets the parameters but it is upto the unions and employers to come to agreement on pay and modernisation including redundancies that are inevitable
But the government is the employer. Network Rail can't negotiate without direct government approval. Same with any of the directly operated rail franchises - everything goes through the DfT.
There is a landing place but I prefer HMG to be on the side of tax payers and to be seen to be
You said "it is upto the unions and employers to come to agreement on pay and modernisation". But the government IS the employer. So when Michael Green goes on TV as Transport Secretary and says "nothing to do with me" he is LYING.
I assume you don't want to be on the side of liars...
I want a settlement but not at any price
To all those attacking HMG maybe they should reveal just where they see a fair settlement on this is
It will be interesting to see where public opinion falls on this
Listen to what I am saying. HMG are not proposing ANY settlement. They have actively pushed this strike to go ahead. The Scottish government managed to get a deal done up here, yet the DfT has zero interest in even trying. They are too busy lying on TV to weaponise "Labour's strike" as if the RMT would listen to Starmer.
Staggers morning email from Harry Lambert:
"There are many things, in short, you can criticise today’s Labour Party for, from its inability to offer any sort of coherent and consistent narrative that explains its policies, to the way Keir Starmer struggles in any setting other than scolding Boris Johnson for his moral failures. I am not sure you can criticise them for failing to prevent, from the opposition benches, strikes by a union with which it has no affiliation.
Labour’s position on the strikes is clear: they should not be happening, because the government should have worked to facilitate a deal between the RMT and Network Rail. The real story here is whether the Conservative government deliberately failed to make a deal to try to put Labour in a difficult position. It would seem incredible for most governments to play such games with the country, but this one has a taste for chaos by design."
If the government can afford to pay billions for HS2 then they should have the money to pay the rail staff more.
It's a poor point.
HS2 is capital expenditure spread over 10-20 years which will generate a economic RoR for the UK economy once complete.
This is increasing OpEx year on year with virtually no economic benefit.
But Shapps is saying things like "railways are competing with Zoom", which is true, but then the next question is "why build more of them?"
And also, the government should not be saying things like the tax payer has bailed out the railways during COVID. Again, if the government wants to get all Dr Beeching, then don't build new railways.
But no journalist has raised this with Shapps.
HS2 is supported by all main parties for a reason.
It delivers a step change in fast freight and passenger rail capacity right down the spine of the country, and will facilitate modal shift from air to rail.
I couldn't think of anything more unpopular the government could do than another round of Beeching closures, short of shooting kids.
Starmer in hiding and some of his mps are trying to hide their RMT connections while other PPS stand in open defiance of the leadership
Yesterday afternoon Labour York MP Rachael Maskell stood up to ask a point of order, after Grant Shapps had spent an hour having fun pointing out all the Labour MPs who stood up to ask questions in defence of the strikes, without declaring their interests after pocketing thousands from the RMT Union. Following the question session Maskell stood up to complain to the deputy speaker that this was very unfair:
“You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that many members of the Labour party have a relationship with the trade unions that we are incredibly proud of, including with the RMT. The advice that I received from the Standards Commissioner ahead of that debate, and therefore ahead of today, stated under the requirements for declaration:
“Members are required, subject to the paragraphs below, to declare any financial interests which satisfy the test of relevance, including:
a) past financial interests (normally limited to those active within the last twelve months)”.
It is my recollection that the general election was two and a half years ago, so can you advise, Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether a declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests should keep being raised two and a half years after it has been made?”
To paraphrase Eleanor Laing’s no-nonsense response, she told MPs to present the whole truth when representing their union paymasters, not just try and get away without a declaration because of a small technicality in the members’ rule book.
Labour MPs should be supportive of the strikes. I'll be off to my nearest picket line with some drinks and donuts this afternoon. Any Labour who doesn't support it should have a word with themselves.
Good to see you back.
You and Mrs TFS keeping well?
Yes, mate, life is good. We've both retired and bought a spanking new VW camper, converted to a mountain bike adventure specific off road beast! Dunno how I ever found time to fit in any actual work! How is the Fox clan?
"Tiverton and Honiton by-election polls: New Lib Dem poll suggests potential disaster for Boris Johnson
Both Lib Dem Richard Foord and Conservative Helen Hurford have 45% support from voters with just two full days left before voting open on Thursday, a survey suggests"
If the government can afford to pay billions for HS2 then they should have the money to pay the rail staff more.
Capital versus Operational Expenditure. I was in a lift in the Shard some years ago when a gnarly old consulting pro stated that we had less to worry about from the latest economic scare, because it was easier for people to sign off on CapEx, especially if you could argue it would reduce OpEx.
Cloud computing was sold on the opposite basis: convert capex to opex.
But with fewer in-house IT staff required to maintain the outsourced infrastructure.
Starmer in hiding and some of his mps are trying to hide their RMT connections while other PPS stand in open defiance of the leadership
Yesterday afternoon Labour York MP Rachael Maskell stood up to ask a point of order, after Grant Shapps had spent an hour having fun pointing out all the Labour MPs who stood up to ask questions in defence of the strikes, without declaring their interests after pocketing thousands from the RMT Union. Following the question session Maskell stood up to complain to the deputy speaker that this was very unfair:
“You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that many members of the Labour party have a relationship with the trade unions that we are incredibly proud of, including with the RMT. The advice that I received from the Standards Commissioner ahead of that debate, and therefore ahead of today, stated under the requirements for declaration:
“Members are required, subject to the paragraphs below, to declare any financial interests which satisfy the test of relevance, including:
a) past financial interests (normally limited to those active within the last twelve months)”.
It is my recollection that the general election was two and a half years ago, so can you advise, Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether a declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests should keep being raised two and a half years after it has been made?”
To paraphrase Eleanor Laing’s no-nonsense response, she told MPs to present the whole truth when representing their union paymasters, not just try and get away without a declaration because of a small technicality in the members’ rule book.
If only Sebastian Fox and the Tory shills weren't lying when they said the RMT and Labour are in cahoots! Are the RMT affiliated to the party? No! Is Grant Shapps the one person that could have stopped the strike? Yes!
Have you seen the various clips of that idiot minister on TV last night? Embarrassing - for people like your good self who still parrots the Tory lie as a kind of muscle memory.
The RMT are funding some labour mps and what should embarrass labour is they are all over the place even trying to hide their sponsorship
Frankly I agree with Shapp's that HMG sets the parameters but it is upto the unions and employers to come to agreement on pay and modernisation including redundancies that are inevitable
But the government is the employer. Network Rail can't negotiate without direct government approval. Same with any of the directly operated rail franchises - everything goes through the DfT.
There is a landing place but I prefer HMG to be on the side of tax payers and to be seen to be
You said "it is upto the unions and employers to come to agreement on pay and modernisation". But the government IS the employer. So when Michael Green goes on TV as Transport Secretary and says "nothing to do with me" he is LYING.
I assume you don't want to be on the side of liars...
I want a settlement but not at any price
To all those attacking HMG maybe they should reveal just where they see a fair settlement on this is
It will be interesting to see where public opinion falls on this
HMG to mean 'the government' is teetering on the edge of the Anabob annoying PB cliche list, just so you are aware.
If the government can afford to pay billions for HS2 then they should have the money to pay the rail staff more.
It's a poor point.
HS2 is capital expenditure spread over 10-20 years which will generate a economic RoR for the UK economy once complete.
This is increasing OpEx year on year with virtually no economic benefit.
But Shapps is saying things like "railways are competing with Zoom", which is true, but then the next question is "why build more of them?"
And also, the government should not be saying things like the tax payer has bailed out the railways during COVID. Again, if the government wants to get all Dr Beeching, then don't build new railways.
But no journalist has raised this with Shapps.
HS2 is supported by all main parties for a reason.
It delivers a step change in fast freight and passenger rail capacity right down the spine of the country, and will facilitate modal shift from air to rail.
I couldn't think of anything more unpopular the government could do than another round of Beeching closures, short of shooting kids.
If the government can afford to pay billions for HS2 then they should have the money to pay the rail staff more.
It's a poor point.
HS2 is capital expenditure spread over 10-20 years which will generate a economic RoR for the UK economy once complete....
Allegedly.
Oh there will be a economic return from Hs2 - the problem is that the treasury don't grasp the value in running slow trains every 30 minutes down the existing mainline routes stopping at all stations.
Those additional journey options open up a whole world of opportunities that no treasury model could comprehend.
Starmer in hiding and some of his mps are trying to hide their RMT connections while other PPS stand in open defiance of the leadership
Yesterday afternoon Labour York MP Rachael Maskell stood up to ask a point of order, after Grant Shapps had spent an hour having fun pointing out all the Labour MPs who stood up to ask questions in defence of the strikes, without declaring their interests after pocketing thousands from the RMT Union. Following the question session Maskell stood up to complain to the deputy speaker that this was very unfair:
“You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that many members of the Labour party have a relationship with the trade unions that we are incredibly proud of, including with the RMT. The advice that I received from the Standards Commissioner ahead of that debate, and therefore ahead of today, stated under the requirements for declaration:
“Members are required, subject to the paragraphs below, to declare any financial interests which satisfy the test of relevance, including:
a) past financial interests (normally limited to those active within the last twelve months)”.
It is my recollection that the general election was two and a half years ago, so can you advise, Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether a declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests should keep being raised two and a half years after it has been made?”
To paraphrase Eleanor Laing’s no-nonsense response, she told MPs to present the whole truth when representing their union paymasters, not just try and get away without a declaration because of a small technicality in the members’ rule book.
If only Sebastian Fox and the Tory shills weren't lying when they said the RMT and Labour are in cahoots! Are the RMT affiliated to the party? No! Is Grant Shapps the one person that could have stopped the strike? Yes!
Have you seen the various clips of that idiot minister on TV last night? Embarrassing - for people like your good self who still parrots the Tory lie as a kind of muscle memory.
The RMT are funding some labour mps and what should embarrass labour is they are all over the place even trying to hide their sponsorship
Frankly I agree with Shapp's that HMG sets the parameters but it is upto the unions and employers to come to agreement on pay and modernisation including redundancies that are inevitable
But the government is the employer. Network Rail can't negotiate without direct government approval. Same with any of the directly operated rail franchises - everything goes through the DfT.
There is a landing place but I prefer HMG to be on the side of tax payers and to be seen to be
You said "it is upto the unions and employers to come to agreement on pay and modernisation". But the government IS the employer. So when Michael Green goes on TV as Transport Secretary and says "nothing to do with me" he is LYING.
I assume you don't want to be on the side of liars...
I want a settlement but not at any price
To all those attacking HMG maybe they should reveal just where they see a fair settlement on this is
It will be interesting to see where public opinion falls on this
HMG to mean 'the government' is teetering on the edge of the Anabob annoying PB cliche list, just so you are aware.
Er, beg to submit that it's a useful distinction from the Scottish Government, which BigG blames for everything from midges to train strikes. LIkewise the Welsh Government.
Why do racists object to people criticising racism or white supremacy?
It is truly a mystery for our age. 🤔
To be fair some the language that is used in those documents does not make much sense to me and other parts are clearly hyperbolic. I don't think they are generally helpful or balanced. But nor are they an attack on white people themselves.
I think that line sadly has been crossed at times. The "White silence is violence" chant springs to mind. The hyperbolic shouty left in the USA tends to be quite white mind, black people tend to have more sense - Bernie Sanders always hits a brick wall when the Democrat primaries head to places like Virginia & the carolinas.
Yes, one tremendous irony in all this is the most extreme Wokeness - especially in academe, education, etc- is nearly always driven by white middle class liberals. Apart from a few activists, in BLM etc, it is white Democrats pushing this White Supremacy stuff. And many if not most of the authors of the crucial CRT texts are white. Robin de Angelo, Richard Delgado, David Goldberg, Gary Peller...
So crucial, the only person who ever seems to mention any of those names is . . . you.
If it weren't for you, I'd never have heard of Robin de Angelo etc, so not especially crucial.
Seems to be a modern day equivalent of Noam Chomsky trying to end capitalism, which didn't exactly get far. Why not just ignore her and let her be niche rather than constantly magnifying what she has to say?
She's a bestseller.
More crucially, she makes her money running training courses, something which are increasingly being bought into by large corporates and public sector organisations.
The result of which, is that people start getting treated according to the colour of their skin, rather than the content of their character. Didn’t they legally abolish this several decades ago?
California tried last year to revoke by referendum, the Civil Rights Act, specifically to allow them to introduce racist policies.
I'm actually pretty confident the UK will eventually snuff this shit out and get the balance right - we're wired that way.
It's America I worry about.
I agree.
The complicating issue in the States is the recent history of active racism, within living memory, which often leads to problems of social class being mislabelled as problems of race.
Their politics is close to breaking point, with two sides shouting past each other, each thinking the other is acting in bad faith, with extreme messaging being amplified by media at the expense of moderate argument.
Hopefully someone can come along as a centrist and uniting figure - but it’s hard to identify one at the moment.
Dolly Parton is the only one both sides would listen to. She's also smarter and a better person than about 99% of US politicians. I would vote for her in a heartbeat.
Random factoid of the day: when Peter Gabriel wrote "Don't give up", he had Dolly Parton in mind to sing it with him, rather than Kate Bush.
I wonder how Pete would have managed cuddling Dolly in the video. He looked awkward enough when he had to do it with Kate.
If the government can afford to pay billions for HS2 then they should have the money to pay the rail staff more.
Capital versus Operational Expenditure. I was in a lift in the Shard some years ago when a gnarly old consulting pro stated that we had less to worry about from the latest economic scare, because it was easier for people to sign off on CapEx, especially if you could argue it would reduce OpEx.
Cloud computing was sold on the opposite basis: convert capex to opex.
But with fewer in-house IT staff required to maintain the outsourced infrastructure.
Or you could just do what I do which is rent dedicated servers in a colo...
Same opex cost benefits without the gorging that AWS / MS perform
If the government can afford to pay billions for HS2 then they should have the money to pay the rail staff more.
What ridiculous Brownian bullshit. 🤦♂️
The government can have a sensible role to play in long-term investments in infrastructure that will take decades to go through.
Paying the day-to-day staff wages of private businesses though should fall upon those businesses customers.
Getting new track built is an "investment". Getting a new hospital built is an "investment". Increasing staff wages, paying the same nurses or signal staff or anyone else more is not "investing" in rails or the NHS etc
Regardless of what Brown liked to say. I'm disappointed to see you parroting such Brownian bullshit.
HS2 is a white elephant. Always was. Always will be.
🥀 Labour once again failed to condemn this week's strikes.
❌ Strikes that will hit workers, students, and our Armed Forces.
#StopLaboursStrikes
Sorry does anyone here believe this crap?
Daily Express editors?
I'm genuinely concerned the public does.
How on Earth can it be Labour's fault, they haven't been in Government for 13 years!
In London Johnson lost more days than Khan has! Are the London strikes Johnson's strikes?
When we had the train drivers striking in Scotland, it was wall to wall "Nicola's" fault from the Tories on here (counting BigG as one). Dispute now settled, at a fairly reasonable price in the circs.
But do the PBTories blame HMG in London for making a much worse mess? No, they do not.
Given that Sturgeon had just nationalised it (iirc), the first statement has some basis.
I think I mentioned weeks ago that the 5% settlement in Scotland would be a reasonable middle-way for the rest of the country.
On "Labour not condemning", presumably they are aiming at KS sitting on his hands, embarrassment at TU funding of Lab, and relying on the Press not noticing that RMT are more aligned to the far left (Corbyn, TUSC) and are not affiliated to Lab.
Starmer in hiding and some of his mps are trying to hide their RMT connections while other PPS stand in open defiance of the leadership
Yesterday afternoon Labour York MP Rachael Maskell stood up to ask a point of order, after Grant Shapps had spent an hour having fun pointing out all the Labour MPs who stood up to ask questions in defence of the strikes, without declaring their interests after pocketing thousands from the RMT Union. Following the question session Maskell stood up to complain to the deputy speaker that this was very unfair:
“You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that many members of the Labour party have a relationship with the trade unions that we are incredibly proud of, including with the RMT. The advice that I received from the Standards Commissioner ahead of that debate, and therefore ahead of today, stated under the requirements for declaration:
“Members are required, subject to the paragraphs below, to declare any financial interests which satisfy the test of relevance, including:
a) past financial interests (normally limited to those active within the last twelve months)”.
It is my recollection that the general election was two and a half years ago, so can you advise, Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether a declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests should keep being raised two and a half years after it has been made?”
To paraphrase Eleanor Laing’s no-nonsense response, she told MPs to present the whole truth when representing their union paymasters, not just try and get away without a declaration because of a small technicality in the members’ rule book.
Labour MPs should be supportive of the strikes. I'll be off to my nearest picket line with some drinks and donuts this afternoon. Any Labour who doesn't support it should have a word with themselves.
Good to see you back.
You and Mrs TFS keeping well?
Yes, mate, life is good. We've both retired and bought a spanking new VW camper, converted to a mountain bike adventure specific off road beast! Dunno how I ever found time to fit in any actual work! How is the Fox clan?
Bumbling along, fancying a van life retirement myself, but not quite yet.
My reading of party workers comments was that things were a shade gloomy at the end of last week, but certainly since the weekend they been quite the opposite, yesterday appears to have been very good, but tomorrow .......
Thats what they say at every by election. The old 'change on the ground over the last few days' phooey
Starmer in hiding and some of his mps are trying to hide their RMT connections while other PPS stand in open defiance of the leadership
Yesterday afternoon Labour York MP Rachael Maskell stood up to ask a point of order, after Grant Shapps had spent an hour having fun pointing out all the Labour MPs who stood up to ask questions in defence of the strikes, without declaring their interests after pocketing thousands from the RMT Union. Following the question session Maskell stood up to complain to the deputy speaker that this was very unfair:
“You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that many members of the Labour party have a relationship with the trade unions that we are incredibly proud of, including with the RMT. The advice that I received from the Standards Commissioner ahead of that debate, and therefore ahead of today, stated under the requirements for declaration:
“Members are required, subject to the paragraphs below, to declare any financial interests which satisfy the test of relevance, including:
a) past financial interests (normally limited to those active within the last twelve months)”.
It is my recollection that the general election was two and a half years ago, so can you advise, Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether a declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests should keep being raised two and a half years after it has been made?”
To paraphrase Eleanor Laing’s no-nonsense response, she told MPs to present the whole truth when representing their union paymasters, not just try and get away without a declaration because of a small technicality in the members’ rule book.
If only Sebastian Fox and the Tory shills weren't lying when they said the RMT and Labour are in cahoots! Are the RMT affiliated to the party? No! Is Grant Shapps the one person that could have stopped the strike? Yes!
Have you seen the various clips of that idiot minister on TV last night? Embarrassing - for people like your good self who still parrots the Tory lie as a kind of muscle memory.
The RMT are funding some labour mps and what should embarrass labour is they are all over the place even trying to hide their sponsorship
Frankly I agree with Shapp's that HMG sets the parameters but it is upto the unions and employers to come to agreement on pay and modernisation including redundancies that are inevitable
But the government is the employer. Network Rail can't negotiate without direct government approval. Same with any of the directly operated rail franchises - everything goes through the DfT.
There is a landing place but I prefer HMG to be on the side of tax payers and to be seen to be
You said "it is upto the unions and employers to come to agreement on pay and modernisation". But the government IS the employer. So when Michael Green goes on TV as Transport Secretary and says "nothing to do with me" he is LYING.
I assume you don't want to be on the side of liars...
I want a settlement but not at any price
To all those attacking HMG maybe they should reveal just where they see a fair settlement on this is
It will be interesting to see where public opinion falls on this
HMG to mean 'the government' is teetering on the edge of the Anabob annoying PB cliche list, just so you are aware.
Er, beg to submit that it's a useful distinction from the Scottish Government, which BigG blames for everything from midges to train strikes. LIkewise the Welsh Government.
Yes, that's a fair point. It remains intact for now.
If the government can afford to pay billions for HS2 then they should have the money to pay the rail staff more.
It's a poor point.
HS2 is capital expenditure spread over 10-20 years which will generate a economic RoR for the UK economy once complete.
This is increasing OpEx year on year with virtually no economic benefit.
But Shapps is saying things like "railways are competing with Zoom", which is true, but then the next question is "why build more of them?"
And also, the government should not be saying things like the tax payer has bailed out the railways during COVID. Again, if the government wants to get all Dr Beeching, then don't build new railways.
But no journalist has raised this with Shapps.
HS2 is supported by all main parties for a reason.
It delivers a step change in fast freight and passenger rail capacity right down the spine of the country, and will facilitate modal shift from air to rail.
I couldn't think of anything more unpopular the government could do than another round of Beeching closures, short of shooting kids.
Well it did until Shapps decided to utterly dice and splice it.
Literally the only decent bit of news I've heard in weeks is the investigation of extending it to Preston rather than the Golborne Link (mainly because there are capacity issues between Preston and Manchester that need to be fixed and there aren't any other options)
Comments
How many NYT best sellers has Noam Chomsky had? Did that mean that capitalism died etc?
Niche extremes have always existed, and it doesn't take much to reach the NYT best sellers list.
Feynman would be another good example of a lone genius. We would not have gotten Feynman diagrams without crazy Feynman, although for sure we would have had QFT.
What is really helpful in scientific fame is .... something really unfair ... longevity. It helps to live a long, long time.
Hard to assess how great Karl S would have been if he had not died so young.
Yesterday afternoon Labour York MP Rachael Maskell stood up to ask a point of order, after Grant Shapps had spent an hour having fun pointing out all the Labour MPs who stood up to ask questions in defence of the strikes, without declaring their interests after pocketing thousands from the RMT Union. Following the question session Maskell stood up to complain to the deputy speaker that this was very unfair:
“You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that many members of the Labour party have a relationship with the trade unions that we are incredibly proud of, including with the RMT. The advice that I received from the Standards Commissioner ahead of that debate, and therefore ahead of today, stated under the requirements for declaration:
“Members are required, subject to the paragraphs below, to declare any financial interests which satisfy the test of relevance, including:
a) past financial interests (normally limited to those active within the last twelve months)”.
It is my recollection that the general election was two and a half years ago, so can you advise, Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether a declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests should keep being raised two and a half years after it has been made?”
To paraphrase Eleanor Laing’s no-nonsense response, she told MPs to present the whole truth when representing their union paymasters, not just try and get away without a declaration because of a small technicality in the members’ rule book.
I did think your first post referred to Tory workers - and was puzzled at such a nuanced view from a group that rarely show discrimination of any kind. See-sawing assessments of your party's prospects is far, far, more the LibDem way of campaigning. There's one activist in my street who consistently exudes pessimism even at the end of counts the rest of us KNOW we've won with 60% or more of the vote.
Does that not strike you as a concept that probably has some truth in it? I can certainly think of examples I have witnessed from my own life that fall into this kind of area.
Not that there wasn't a single individual to whom we can ascribe a breakthrough, but that they did the work building on that of others, and supported by many others.
Not diminishing an individual genius but contextualising them in the conversations of the time. And the way their ideas changed and were influenced by contemporaries (e.g. the introduction, removal, and reintroduction of the cosmological constant).
There’s stories of them living in cars at the airport, most of them having borrowed the six figures against their parents’ house, in a desparate attempt to survive the first few years until they can get an unrestricted ATPL at 1,500 hours - and with it, that coveted third stripe on their epaulettes.
Captains, as your old shipmate friend suggests, are treated somewhat differently. Not even Ryanair is that stupid, there’s not infinite supply of grey hair and experience.
There's no guarantee that if you build even more bedrooms that they will be distributed to those who need them but can't currently afford them.
The extra bedrooms may simply be consumed by people who want a home office, or a bar at home, or a pension investment, and can outbid those who want the bedroom for their future children.
The problem is distributional at least as much as it is about aggregate supply.
The result of which, is that people start getting treated according to the colour of their skin, rather than the content of their character. Didn’t they legally abolish this several decades ago?
California tried last year to revoke by referendum, the Civil Rights Act, specifically to allow them to introduce racist policies.
But on this subject I am highly informed, because it interests me, and I read a lot
Tho Armenian monasteries interest me just as much, and I won’t be I in Armenia much longer. So I really must go
Have you seen the various clips of that idiot minister on TV last night? Embarrassing - for people like your good self who still parrots the Tory lie as a kind of muscle memory.
https://sites.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/general_relativity_pathway/index.html
Grossman appears to have contributed a significant amount of the maths.
It's a bit Iran v. Iraq.
You want them all to lose, rail unions, governments, and TOCS.
It is the honest hard working, working class people like me who suffer with these strikes.
The numbers are interesting to dive into. For example, ensuite bathrooms are being counted. So the modern fashion for an ensuite per bedroom(s) minus 1 - so 4 beds, 3 ensuites - means the number of rooms has soared.
Not many people can live in the ensuite shower/toilet, though.
However over a long-term they need to have raised to counter two growing trends: living longer, and divorce/living alone.
Increased life expectancy means that people who still got a 3-4 bedroom house while they were parents with children who needed the rooms, can often remain living in that same house "they've always lived in" for many decades after their children or even their children's children now have become grown up and need a home of their own.
Frankly I agree with Shapp's that HMG sets the parameters but it is upto the unions and employers to come to agreement on pay and modernisation including redundancies that are inevitable
After 2000 it stopped rising, and hey guess what that's when price earnings ratios got out of hand, even though interest rates were much higher then than they are now.
Gee, supply and demand works. Economically illiterate my ass.
My favourite is when Drakeford and Sarwar say the diametric opposite:
Labour = Good
SNP = Bad
It's America I worry about.
As for the sponsorship thing - a few MPs getting cash directly from a union isn't hidden - its declared. Do the Tories really want to open the can of worms about who funds individual MPs?
As the RMT boss said last night on Channel 4. He doesn't know or care what Keir Starmer thinks. "He runs a political party, we aren't affiliated to that party, I'm not a member of that party". To listen to your parroting of the spin line you'd believe that Starmer and the RMT are in cahoots.
Perhaps reading a bit less on the subject would be good for your blood pressure and allow you to be a bit happier by realising that actually, this subject is just niche nonsense to the overwhelming majority of people.
Pro-Russian sentiment is very strong amongst older Bulgarians, who refer to Russians as "brothers" and I've seen more than one Bulgarian home fly the Russian flag as well as their own.
None so far flying the Ukrainian one.
If the government can afford to pay billions for HS2 then they should have the money to pay the rail staff more.
You and Mrs TFS keeping well?
:..., but that they did the work building on that of others, and supported by many others."
GR actually is perhaps the worst example you could have chosen to demonstrate your thesis. It did not build on the work of others. (SR did, but GR did not).
It was a remarkable example of a lone genius, unaided by experiments, constructed a theory of gracity by a priori methods on his own (with the help of Grossman who taught him pseudo-Riemannian geometry).
I think your hypothesis is wrong.
Many people can do research, and make contributions -- but their contributions are small. The cumulative effect can be substantial (such as the changing ideas on the cosmological constant that you quote).
But, it is not true that all scientific advances are a collective effort. Some really do come from out of the blue, from genuinely creative individuals. There are lone geniuses.
And an excellent example is the person you said you did not want to mention, because ....
Ramanujan had no formal training and was indebted to no-one.
What did Hardy say on receiving his manuscripts. " The theorems had to be true because they were so fantastical noone could have invented them".
In fact, it is a touching story. A non-white mathematician from a poverty-stricken colonial background was brought to Cambridge by a white, gay, wealthy, public-school educated patrician mathematician.
It is a story full of human virtue. A story that shows that people can behave well, irrespective of the boundaries of class and race.
12/1 is appalling value.
However if things look bad now they are going to look way, way way worse in 2023 so if Bozo wants to win* an election he needs to call one sooner rather than later
* now he hasn't got a chance of winning one this year but he has less chance next year so....
Are you saying they have all been reinstated
Also - if SKS has to commit seppuku with a curry spork then the temptation must be great.
The complicating issue in the States is the recent history of active racism, within living memory, which often leads to problems of social class being mislabelled as problems of race.
Their politics is close to breaking point, with two sides shouting past each other, each thinking the other is acting in bad faith, with extreme messaging being amplified by media at the expense of moderate argument.
Hopefully someone can come along as a centrist and uniting figure - but it’s hard to identify one at the moment.
I assume you don't want to be on the side of liars...
2023 or later 4/5
2022 10/11
In the balance.
10/11 represents slight value?
HS2 is capital expenditure spread over 10-20 years which will generate a economic RoR for the UK economy once complete.
This is increasing OpEx year on year with virtually no economic benefit.
It isn't a plan. It never was a plan.
Oh, it's not the lagershed yet.
The government can have a sensible role to play in long-term investments in infrastructure that will take decades to go through.
Paying the day-to-day staff wages of private businesses though should fall upon those businesses customers.
Getting new track built is an "investment". Getting a new hospital built is an "investment". Increasing staff wages, paying the same nurses or signal staff or anyone else more is not "investing" in rails or the NHS etc
Regardless of what Brown liked to say. I'm disappointed to see you parroting such Brownian bullshit.
To all those attacking HMG maybe they should reveal just where they see a fair settlement on this is
It will be interesting to see where public opinion falls on this
And also, the government should not be saying things like the tax payer has bailed out the railways during COVID. Again, if the government wants to get all Dr Beeching, then don't build new railways.
But no journalist has raised this with Shapps.
"The 2011 Census asked about the number of rooms available for use by a household, including all rooms except bathrooms, toilets, halls, landings and any rooms that could only be used for storage such as cupboards."
Though it does say the threshold for counting kitchens has changed, so the figures are not always directly comparable.
Having said that, the last not-a-politician turned out to be one of the more divisive figures in recent American history!
The other option is that someone close to the centre wins their party’s nomination, and picks someone from across the aisle as their running mate, campaigning positively on bringing the country back together.
She is about the only one who could cut out the red and blue nonsense, to make a coat of many colours.
Both Lib Dem Richard Foord and Conservative Helen Hurford have 45% support from voters with just two full days left before voting open on Thursday, a survey suggests"
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/tiverton-and-honiton-by-election-polls-lib-dems-neck-and-neck-conservatives-tories-1696168
Not mine thank God.
Whether that is sufficient is a toss up IMO
"There are many things, in short, you can criticise today’s Labour Party for, from its inability to offer any sort of coherent and consistent narrative that explains its policies, to the way Keir Starmer struggles in any setting other than scolding Boris Johnson for his moral failures. I am not sure you can criticise them for failing to prevent, from the opposition benches, strikes by a union with which it has no affiliation.
Labour’s position on the strikes is clear: they should not be happening, because the government should have worked to facilitate a deal between the RMT and Network Rail. The real story here is whether the Conservative government deliberately failed to make a deal to try to put Labour in a difficult position. It would seem incredible for most governments to play such games with the country, but this one has a taste for chaos by design."
It delivers a step change in fast freight and passenger rail capacity right down the spine of the country, and will facilitate modal shift from air to rail.
I couldn't think of anything more unpopular the government could do than another round of Beeching closures, short of shooting kids.
Those additional journey options open up a whole world of opportunities that no treasury model could comprehend.
Same opex cost benefits without the gorging that AWS / MS perform
Always was. Always will be.
I think I mentioned weeks ago that the 5% settlement in Scotland would be a reasonable middle-way for the rest of the country.
On "Labour not condemning", presumably they are aiming at KS sitting on his hands, embarrassment at TU funding of Lab, and relying on the Press not noticing that RMT are more aligned to the far left (Corbyn, TUSC) and are not affiliated to Lab.
Literally the only decent bit of news I've heard in weeks is the investigation of extending it to Preston rather than the Golborne Link (mainly because there are capacity issues between Preston and Manchester that need to be fixed and there aren't any other options)
Labour are either on the side of the workers or the bosses (Tory Govt) in this Trade dispute.
If its not the former whats the point of Labour
Voters who are siding with the bosses are predominantly not going to vote Labour anyway.
Labour voters who are with the workers will see SKS as a weak boring sit on the fence merchant* and see Labour as abandoning workers even more.
*Which of course he is.