The Nobel Prize in Chemistry has gone to Carolyn Bertozzi, Morton Meldal, and Barry Sharpless for their work on snipping molecules together, known as click chemistry. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-63121338
The BBC does not (yet) say this but Barry Sharpless has now won two Nobel Prizes.
Shared 2 Nobel prizes for chemistry and joins a select group
The Nobel Prize in Chemistry has gone to Carolyn Bertozzi, Morton Meldal, and Barry Sharpless for their work on snipping molecules together, known as click chemistry. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-63121338
The BBC does not (yet) say this but Barry Sharpless has now won two Nobel Prizes.
Shared 2 Nobel prizes for chemistry and joins a select group
The Nobel Prize in Chemistry has gone to Carolyn Bertozzi, Morton Meldal, and Barry Sharpless for their work on snipping molecules together, known as click chemistry. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-63121338
The BBC does not (yet) say this but Barry Sharpless has now won two Nobel Prizes.
Shared 2 Nobel prizes for chemistry and joins a select group
The Nobel Prize in Chemistry has gone to Carolyn Bertozzi, Morton Meldal, and Barry Sharpless for their work on snipping molecules together, known as click chemistry. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-63121338
The BBC does not (yet) say this but Barry Sharpless has now won two Nobel Prizes.
Shared 2 Nobel prizes for chemistry and joins a select group
That was a good story about being presented with a junior air hostess badge while her brothers were given junior pilot badges.
Regardless of left or right politics, one thing I hope we can all agree that has really improved for the better in the past decades is how young girls aren't treated that way anymore.
The Nobel Prize in Chemistry has gone to Carolyn Bertozzi, Morton Meldal, and Barry Sharpless for their work on snipping molecules together, known as click chemistry. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-63121338
The BBC does not (yet) say this but Barry Sharpless has now won two Nobel Prizes.
Shared 2 Nobel prizes for chemistry and joins a select group
The Nobel Prize in Chemistry has gone to Carolyn Bertozzi, Morton Meldal, and Barry Sharpless for their work on snipping molecules together, known as click chemistry. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-63121338
The BBC does not (yet) say this but Barry Sharpless has now won two Nobel Prizes.
Shared 2 Nobel prizes for chemistry and joins a select group
It’s just stunning how entirely expected this was.
I remember watching a Tory leadership debate on ITV and seeing the unique appeal of each candidate.
Sunak - was Chancellor, spoke well, talked cautiously about not doing Truss’s economics etc Badenoch - would appeal to the right, was young, but would also potentially allow the Tories to attract new voters (who knows how true this is, but at least it was something) Tudgenhat - the kind of ‘sensible’ guy that might win back some Tories that would go to the Lib Dems. Moderation on Brexit could have been good to shore up their vote. Though uninspiring, I don’t think you get a sub 200 seat tally in 2024 with someone like him. Mordaunt - a much better speaker than Truss, military background, etc.
All of them, in their own way, seemed to have something that Truss didn’t. Liz Truss winning almost didn’t make any sense, apart from her appeal to the Press and the Membership. She was, arguably, the worst placed of the 5 to actually win an election. I dare say she was who Starmer hoped would win.
That was a good story about being presented with a junior air hostess badge while her brothers were given junior pilot badges.
Regardless of left or right politics, one thing I hope we can all agree that has really improved for the better in the past decades is how young girls aren't treated that way anymore.
then they started shouting and singing about "Fenians". Sectarian scum! It's hard to imagine an identity solely based on hating a certain perceived group of outsiders, but here...this is what you have.
How would you have felt if they'd sung Flower of Scotland?
It’s just stunning how entirely expected this was.
I remember watching a Tory leadership debate on ITV and seeing the unique appeal of each candidate.
Sunak - was Chancellor, spoke well, talked cautiously about not doing Truss’s economics etc Badenoch - would appeal to the right, was young, but would also potentially allow the Tories to attract new voters (who knows how true this is, but at least it was something) Tudgenhat - the kind of ‘sensible’ guy that might win back some Tories that would go to the Lib Dems. Moderation on Brexit could have been good to shore up their vote. Though uninspiring, I don’t think you get a sub 200 seat tally in 2024 with someone like him. Mordaunt - a much better speaker than Truss, military background, etc.
All of them, in their own way, seemed to have something that Truss didn’t. Liz Truss winning almost didn’t make any sense, apart from her appeal to the Press and the Membership. She was, arguably, the worst placed of the 5 to actually win an election. I dare say she was who Starmer hoped would win.
Truss would have lost with the members to Kemi or Penny. The MPs are the ones who made the mistake by putting Truss to the membership. The same mistake Labour MPs made in 2015 by putting Corbyn to the membership.
That amazing libertarian ideal of forcing people to work even if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth. Which I assume will be done with all the force of the state - rules around claiming benefits, police at picket lines, and the choice between serfdom or starving.
We need to retire the idea that Truss is a libertarian - her economics are not about increasing freedom, it's about capital accumulating with the already rich. There is nothing freeing about being unable to collectively bargain, there is nothing emancipatory about claiming the only working unit is the individual.
In a truly libertarian world there would be no unions at all and no minimum wage, wages would be purely determined by the free market
Why would there be no unions...would your libertarians ban them ?
HYUFD has no idea what libertarianism is or what it stands for. He uses it as an insult against anyone who doesn't agree with his ultra-statist, might is right ideology. In another time he would be wearing a black shirt and talking about jailing communists and anarchists.
Whilst I disagree with HYUFD typically, his description of how libertarians act is in keeping with what we see in the world - those right wing self styled libertarians in the US don't want unions to exist, demanding that only individuals can negotiate contracts and that minimum wage shouldn't be a thing.
I don't know of a right wing libertarian system that isn't openly hostile to the very existence of unions.
Wrong. I have already just answered this point with links. HYUFD is completely wrong on this as he is on almost every other topic on which he opines. You really should do your own research.
Wrong, libertarianism is the polar opposite of both socialism and social conservatism.
Pure libertarianism is based on pure free market and pure socially liberal ideology. Essentially as little state as possible
Libertarianism is about personal responsibility and people choosing to freely do as they choose, which of course includes the right to free assembly and therefore to join unions etc if they choose to do so - rather than being forced either that they must, or must not join one.
People freely choosing to join a union is perfectly compatible with a free market. If the state starts banning people from joining unions, then that is a state action which is illiberal, not libertarian.
An employer and a union voluntarily agree a closed-shop arrangement. Sorted. Liberty!
A competitor employer who says he won't sign such an agreement can start advertising vacancies. Utopia!
Much as the Labour party has done the Tories are going to have to find a post apocalypse leader who will purge the UKIP tendency - face down the Faragists and re build from the centre. For that to happen they have to suffer an epic defeat. The hard left seemed in total control a few years ago but now they are a few cranks in the odd Village hall. It will be the likes of Braverman losing the whip eventually. Centrist dads still exist.
Which is why when the Tory party lose the next election they will be out of power for 10 years minimum.
The next leader after the lost election will be a right wing true believer - only after that has proven to be a complete disaster will the party elect a plausible leader who will appeal to the middle ground
Unfortunately politics doesn't always work that way.
In 2012 after one term out of office the GOP went for Romney who could have been a decent President, but the American public weren't ready to turf out Obama who was a decent President.
In 2016 after two terms out of office they went for the batshit crazy instead, and the batshit crazy got elected.
The USA ain't the UK...
No it isn't, but the same can happen in the UK too.
Miliband (first leader in Opposition) was more reasonable than Corbyn (second), yet Corbyn got more MPs than Miliband did and came close to getting in like Trump did.
Hague (first) was more reasonable than IDS (second).
In one way it probably doesn't matter who the Tories choose after they lose the election, since Labour winning a second term would be pretty nailed on no matter what I expect.
Off-topic: I was in a motorway service station yesterday in northern England and there were lots of raucous Rangers fans. Youngsters being cheerful before a football game, I thought. Good luck to them, I thought. And then they started shouting and singing about "Fenians". Sectarian scum! It's hard to imagine an identity solely based on hating a certain perceived group of outsiders, but here...this is what you have.
That amazing libertarian ideal of forcing people to work even if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth. Which I assume will be done with all the force of the state - rules around claiming benefits, police at picket lines, and the choice between serfdom or starving.
We need to retire the idea that Truss is a libertarian - her economics are not about increasing freedom, it's about capital accumulating with the already rich. There is nothing freeing about being unable to collectively bargain, there is nothing emancipatory about claiming the only working unit is the individual.
Not forcing them to work at all - they can quit.
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
In an ideal world, curbs on strikes wouldn't be necessary. But in an ideal world, militant unions wouldn't take it out on people who can't do anything about it.
They *are* quitting. Already. In their thousands. And there are no replacements. That's the problem.
You can only use the threat of restrictions on right to strike if you have an ample supply of replacements. There are no doctors you could call on you haven't already recruited. Or nurses. As for teachers, by closing 30% of training courses they're going to absolutely squeeze supply. But that's not even as bad as it sounds because they can't afford to pay their wages anyway.
It's an empty threat. What would she do if they ignored her? Lock them up? Sack them? Sue them?
I would add that actually I don't think education unions are particularly militant. I worked in one school where the head had actually threatened several members of staff with physical violence and they needed a lot of prodding from me to intervene. There were two national strikes in all my years in teaching despite appalling and frequently illegal actions to change terms and conditions and chronic mismanagement and abuse by those in authority. We didn't strike during covid, for example, although we probably should have done given several things the DfE demanded of us were breaches not only of our contracts and covid regulations but of ordinary health and safety law.
That's partly because most teachers don't want to strike. They care about children, unlike say, the DfE or the Daily Mail, and they don't want to disrupt their education. There's actually one Union, the Voice, which has that as its fundamental principle.
But you have to have the right to withdraw your labour to protest at misguided or especially illegal actions by the bosses. That's a fundamental point of workplace law. If she restricts it, the NHS and the education system will certainly both implode.
There's one sentence in my comment which you didn't address, perhaps because you don't have an answer for it:
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
If you're not a party to the dispute, you're not directly affected by the dispute.
If you're a customer of the firm whose staff are on strike etc, then you are a party to the dispute.
Not in the sense that you have any way of resolving it.
Of course you do, just not directly, but everything's connected.
If eg your a customer on a train then you could end up paying more in train fees, in order to allow the train firm to pay their staff more, which allows the dispute to be resolved. Or you could choose to take your business elsewhere, drive instead of getting the train, which means that the train firm has less revenue and may need to make redundancies instead.
Everything is connected. If you don't want to be a party to a dispute, don't get involved. Don't use that business or service, if you do, then you're a party whether you want to be or not.
That amazing libertarian ideal of forcing people to work even if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth. Which I assume will be done with all the force of the state - rules around claiming benefits, police at picket lines, and the choice between serfdom or starving.
We need to retire the idea that Truss is a libertarian - her economics are not about increasing freedom, it's about capital accumulating with the already rich. There is nothing freeing about being unable to collectively bargain, there is nothing emancipatory about claiming the only working unit is the individual.
Not forcing them to work at all - they can quit.
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
In an ideal world, curbs on strikes wouldn't be necessary. But in an ideal world, militant unions wouldn't take it out on people who can't do anything about it.
They *are* quitting. Already. In their thousands. And there are no replacements. That's the problem.
You can only use the threat of restrictions on right to strike if you have an ample supply of replacements. There are no doctors you could call on you haven't already recruited. Or nurses. As for teachers, by closing 30% of training courses they're going to absolutely squeeze supply. But that's not even as bad as it sounds because they can't afford to pay their wages anyway.
It's an empty threat. What would she do if they ignored her? Lock them up? Sack them? Sue them?
I would add that actually I don't think education unions are particularly militant. I worked in one school where the head had actually threatened several members of staff with physical violence and they needed a lot of prodding from me to intervene. There were two national strikes in all my years in teaching despite appalling and frequently illegal actions to change terms and conditions and chronic mismanagement and abuse by those in authority. We didn't strike during covid, for example, although we probably should have done given several things the DfE demanded of us were breaches not only of our contracts and covid regulations but of ordinary health and safety law.
That's partly because most teachers don't want to strike. They care about children, unlike say, the DfE or the Daily Mail, and they don't want to disrupt their education. There's actually one Union, the Voice, which has that as its fundamental principle.
But you have to have the right to withdraw your labour to protest at misguided or especially illegal actions by the bosses. That's a fundamental point of workplace law. If she restricts it, the NHS and the education system will certainly both implode.
There's one sentence in my comment which you didn't address, perhaps because you don't have an answer for it:
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
If you're not a party to the dispute, you're not directly affected by the dispute.
If you're a customer of the firm whose staff are on strike etc, then you are a party to the dispute.
Not in the sense that you have any way of resolving it.
Of course you do, just not directly, but everything's connected.
If eg your a customer on a train then you could end up paying more in train fees, in order to allow the train firm to pay their staff more, which allows the dispute to be resolved. Or you could choose to take your business elsewhere, drive instead of getting the train, which means that the train firm has less revenue and may need to make redundancies instead.
Everything is connected. If you don't want to be a party to a dispute, don't get involved. Don't use that business or service, if you do, then you're a party whether you want to be or not.
Yes, don't go to work - genius solution!
Who said don't go to work?
Go to work, but don't rely upon the services of those who are on strike to do so. If you normally get a train then drive instead and so on. If you can't, then be prepared to pay more to the staff since you must value them so highly that you're so dependant upon them.
Ramsay Mac? Wasn't he at Free Kirk and then Kirk of Scotland schools?
It says here
Ramsay MacDonald received an elementary education at the Free Church of Scotland school in Lossiemouth from 1872 to 1875, and then at Drainie parish school. He left school at the end of the summer term in 1881, at the age of 15, and began work on a nearby farm. In December 1881, he was appointed a pupil teacher at Drainie parish school.
The Nobel Prize in Chemistry has gone to Carolyn Bertozzi, Morton Meldal, and Barry Sharpless for their work on snipping molecules together, known as click chemistry. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-63121338
The BBC does not (yet) say this but Barry Sharpless has now won two Nobel Prizes.
Shared 2 Nobel prizes for chemistry and joins a select group
The Nobel Prize in Chemistry has gone to Carolyn Bertozzi, Morton Meldal, and Barry Sharpless for their work on snipping molecules together, known as click chemistry. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-63121338
The BBC does not (yet) say this but Barry Sharpless has now won two Nobel Prizes.
Shared 2 Nobel prizes for chemistry and joins a select group
I don't know what they're doing differently here in the South of France but the energy prices haven't gone up and petrol is still 1.58 euros a litre....
.....and the sun is shining the cafes are busy the restaurants are heaving and everyone seems happy ........
............. I wonder if they're tuning in to UK TV?
London was exactly the same yesterday. The sun was shining, Selfridges was rammed with shoppers (the Menswear section has a new oyster bar), Marylebone was charmingly busy, Regent’s Park getting ready for Frieze
Armageddon and Depression felt light years away. But they are not
Can you have Armageddon and an (economic) depression at the same time? An economic depression suggests at least some economic activity. I recommend you watch the seminal 1984 BBC TV movie "Threads" that is available on Britbox (although given your apparent nervous disposition maybe not a good idea - read the Wiki synopsis at least). The last half of it shows that "depression" does not adequately come close to describing a post-Armageddon economy.
I watched Threads about a week ago and spoke of it at length on here
One of the bleakest movies I’ve ever seen. Also a great work of televisual art
That's the tone coming across to me. It's like ploddy, dull, mindless dumbed down garbage.
LizT still has what I have previously called a French delivery. Like the French, she often speaks in short phrases with the emphasis on the last syllable, and then a short pause. Since she is not French, it might be an artefact of the way the autocue text is formatted, or a 60-a-day smoking habit.
That amazing libertarian ideal of forcing people to work even if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth. Which I assume will be done with all the force of the state - rules around claiming benefits, police at picket lines, and the choice between serfdom or starving.
We need to retire the idea that Truss is a libertarian - her economics are not about increasing freedom, it's about capital accumulating with the already rich. There is nothing freeing about being unable to collectively bargain, there is nothing emancipatory about claiming the only working unit is the individual.
Not forcing them to work at all - they can quit.
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
In an ideal world, curbs on strikes wouldn't be necessary. But in an ideal world, militant unions wouldn't take it out on people who can't do anything about it.
We already have some of the most restrictive union laws in the west. How much further would you go?
I would require unions who choose to strike to pay compensation to the innocent people they affect by doing so.
So you'd repeal the more than century old golden formula on protecting unions from tortious claims arising from disputes "made in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute", currently contained in section 219 Trade Unions and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, but originally enacted by Disraeli's Tory government in the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875. In doing so, do you expect to avoid the long period of industrial unrest that followed the last attempt to abolish this rule, Heath's, via the Industrial Relations Act 1971, or Thatcher's limiting it to those unions who have passed a vote permitting it? Bold.
Something needs to be done about these vindictive unions. If they choose to strike, damn right they should compensate the innocent people they punish thereby.
"They" don't choose to strike. Their members, ordinary decent working people, who themselves are the victims of vindictive employers, choose to strike. The unions are merely the vehicles through which their members lodge their protests. The companies who force them to strike should be paying. Where do you think the unions would find the money to pay these claims? Through their already downtrodden members, who you seem to think lower than the people they normally serve without complaint, for some reason.
The companies don't "force" them to strike. They choose to strike.
And if you're claiming a train driveron £50k+ is "downtrodden", you've got a lot of convincing to do.
The case for low taxes Truss is making in this speech is almost identical to the case put to voters in each year’s British Social Attitudes surveys. In last year’s survey they rejected this argument by the largest margins in a generation:
That's the tone coming across to me. It's like ploddy, dull, mindless dumbed down garbage.
She has no passion. She is just reading the script, it is not being used to prompt her to give her vision and allow her a bit of latitude in the delivery. When Thatcher or Blair got going you could tell there was energy there, often some (low grade political) humour and you had a sense that they believed in what they were saying.
Ramsay Mac? Wasn't he at Free Kirk and then Kirk of Scotland schools?
It says here
Ramsay MacDonald received an elementary education at the Free Church of Scotland school in Lossiemouth from 1872 to 1875, and then at Drainie parish school. He left school at the end of the summer term in 1881, at the age of 15, and began work on a nearby farm. In December 1881, he was appointed a pupil teacher at Drainie parish school.
On cxhecking the parish school was probably funded by the state anyway (bit like an English free school) by that time, so it counts.
That amazing libertarian ideal of forcing people to work even if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth. Which I assume will be done with all the force of the state - rules around claiming benefits, police at picket lines, and the choice between serfdom or starving.
We need to retire the idea that Truss is a libertarian - her economics are not about increasing freedom, it's about capital accumulating with the already rich. There is nothing freeing about being unable to collectively bargain, there is nothing emancipatory about claiming the only working unit is the individual.
Not forcing them to work at all - they can quit.
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
In an ideal world, curbs on strikes wouldn't be necessary. But in an ideal world, militant unions wouldn't take it out on people who can't do anything about it.
We already have some of the most restrictive union laws in the west. How much further would you go?
I would require unions who choose to strike to pay compensation to the innocent people they affect by doing so.
So you'd repeal the more than century old golden formula on protecting unions from tortious claims arising from disputes "made in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute", currently contained in section 219 Trade Unions and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, but originally enacted by Disraeli's Tory government in the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875. In doing so, do you expect to avoid the long period of industrial unrest that followed the last attempt to abolish this rule, Heath's, via the Industrial Relations Act 1971, or Thatcher's limiting it to those unions who have passed a vote permitting it? Bold.
Something needs to be done about these vindictive unions. If they choose to strike, damn right they should compensate the innocent people they punish thereby.
"They" don't choose to strike. Their members, ordinary decent working people, who themselves are the victims of vindictive employers, choose to strike. The unions are merely the vehicles through which their members lodge their protests. The companies who force them to strike should be paying. Where do you think the unions would find the money to pay these claims? Through their already downtrodden members, who you seem to think lower than the people they normally serve without complaint, for some reason.
The companies don't "force" them to strike. They choose to strike.
And their workers don't "force" you to use their services either, you choose to do so.
They need to take responsibility for their decisions, you need to take responsibility for yours. That is a liberal free market.
That amazing libertarian ideal of forcing people to work even if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth. Which I assume will be done with all the force of the state - rules around claiming benefits, police at picket lines, and the choice between serfdom or starving.
We need to retire the idea that Truss is a libertarian - her economics are not about increasing freedom, it's about capital accumulating with the already rich. There is nothing freeing about being unable to collectively bargain, there is nothing emancipatory about claiming the only working unit is the individual.
Not forcing them to work at all - they can quit.
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
In an ideal world, curbs on strikes wouldn't be necessary. But in an ideal world, militant unions wouldn't take it out on people who can't do anything about it.
We already have some of the most restrictive union laws in the west. How much further would you go?
I would require unions who choose to strike to pay compensation to the innocent people they affect by doing so.
How about the managers who create the conditions for the strike?
Not saying it's always management's fault, but you'd be essentially making it impossible for e.g. rail strikes etc to happen, which would enable management to do whatever the hell they wanted.
(And, perhaps bizarrely, I say this as a by choice non-union member in a reasonably unionised profession - quick google says 47%, but that seems low to me anecdotally among colleagues)
The managers aren't the ones choosing to go on strike, though, are they?
No, its their employees, who the managers force into this position.
How does an individual whose only marketable skill is, say, laying railway tracks express his opposition to the actions of management save through striking? Move to to a rival provider to Network Rail? Ditto nurses and firemen. Should they just find another job?
There's no "force" about it. Striking is a pure choice by the workers/unions.
That amazing libertarian ideal of forcing people to work even if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth. Which I assume will be done with all the force of the state - rules around claiming benefits, police at picket lines, and the choice between serfdom or starving.
We need to retire the idea that Truss is a libertarian - her economics are not about increasing freedom, it's about capital accumulating with the already rich. There is nothing freeing about being unable to collectively bargain, there is nothing emancipatory about claiming the only working unit is the individual.
Not forcing them to work at all - they can quit.
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
In an ideal world, curbs on strikes wouldn't be necessary. But in an ideal world, militant unions wouldn't take it out on people who can't do anything about it.
We already have some of the most restrictive union laws in the west. How much further would you go?
I would require unions who choose to strike to pay compensation to the innocent people they affect by doing so.
So you'd repeal the more than century old golden formula on protecting unions from tortious claims arising from disputes "made in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute", currently contained in section 219 Trade Unions and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, but originally enacted by Disraeli's Tory government in the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875. In doing so, do you expect to avoid the long period of industrial unrest that followed the last attempt to abolish this rule, Heath's, via the Industrial Relations Act 1971, or Thatcher's limiting it to those unions who have passed a vote permitting it? Bold.
Something needs to be done about these vindictive unions. If they choose to strike, damn right they should compensate the innocent people they punish thereby.
"They" don't choose to strike. Their members, ordinary decent working people, who themselves are the victims of vindictive employers, choose to strike. The unions are merely the vehicles through which their members lodge their protests. The companies who force them to strike should be paying. Where do you think the unions would find the money to pay these claims? Through their already downtrodden members, who you seem to think lower than the people they normally serve without complaint, for some reason.
The companies don't "force" them to strike. They choose to strike.
Sometimes workers have no choice. They suffer from strikes too - they don't get paid for the days they're om strike. You don't wake up in the morning and go "oh, I fancy a day off"
then they started shouting and singing about "Fenians". Sectarian scum! It's hard to imagine an identity solely based on hating a certain perceived group of outsiders, but here...this is what you have.
How would you have felt if they'd sung Flower of Scotland?
Instantly identified them as Edinburgh rugger buggers.
Lordy, they are still doing that change the name stuff on EU legislation. Surely we have far more priorities than that sort of nonsense.
as @NickPalmer pointed out yesterday - the desire to remove all EU law from the statute book is going to consume the whole of the next Parliament and that's if it's waved through...
That amazing libertarian ideal of forcing people to work even if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth. Which I assume will be done with all the force of the state - rules around claiming benefits, police at picket lines, and the choice between serfdom or starving.
We need to retire the idea that Truss is a libertarian - her economics are not about increasing freedom, it's about capital accumulating with the already rich. There is nothing freeing about being unable to collectively bargain, there is nothing emancipatory about claiming the only working unit is the individual.
Not forcing them to work at all - they can quit.
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
In an ideal world, curbs on strikes wouldn't be necessary. But in an ideal world, militant unions wouldn't take it out on people who can't do anything about it.
We already have some of the most restrictive union laws in the west. How much further would you go?
I would require unions who choose to strike to pay compensation to the innocent people they affect by doing so.
How about the managers who create the conditions for the strike?
Not saying it's always management's fault, but you'd be essentially making it impossible for e.g. rail strikes etc to happen, which would enable management to do whatever the hell they wanted.
(And, perhaps bizarrely, I say this as a by choice non-union member in a reasonably unionised profession - quick google says 47%, but that seems low to me anecdotally among colleagues)
The managers aren't the ones choosing to go on strike, though, are they?
No, its their employees, who the managers force into this position.
How does an individual whose only marketable skill is, say, laying railway tracks express his opposition to the actions of management save through striking? Move to to a rival provider to Network Rail? Ditto nurses and firemen. Should they just find another job?
There's no "force" about it. Striking is a pure choice by the workers/unions.
You think it is entirely arbitrary? You do realise there is a downside to striking?
That amazing libertarian ideal of forcing people to work even if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth. Which I assume will be done with all the force of the state - rules around claiming benefits, police at picket lines, and the choice between serfdom or starving.
We need to retire the idea that Truss is a libertarian - her economics are not about increasing freedom, it's about capital accumulating with the already rich. There is nothing freeing about being unable to collectively bargain, there is nothing emancipatory about claiming the only working unit is the individual.
Not forcing them to work at all - they can quit.
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
In an ideal world, curbs on strikes wouldn't be necessary. But in an ideal world, militant unions wouldn't take it out on people who can't do anything about it.
We already have some of the most restrictive union laws in the west. How much further would you go?
I would require unions who choose to strike to pay compensation to the innocent people they affect by doing so.
How about the managers who create the conditions for the strike?
Not saying it's always management's fault, but you'd be essentially making it impossible for e.g. rail strikes etc to happen, which would enable management to do whatever the hell they wanted.
(And, perhaps bizarrely, I say this as a by choice non-union member in a reasonably unionised profession - quick google says 47%, but that seems low to me anecdotally among colleagues)
The managers aren't the ones choosing to go on strike, though, are they?
No, its their employees, who the managers force into this position.
How does an individual whose only marketable skill is, say, laying railway tracks express his opposition to the actions of management save through striking? Move to to a rival provider to Network Rail? Ditto nurses and firemen. Should they just find another job?
There's no "force" about it. Striking is a pure choice by the workers/unions.
So is choosing to use their service.
In a free society everyone is free to make their own choices. If you want to use other people's labour, even when they don't want to provide it, then there's a word for that.
Why should you get to choose to use their service, or not, but they don't get to choose whether to offer it, or not?
Comments
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/2022/press-release/
A Labour government?
a general election?
Regardless of left or right politics, one thing I hope we can all agree that has really improved for the better in the past decades is how young girls aren't treated that way anymore.
I remember watching a Tory leadership debate on ITV and seeing the unique appeal of each candidate.
Sunak - was Chancellor, spoke well, talked cautiously about not doing Truss’s economics etc
Badenoch - would appeal to the right, was young, but would also potentially allow the Tories to attract new voters (who knows how true this is, but at least it was something)
Tudgenhat - the kind of ‘sensible’ guy that might win back some Tories that would go to the Lib Dems. Moderation on Brexit could have been good to shore up their vote. Though uninspiring, I don’t think you get a sub 200 seat tally in 2024 with someone like him.
Mordaunt - a much better speaker than Truss, military background, etc.
All of them, in their own way, seemed to have something that Truss didn’t. Liz Truss winning almost didn’t make any sense, apart from her appeal to the Press and the Membership. She was, arguably, the worst placed of the 5 to actually win an election. I dare say she was who Starmer hoped would win.
https://twitter.com/tompeck/status/1577603392972771329
I don’t support interrupting her speech but they have a point .
She hasn't exactly got the best speech-writers for this, has she?
Or two tory activists put up to it in order to bring the crowd onto losing Liz's side?
I am a cycnic.
Probably the most memorable part of the speech
And it's where she got the idea that success would come from presenting herself with a junior Margaret Thatcher badge, so don't knock it.
@JohnRentoul
·
41m
Braverman becomes the new darling of the Tory grassroots –
@AndrewGimson
====
Tory Opposition leader for the first few years of their decade out of office?
Way too risky. The press will be after their backgrounds as we speak.
A competitor employer who says he won't sign such an agreement can start advertising vacancies. Utopia!
Err...clap?
Which party was in power then?
That's the tone coming across to me. It's like ploddy, dull, mindless dumbed down garbage.
Betting PostFootball: some more wibbling tips here:
https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2022/10/epl-serie-la-liga-thoughts-5-october.html
Backed Arsenal to beat Liverpool at 2.64, and Bournemouth to beat Leicester at 3.65 (both home matches).
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1577605243461726208
Miliband (first leader in Opposition) was more reasonable than Corbyn (second), yet Corbyn got more MPs than Miliband did and came close to getting in like Trump did.
Hague (first) was more reasonable than IDS (second).
In one way it probably doesn't matter who the Tories choose after they lose the election, since Labour winning a second term would be pretty nailed on no matter what I expect.
Inequality is relative.
Because the slogan fits perfectly with what many people are thinking .
Go to work, but don't rely upon the services of those who are on strike to do so. If you normally get a train then drive instead and so on. If you can't, then be prepared to pay more to the staff since you must value them so highly that you're so dependant upon them.
Ramsay MacDonald received an elementary education at the Free Church of Scotland school in Lossiemouth from 1872 to 1875, and then at Drainie parish school. He left school at the end of the summer term in 1881, at the age of 15, and began work on a nearby farm. In December 1881, he was appointed a pupil teacher at Drainie parish school.
And if you're claiming a train driveron £50k+ is "downtrodden", you've got a lot of convincing to do.
The case for low taxes Truss is making in this speech is almost identical to the case put to voters in each year’s British Social Attitudes surveys. In last year’s survey they rejected this argument by the largest margins in a generation:
https://bsa.natcen.ac.uk/media/39481/bsa39_taxation-welfare-and-inequality.pdf
Gordon Brown was also at Kirkcaldy High School.
No meat, no policy, nothing of substance.
They need to take responsibility for their decisions, you need to take responsibility for yours. That is a liberal free market.
Is there no limit to her ambition?
In a free society everyone is free to make their own choices. If you want to use other people's labour, even when they don't want to provide it, then there's a word for that.
Why should you get to choose to use their service, or not, but they don't get to choose whether to offer it, or not?
Keep those printing presses going BoE.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jul/18/liz-truss-roundhay-school-foreign-secretary-education
Putin is literally watching this thinking "Oh shit! Not the integrated review!"