Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Is the general election betting overstating LAB chances? – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,163
edited December 2022 in General
imageIs the general election betting overstating LAB chances? – politicalbetting.com

The betting chart above on which party will win most seats at the next general election reflects the political history of the last 6 months. Most of the time until the early summer Boris Johnson looked as though he could lead the party to another victory.

Read the full story here

«13

Comments

  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,963
    First time incumbency effects and pure logistics. Also, the effects of boundary changes will include at least some seats where it's not clear who the "top two last time" were.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,405
    second, like the Tories in seats, votes and all...
  • pingping Posts: 3,805
    FPT;
    ydoethur said:

    Haven't heard the whole thing, but it sounds like this person talked a lot of sense:

    Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie: Author warns about 'epidemic of self-censorship'
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-63797087

    I'm willing to bet she will now face a torrent of abuse for being 'a coconut, an apologist for slaving, anti-trans,' etc etc.

    Which will rather prove her point...

    I’ve just listened to that.

    It’s excellent.

    I fear it’s futile, though. Reads like a speech from ten years ago. Perhaps rather naive, too. A point which she addresses and unconvincingly encourages us to embrace.

    I think the strongest argument is, perhaps, one she doesn’t make strongly enough. It’s to read political history as a battle of powerful elites and their constituencies who inevitably seek to crush dissent from the out groups, until they’re overthrown - often with violence - by a different group who pursue the same strategy - against different out groups.

    Free speech for all is our way out of that cycle.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,526
    Driver said:

    First time incumbency effects and pure logistics. Also, the effects of boundary changes will include at least some seats where it's not clear who the "top two last time" were.

    That's true, and will make the "unspoken progressive alliance" harder in some places. On the other hand, the loss of first-term incumbency is a real issue - it seems well-established for incumbents of all parties. Do we know what proportion of first-time 2019 winners are facing significant boundary changes? If the proportion is significant, it may make the widespread assumption that the Tories will wait for new boundaries questionable.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 8,383
    ping said:

    FPT;

    ydoethur said:

    Haven't heard the whole thing, but it sounds like this person talked a lot of sense:

    Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie: Author warns about 'epidemic of self-censorship'
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-63797087

    I'm willing to bet she will now face a torrent of abuse for being 'a coconut, an apologist for slaving, anti-trans,' etc etc.

    Which will rather prove her point...

    I’ve just listened to that.

    It’s excellent.

    I fear it’s futile, though. Reads like a speech from ten years ago. Perhaps rather naive, too. A point which she addresses and unconvincingly encourages us to embrace.

    I think the strongest argument is, perhaps, one she doesn’t make strongly enough. It’s to read political history as a battle of powerful elites and their constituencies who inevitably seek to crush dissent from the out groups, until they’re overthrown - often with violence - by a different group who pursue the same strategy - against different out groups.

    Free speech for all is our way out of that cycle.
    I just posted this at the end of the last thread. Apologies for repetition:

    Following earlier comments on Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, I've just listened to her Reith lecture on freedom of speech, and the Q&A session following it.

    She's absolutely brilliant, and does indeed provide a 'liberal' critique of self-censorship that many on the left (e.g. me) can agree with entirely, and I hope some on the right would also accept. Well worth a listen. Without using the 'woke' word, she debunks various aspects of 'cancel culture' such as 'sensitivity readers' in universities. At the same time, she acknowledges that freedom of speech can't be absolutist if, for example, it is used to advocate physical violence. In answering a direct question, she argues that while both the right and the left are to blame for the current malaise, the right should carry the heavier burden. particularly for using social media to spread 'untruths'. (She argues strongly that there is an objective truth, and that the relativist position is liable to end up with subjective opinions).

    Okay, I guess she's arguing a case that aligns absolutely with my own views - but she does it so much better than I ever could. Strongly recommended to all those with an open mind.
  • I find it hard to see Labour most seats at around 70% as an overreaction. Sure, the polls are mid parliament and the Tories will run an effective negative campaign and the voters are not totally sold on Starmer or Labour, but most people feel worse off than they were 12 years ago and the public has soured on the Tories' only "achievement" in power - Brexit. If you speak to senior Tories or people who speak to senior Tories, none of them think they will win the next election. My impression is they don't even want to win the next election, seeing as how they have punted all the difficult spending decisions until after it. I think the plan is to leave the mess for Labour to sort out and pin it on them when they fail.
    So no, I don't think the markets have underestimated the Tories' chances at the next election.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,963

    ping said:

    FPT;

    ydoethur said:

    Haven't heard the whole thing, but it sounds like this person talked a lot of sense:

    Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie: Author warns about 'epidemic of self-censorship'
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-63797087

    I'm willing to bet she will now face a torrent of abuse for being 'a coconut, an apologist for slaving, anti-trans,' etc etc.

    Which will rather prove her point...

    I’ve just listened to that.

    It’s excellent.

    I fear it’s futile, though. Reads like a speech from ten years ago. Perhaps rather naive, too. A point which she addresses and unconvincingly encourages us to embrace.

    I think the strongest argument is, perhaps, one she doesn’t make strongly enough. It’s to read political history as a battle of powerful elites and their constituencies who inevitably seek to crush dissent from the out groups, until they’re overthrown - often with violence - by a different group who pursue the same strategy - against different out groups.

    Free speech for all is our way out of that cycle.
    I just posted this at the end of the last thread. Apologies for repetition:

    Following earlier comments on Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, I've just listened to her Reith lecture on freedom of speech, and the Q&A session following it.

    She's absolutely brilliant, and does indeed provide a 'liberal' critique of self-censorship that many on the left (e.g. me) can agree with entirely, and I hope some on the right would also accept. Well worth a listen. Without using the 'woke' word, she debunks various aspects of 'cancel culture' such as 'sensitivity readers' in universities. At the same time, she acknowledges that freedom of speech can't be absolutist if, for example, it is used to advocate physical violence. In answering a direct question, she argues that while both the right and the left are to blame for the current malaise, the right should carry the heavier burden. particularly for using social media to spread 'untruths'. (She argues strongly that there is an objective truth, and that the relativist position is liable to end up with subjective opinions).

    Okay, I guess she's arguing a case that aligns absolutely with my own views - but she does it so much better than I ever could. Strongly recommended to all those with an open mind.
    Kind of lost me a bit towards the end. Even if there is an objective truth, that doesn't mean that we know what it is yet; nor does it mean that it should be protected from challenge.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,405

    ping said:

    FPT;

    ydoethur said:

    Haven't heard the whole thing, but it sounds like this person talked a lot of sense:

    Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie: Author warns about 'epidemic of self-censorship'
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-63797087

    I'm willing to bet she will now face a torrent of abuse for being 'a coconut, an apologist for slaving, anti-trans,' etc etc.

    Which will rather prove her point...

    I’ve just listened to that.

    It’s excellent.

    I fear it’s futile, though. Reads like a speech from ten years ago. Perhaps rather naive, too. A point which she addresses and unconvincingly encourages us to embrace.

    I think the strongest argument is, perhaps, one she doesn’t make strongly enough. It’s to read political history as a battle of powerful elites and their constituencies who inevitably seek to crush dissent from the out groups, until they’re overthrown - often with violence - by a different group who pursue the same strategy - against different out groups.

    Free speech for all is our way out of that cycle.
    I just posted this at the end of the last thread. Apologies for repetition:

    Following earlier comments on Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, I've just listened to her Reith lecture on freedom of speech, and the Q&A session following it.

    She's absolutely brilliant, and does indeed provide a 'liberal' critique of self-censorship that many on the left (e.g. me) can agree with entirely, and I hope some on the right would also accept. Well worth a listen. Without using the 'woke' word, she debunks various aspects of 'cancel culture' such as 'sensitivity readers' in universities. At the same time, she acknowledges that freedom of speech can't be absolutist if, for example, it is used to advocate physical violence. In answering a direct question, she argues that while both the right and the left are to blame for the current malaise, the right should carry the heavier burden. particularly for using social media to spread 'untruths'. (She argues strongly that there is an objective truth, and that the relativist position is liable to end up with subjective opinions).

    Okay, I guess she's arguing a case that aligns absolutely with my own views - but she does it so much better than I ever could. Strongly recommended to all those with an open mind.
    I don't think the right wins for using the media to spread 'untruths', plenty on the left do too. My favourite is good old 'Luxury communist' herself, Ash Sarkar. One of the funniest moments of the 2015 was Novara Media's broadcast as the exit poll came in.
  • I find it hard to see Labour most seats at around 70% as an overreaction. Sure, the polls are mid parliament and the Tories will run an effective negative campaign and the voters are not totally sold on Starmer or Labour, but most people feel worse off than they were 12 years ago and the public has soured on the Tories' only "achievement" in power - Brexit. If you speak to senior Tories or people who speak to senior Tories, none of them think they will win the next election. My impression is they don't even want to win the next election, seeing as how they have punted all the difficult spending decisions until after it. I think the plan is to leave the mess for Labour to sort out and pin it on them when they fail.
    So no, I don't think the markets have underestimated the Tories' chances at the next election.

    The Tories, and their friends in the media will definitely run a negative campaign, in that respect Starmer might be an asset for labour, they have had trouble pinning much on him, and they can hardly go all out on him being dull, if anything Sunak is duller
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 8,383
    Driver said:

    ping said:

    FPT;

    ydoethur said:

    Haven't heard the whole thing, but it sounds like this person talked a lot of sense:

    Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie: Author warns about 'epidemic of self-censorship'
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-63797087

    I'm willing to bet she will now face a torrent of abuse for being 'a coconut, an apologist for slaving, anti-trans,' etc etc.

    Which will rather prove her point...

    I’ve just listened to that.

    It’s excellent.

    I fear it’s futile, though. Reads like a speech from ten years ago. Perhaps rather naive, too. A point which she addresses and unconvincingly encourages us to embrace.

    I think the strongest argument is, perhaps, one she doesn’t make strongly enough. It’s to read political history as a battle of powerful elites and their constituencies who inevitably seek to crush dissent from the out groups, until they’re overthrown - often with violence - by a different group who pursue the same strategy - against different out groups.

    Free speech for all is our way out of that cycle.
    I just posted this at the end of the last thread. Apologies for repetition:

    Following earlier comments on Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, I've just listened to her Reith lecture on freedom of speech, and the Q&A session following it.

    She's absolutely brilliant, and does indeed provide a 'liberal' critique of self-censorship that many on the left (e.g. me) can agree with entirely, and I hope some on the right would also accept. Well worth a listen. Without using the 'woke' word, she debunks various aspects of 'cancel culture' such as 'sensitivity readers' in universities. At the same time, she acknowledges that freedom of speech can't be absolutist if, for example, it is used to advocate physical violence. In answering a direct question, she argues that while both the right and the left are to blame for the current malaise, the right should carry the heavier burden. particularly for using social media to spread 'untruths'. (She argues strongly that there is an objective truth, and that the relativist position is liable to end up with subjective opinions).

    Okay, I guess she's arguing a case that aligns absolutely with my own views - but she does it so much better than I ever could. Strongly recommended to all those with an open mind.
    Kind of lost me a bit towards the end. Even if there is an objective truth, that doesn't mean that we know what it is yet; nor does it mean that it should be protected from challenge.
    That's not what she argues, though. She gives an example: "women are inferior to men". She argues that this is not an objective truth, but just a subjective opinion. Freedom of speech means that you can argue that women are inferior to men, but you can't argue it on the basis that it's the objective truth, as some do. But she doesn't say that her objective truth ("women are not inferior to men") should not be challenged.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,592

    ping said:

    FPT;

    ydoethur said:

    Haven't heard the whole thing, but it sounds like this person talked a lot of sense:

    Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie: Author warns about 'epidemic of self-censorship'
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-63797087

    I'm willing to bet she will now face a torrent of abuse for being 'a coconut, an apologist for slaving, anti-trans,' etc etc.

    Which will rather prove her point...

    I’ve just listened to that.

    It’s excellent.

    I fear it’s futile, though. Reads like a speech from ten years ago. Perhaps rather naive, too. A point which she addresses and unconvincingly encourages us to embrace.

    I think the strongest argument is, perhaps, one she doesn’t make strongly enough. It’s to read political history as a battle of powerful elites and their constituencies who inevitably seek to crush dissent from the out groups, until they’re overthrown - often with violence - by a different group who pursue the same strategy - against different out groups.

    Free speech for all is our way out of that cycle.
    I just posted this at the end of the last thread. Apologies for repetition:

    Following earlier comments on Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, I've just listened to her Reith lecture on freedom of speech, and the Q&A session following it.

    She's absolutely brilliant, and does indeed provide a 'liberal' critique of self-censorship that many on the left (e.g. me) can agree with entirely, and I hope some on the right would also accept. Well worth a listen. Without using the 'woke' word, she debunks various aspects of 'cancel culture' such as 'sensitivity readers' in universities. At the same time, she acknowledges that freedom of speech can't be absolutist if, for example, it is used to advocate physical violence. In answering a direct question, she argues that while both the right and the left are to blame for the current malaise, the right should carry the heavier burden. particularly for using social media to spread 'untruths'. (She argues strongly that there is an objective truth, and that the relativist position is liable to end up with subjective opinions).

    Okay, I guess she's arguing a case that aligns absolutely with my own views - but she does it so much better than I ever could. Strongly recommended to all those with an open mind.
    I don't think the right wins for using the media to spread 'untruths', plenty on the left do too. My favourite is good old 'Luxury communist' herself, Ash Sarkar. One of the funniest moments of the 2015 was Novara Media's broadcast as the exit poll came in.
    Whilst that's true, the hard left's 'untruths' don't seem to spread quite as far. The January 6th insurrection being a classic example of how the hard right's untruths seem to have much more impact on politics and society.

    Although that could change.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,963

    Driver said:

    ping said:

    FPT;

    ydoethur said:

    Haven't heard the whole thing, but it sounds like this person talked a lot of sense:

    Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie: Author warns about 'epidemic of self-censorship'
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-63797087

    I'm willing to bet she will now face a torrent of abuse for being 'a coconut, an apologist for slaving, anti-trans,' etc etc.

    Which will rather prove her point...

    I’ve just listened to that.

    It’s excellent.

    I fear it’s futile, though. Reads like a speech from ten years ago. Perhaps rather naive, too. A point which she addresses and unconvincingly encourages us to embrace.

    I think the strongest argument is, perhaps, one she doesn’t make strongly enough. It’s to read political history as a battle of powerful elites and their constituencies who inevitably seek to crush dissent from the out groups, until they’re overthrown - often with violence - by a different group who pursue the same strategy - against different out groups.

    Free speech for all is our way out of that cycle.
    I just posted this at the end of the last thread. Apologies for repetition:

    Following earlier comments on Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, I've just listened to her Reith lecture on freedom of speech, and the Q&A session following it.

    She's absolutely brilliant, and does indeed provide a 'liberal' critique of self-censorship that many on the left (e.g. me) can agree with entirely, and I hope some on the right would also accept. Well worth a listen. Without using the 'woke' word, she debunks various aspects of 'cancel culture' such as 'sensitivity readers' in universities. At the same time, she acknowledges that freedom of speech can't be absolutist if, for example, it is used to advocate physical violence. In answering a direct question, she argues that while both the right and the left are to blame for the current malaise, the right should carry the heavier burden. particularly for using social media to spread 'untruths'. (She argues strongly that there is an objective truth, and that the relativist position is liable to end up with subjective opinions).

    Okay, I guess she's arguing a case that aligns absolutely with my own views - but she does it so much better than I ever could. Strongly recommended to all those with an open mind.
    Kind of lost me a bit towards the end. Even if there is an objective truth, that doesn't mean that we know what it is yet; nor does it mean that it should be protected from challenge.
    That's not what she argues, though. She gives an example: "women are inferior to men". She argues that this is not an objective truth, but just a subjective opinion. Freedom of speech means that you can argue that women are inferior to men, but you can't argue it on the basis that it's the objective truth, as some do. But she doesn't say that her objective truth ("women are not inferior to men") should not be challenged.
    I see you've switched from "an objective truth" to "her objective truth", which rather changes the meaning.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,405

    ping said:

    FPT;

    ydoethur said:

    Haven't heard the whole thing, but it sounds like this person talked a lot of sense:

    Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie: Author warns about 'epidemic of self-censorship'
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-63797087

    I'm willing to bet she will now face a torrent of abuse for being 'a coconut, an apologist for slaving, anti-trans,' etc etc.

    Which will rather prove her point...

    I’ve just listened to that.

    It’s excellent.

    I fear it’s futile, though. Reads like a speech from ten years ago. Perhaps rather naive, too. A point which she addresses and unconvincingly encourages us to embrace.

    I think the strongest argument is, perhaps, one she doesn’t make strongly enough. It’s to read political history as a battle of powerful elites and their constituencies who inevitably seek to crush dissent from the out groups, until they’re overthrown - often with violence - by a different group who pursue the same strategy - against different out groups.

    Free speech for all is our way out of that cycle.
    I just posted this at the end of the last thread. Apologies for repetition:

    Following earlier comments on Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, I've just listened to her Reith lecture on freedom of speech, and the Q&A session following it.

    She's absolutely brilliant, and does indeed provide a 'liberal' critique of self-censorship that many on the left (e.g. me) can agree with entirely, and I hope some on the right would also accept. Well worth a listen. Without using the 'woke' word, she debunks various aspects of 'cancel culture' such as 'sensitivity readers' in universities. At the same time, she acknowledges that freedom of speech can't be absolutist if, for example, it is used to advocate physical violence. In answering a direct question, she argues that while both the right and the left are to blame for the current malaise, the right should carry the heavier burden. particularly for using social media to spread 'untruths'. (She argues strongly that there is an objective truth, and that the relativist position is liable to end up with subjective opinions).

    Okay, I guess she's arguing a case that aligns absolutely with my own views - but she does it so much better than I ever could. Strongly recommended to all those with an open mind.
    I don't think the right wins for using the media to spread 'untruths', plenty on the left do too. My favourite is good old 'Luxury communist' herself, Ash Sarkar. One of the funniest moments of the 2015 was Novara Media's broadcast as the exit poll came in.
    Whilst that's true, the hard left's 'untruths' don't seem to spread quite as far. The January 6th insurrection being a classic example of how the hard right's untruths seem to have much more impact on politics and society.

    Although that could change.
    I don't know, the left in this country have been very successful in creating the image of Tories as evil, rather than as people who differ in opinion about how best to allow people to prosper.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 8,383

    ping said:

    FPT;

    ydoethur said:

    Haven't heard the whole thing, but it sounds like this person talked a lot of sense:

    Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie: Author warns about 'epidemic of self-censorship'
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-63797087

    I'm willing to bet she will now face a torrent of abuse for being 'a coconut, an apologist for slaving, anti-trans,' etc etc.

    Which will rather prove her point...

    I’ve just listened to that.

    It’s excellent.

    I fear it’s futile, though. Reads like a speech from ten years ago. Perhaps rather naive, too. A point which she addresses and unconvincingly encourages us to embrace.

    I think the strongest argument is, perhaps, one she doesn’t make strongly enough. It’s to read political history as a battle of powerful elites and their constituencies who inevitably seek to crush dissent from the out groups, until they’re overthrown - often with violence - by a different group who pursue the same strategy - against different out groups.

    Free speech for all is our way out of that cycle.
    I just posted this at the end of the last thread. Apologies for repetition:

    Following earlier comments on Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, I've just listened to her Reith lecture on freedom of speech, and the Q&A session following it.

    She's absolutely brilliant, and does indeed provide a 'liberal' critique of self-censorship that many on the left (e.g. me) can agree with entirely, and I hope some on the right would also accept. Well worth a listen. Without using the 'woke' word, she debunks various aspects of 'cancel culture' such as 'sensitivity readers' in universities. At the same time, she acknowledges that freedom of speech can't be absolutist if, for example, it is used to advocate physical violence. In answering a direct question, she argues that while both the right and the left are to blame for the current malaise, the right should carry the heavier burden. particularly for using social media to spread 'untruths'. (She argues strongly that there is an objective truth, and that the relativist position is liable to end up with subjective opinions).

    Okay, I guess she's arguing a case that aligns absolutely with my own views - but she does it so much better than I ever could. Strongly recommended to all those with an open mind.
    I don't think the right wins for using the media to spread 'untruths', plenty on the left do too. My favourite is good old 'Luxury communist' herself, Ash Sarkar. One of the funniest moments of the 2015 was Novara Media's broadcast as the exit poll came in.
    She must have forgotten Ash Sarkar and her widespread 'untruths'. Much more important than Donald Trump and his mates, or the Covid deniers, obviously.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,963

    ping said:

    FPT;

    ydoethur said:

    Haven't heard the whole thing, but it sounds like this person talked a lot of sense:

    Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie: Author warns about 'epidemic of self-censorship'
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-63797087

    I'm willing to bet she will now face a torrent of abuse for being 'a coconut, an apologist for slaving, anti-trans,' etc etc.

    Which will rather prove her point...

    I’ve just listened to that.

    It’s excellent.

    I fear it’s futile, though. Reads like a speech from ten years ago. Perhaps rather naive, too. A point which she addresses and unconvincingly encourages us to embrace.

    I think the strongest argument is, perhaps, one she doesn’t make strongly enough. It’s to read political history as a battle of powerful elites and their constituencies who inevitably seek to crush dissent from the out groups, until they’re overthrown - often with violence - by a different group who pursue the same strategy - against different out groups.

    Free speech for all is our way out of that cycle.
    I just posted this at the end of the last thread. Apologies for repetition:

    Following earlier comments on Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, I've just listened to her Reith lecture on freedom of speech, and the Q&A session following it.

    She's absolutely brilliant, and does indeed provide a 'liberal' critique of self-censorship that many on the left (e.g. me) can agree with entirely, and I hope some on the right would also accept. Well worth a listen. Without using the 'woke' word, she debunks various aspects of 'cancel culture' such as 'sensitivity readers' in universities. At the same time, she acknowledges that freedom of speech can't be absolutist if, for example, it is used to advocate physical violence. In answering a direct question, she argues that while both the right and the left are to blame for the current malaise, the right should carry the heavier burden. particularly for using social media to spread 'untruths'. (She argues strongly that there is an objective truth, and that the relativist position is liable to end up with subjective opinions).

    Okay, I guess she's arguing a case that aligns absolutely with my own views - but she does it so much better than I ever could. Strongly recommended to all those with an open mind.
    I don't think the right wins for using the media to spread 'untruths', plenty on the left do too. My favourite is good old 'Luxury communist' herself, Ash Sarkar. One of the funniest moments of the 2015 was Novara Media's broadcast as the exit poll came in.
    She must have forgotten Ash Sarkar and her widespread 'untruths'. Much more important than Donald Trump and his mates, or the Covid deniers, obviously.
    Calling people who queried the cost/benefit relationship of lockdown "Covid deniers", as many (especially on the left) did, is certainly an untruth.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,191
    Elections are recently a tale of one party or other being hammered.

    After the Lib Dems turn in 2015, and Labour in 2019 I think it's buggins turn for the Tories in 2023 or 4.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,405

    ping said:

    FPT;

    ydoethur said:

    Haven't heard the whole thing, but it sounds like this person talked a lot of sense:

    Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie: Author warns about 'epidemic of self-censorship'
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-63797087

    I'm willing to bet she will now face a torrent of abuse for being 'a coconut, an apologist for slaving, anti-trans,' etc etc.

    Which will rather prove her point...

    I’ve just listened to that.

    It’s excellent.

    I fear it’s futile, though. Reads like a speech from ten years ago. Perhaps rather naive, too. A point which she addresses and unconvincingly encourages us to embrace.

    I think the strongest argument is, perhaps, one she doesn’t make strongly enough. It’s to read political history as a battle of powerful elites and their constituencies who inevitably seek to crush dissent from the out groups, until they’re overthrown - often with violence - by a different group who pursue the same strategy - against different out groups.

    Free speech for all is our way out of that cycle.
    I just posted this at the end of the last thread. Apologies for repetition:

    Following earlier comments on Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, I've just listened to her Reith lecture on freedom of speech, and the Q&A session following it.

    She's absolutely brilliant, and does indeed provide a 'liberal' critique of self-censorship that many on the left (e.g. me) can agree with entirely, and I hope some on the right would also accept. Well worth a listen. Without using the 'woke' word, she debunks various aspects of 'cancel culture' such as 'sensitivity readers' in universities. At the same time, she acknowledges that freedom of speech can't be absolutist if, for example, it is used to advocate physical violence. In answering a direct question, she argues that while both the right and the left are to blame for the current malaise, the right should carry the heavier burden. particularly for using social media to spread 'untruths'. (She argues strongly that there is an objective truth, and that the relativist position is liable to end up with subjective opinions).

    Okay, I guess she's arguing a case that aligns absolutely with my own views - but she does it so much better than I ever could. Strongly recommended to all those with an open mind.
    I don't think the right wins for using the media to spread 'untruths', plenty on the left do too. My favourite is good old 'Luxury communist' herself, Ash Sarkar. One of the funniest moments of the 2015 was Novara Media's broadcast as the exit poll came in.
    She must have forgotten Ash Sarkar and her widespread 'untruths'. Much more important than Donald Trump and his mates, or the Covid deniers, obviously.
    Just an example. The left are no angels in this regard.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 8,727
    The spider plant suffers from a lack of focus, for me :wink:

    But, more importantly, WTF is going on with that laptop - is SKS holding it in the air, possibly with assistance from a stack of books? Or is it some dodgy photoshop with the laptop replacing the beer and curry?
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 8,383

    ping said:

    FPT;

    ydoethur said:

    Haven't heard the whole thing, but it sounds like this person talked a lot of sense:

    Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie: Author warns about 'epidemic of self-censorship'
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-63797087

    I'm willing to bet she will now face a torrent of abuse for being 'a coconut, an apologist for slaving, anti-trans,' etc etc.

    Which will rather prove her point...

    I’ve just listened to that.

    It’s excellent.

    I fear it’s futile, though. Reads like a speech from ten years ago. Perhaps rather naive, too. A point which she addresses and unconvincingly encourages us to embrace.

    I think the strongest argument is, perhaps, one she doesn’t make strongly enough. It’s to read political history as a battle of powerful elites and their constituencies who inevitably seek to crush dissent from the out groups, until they’re overthrown - often with violence - by a different group who pursue the same strategy - against different out groups.

    Free speech for all is our way out of that cycle.
    I just posted this at the end of the last thread. Apologies for repetition:

    Following earlier comments on Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, I've just listened to her Reith lecture on freedom of speech, and the Q&A session following it.

    She's absolutely brilliant, and does indeed provide a 'liberal' critique of self-censorship that many on the left (e.g. me) can agree with entirely, and I hope some on the right would also accept. Well worth a listen. Without using the 'woke' word, she debunks various aspects of 'cancel culture' such as 'sensitivity readers' in universities. At the same time, she acknowledges that freedom of speech can't be absolutist if, for example, it is used to advocate physical violence. In answering a direct question, she argues that while both the right and the left are to blame for the current malaise, the right should carry the heavier burden. particularly for using social media to spread 'untruths'. (She argues strongly that there is an objective truth, and that the relativist position is liable to end up with subjective opinions).

    Okay, I guess she's arguing a case that aligns absolutely with my own views - but she does it so much better than I ever could. Strongly recommended to all those with an open mind.
    I don't think the right wins for using the media to spread 'untruths', plenty on the left do too. My favourite is good old 'Luxury communist' herself, Ash Sarkar. One of the funniest moments of the 2015 was Novara Media's broadcast as the exit poll came in.
    Whilst that's true, the hard left's 'untruths' don't seem to spread quite as far. The January 6th insurrection being a classic example of how the hard right's untruths seem to have much more impact on politics and society.

    Although that could change.
    I don't know, the left in this country have been very successful in creating the image of Tories as evil, rather than as people who differ in opinion about how best to allow people to prosper.
    Very successful? Not successful enough to have won an election since 2005.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,362

    I find it hard to see Labour most seats at around 70% as an overreaction. Sure, the polls are mid parliament and the Tories will run an effective negative campaign and the voters are not totally sold on Starmer or Labour, but most people feel worse off than they were 12 years ago and the public has soured on the Tories' only "achievement" in power - Brexit. If you speak to senior Tories or people who speak to senior Tories, none of them think they will win the next election. My impression is they don't even want to win the next election, seeing as how they have punted all the difficult spending decisions until after it. I think the plan is to leave the mess for Labour to sort out and pin it on them when they fail.
    So no, I don't think the markets have underestimated the Tories' chances at the next election.

    That is also broadly my assessment.

    It's hard to put a number on the relatively low probability event that the Tories recover/Labour blow it to a sufficient extent that Labour don't win most seats. But I would say it's no higher than 1-in-6, and could be much lower.

    I find it impossible to exaggerate how unprecedented the damage of the Truss Premiership was to the reputation of the Tories, and unprecedented events are likely to lead to unprecedented election results. Details like first-time incumbency bonus, or new boundaries are insignificant next to the power of the Truss.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,963

    ping said:

    FPT;

    ydoethur said:

    Haven't heard the whole thing, but it sounds like this person talked a lot of sense:

    Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie: Author warns about 'epidemic of self-censorship'
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-63797087

    I'm willing to bet she will now face a torrent of abuse for being 'a coconut, an apologist for slaving, anti-trans,' etc etc.

    Which will rather prove her point...

    I’ve just listened to that.

    It’s excellent.

    I fear it’s futile, though. Reads like a speech from ten years ago. Perhaps rather naive, too. A point which she addresses and unconvincingly encourages us to embrace.

    I think the strongest argument is, perhaps, one she doesn’t make strongly enough. It’s to read political history as a battle of powerful elites and their constituencies who inevitably seek to crush dissent from the out groups, until they’re overthrown - often with violence - by a different group who pursue the same strategy - against different out groups.

    Free speech for all is our way out of that cycle.
    I just posted this at the end of the last thread. Apologies for repetition:

    Following earlier comments on Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, I've just listened to her Reith lecture on freedom of speech, and the Q&A session following it.

    She's absolutely brilliant, and does indeed provide a 'liberal' critique of self-censorship that many on the left (e.g. me) can agree with entirely, and I hope some on the right would also accept. Well worth a listen. Without using the 'woke' word, she debunks various aspects of 'cancel culture' such as 'sensitivity readers' in universities. At the same time, she acknowledges that freedom of speech can't be absolutist if, for example, it is used to advocate physical violence. In answering a direct question, she argues that while both the right and the left are to blame for the current malaise, the right should carry the heavier burden. particularly for using social media to spread 'untruths'. (She argues strongly that there is an objective truth, and that the relativist position is liable to end up with subjective opinions).

    Okay, I guess she's arguing a case that aligns absolutely with my own views - but she does it so much better than I ever could. Strongly recommended to all those with an open mind.
    I don't think the right wins for using the media to spread 'untruths', plenty on the left do too. My favourite is good old 'Luxury communist' herself, Ash Sarkar. One of the funniest moments of the 2015 was Novara Media's broadcast as the exit poll came in.
    Whilst that's true, the hard left's 'untruths' don't seem to spread quite as far. The January 6th insurrection being a classic example of how the hard right's untruths seem to have much more impact on politics and society.

    Although that could change.
    I don't know, the left in this country have been very successful in creating the image of Tories as evil, rather than as people who differ in opinion about how best to allow people to prosper.
    The whole Tories are evil thing should be ditched anyway, not because it's not true but because it doesn't work. Labour should attack them over competence, where they're far more vulnerable.
    The problem with that is, for many on the left it's not just something they say, it's something that they fundamentally believe - one of the axioms that everything they argue for is built on.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,362

    ping said:

    FPT;

    ydoethur said:

    Haven't heard the whole thing, but it sounds like this person talked a lot of sense:

    Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie: Author warns about 'epidemic of self-censorship'
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-63797087

    I'm willing to bet she will now face a torrent of abuse for being 'a coconut, an apologist for slaving, anti-trans,' etc etc.

    Which will rather prove her point...

    I’ve just listened to that.

    It’s excellent.

    I fear it’s futile, though. Reads like a speech from ten years ago. Perhaps rather naive, too. A point which she addresses and unconvincingly encourages us to embrace.

    I think the strongest argument is, perhaps, one she doesn’t make strongly enough. It’s to read political history as a battle of powerful elites and their constituencies who inevitably seek to crush dissent from the out groups, until they’re overthrown - often with violence - by a different group who pursue the same strategy - against different out groups.

    Free speech for all is our way out of that cycle.
    I just posted this at the end of the last thread. Apologies for repetition:

    Following earlier comments on Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, I've just listened to her Reith lecture on freedom of speech, and the Q&A session following it.

    She's absolutely brilliant, and does indeed provide a 'liberal' critique of self-censorship that many on the left (e.g. me) can agree with entirely, and I hope some on the right would also accept. Well worth a listen. Without using the 'woke' word, she debunks various aspects of 'cancel culture' such as 'sensitivity readers' in universities. At the same time, she acknowledges that freedom of speech can't be absolutist if, for example, it is used to advocate physical violence. In answering a direct question, she argues that while both the right and the left are to blame for the current malaise, the right should carry the heavier burden. particularly for using social media to spread 'untruths'. (She argues strongly that there is an objective truth, and that the relativist position is liable to end up with subjective opinions).

    Okay, I guess she's arguing a case that aligns absolutely with my own views - but she does it so much better than I ever could. Strongly recommended to all those with an open mind.
    I don't think the right wins for using the media to spread 'untruths', plenty on the left do too. My favourite is good old 'Luxury communist' herself, Ash Sarkar. One of the funniest moments of the 2015 was Novara Media's broadcast as the exit poll came in.
    Whilst that's true, the hard left's 'untruths' don't seem to spread quite as far. The January 6th insurrection being a classic example of how the hard right's untruths seem to have much more impact on politics and society.

    Although that could change.
    The Left aren't as good at it, but it's hard to be objective about the extent to which they try.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 4,668
    edited November 2022
    Selebian said:

    The spider plant suffers from a lack of focus, for me :wink:

    But, more importantly, WTF is going on with that laptop - is SKS holding it in the air, possibly with assistance from a stack of books? Or is it some dodgy photoshop with the laptop replacing the beer and curry?
    Definitely a photoshopped laptop. Haven't find the original yet - tried Google Lens but it only found that version.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,677

    I find it hard to see Labour most seats at around 70% as an overreaction. Sure, the polls are mid parliament and the Tories will run an effective negative campaign and the voters are not totally sold on Starmer or Labour, but most people feel worse off than they were 12 years ago and the public has soured on the Tories' only "achievement" in power - Brexit. If you speak to senior Tories or people who speak to senior Tories, none of them think they will win the next election. My impression is they don't even want to win the next election, seeing as how they have punted all the difficult spending decisions until after it. I think the plan is to leave the mess for Labour to sort out and pin it on them when they fail.
    So no, I don't think the markets have underestimated the Tories' chances at the next election.

    That is also broadly my assessment.

    It's hard to put a number on the relatively low probability event that the Tories recover/Labour blow it to a sufficient extent that Labour don't win most seats. But I would say it's no higher than 1-in-6, and could be much lower.

    I find it impossible to exaggerate how unprecedented the damage of the Truss Premiership was to the reputation of the Tories, and unprecedented events are likely to lead to unprecedented election results. Details like first-time incumbency bonus, or new boundaries are insignificant next to the power of the Truss.
    The tories are obviously just going to pretend it never happened. Given the fleeting and phantasmagorical essence of those 44 days maybe they'll get away with it.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,957
    Driver said:

    ping said:

    FPT;

    ydoethur said:

    Haven't heard the whole thing, but it sounds like this person talked a lot of sense:

    Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie: Author warns about 'epidemic of self-censorship'
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-63797087

    I'm willing to bet she will now face a torrent of abuse for being 'a coconut, an apologist for slaving, anti-trans,' etc etc.

    Which will rather prove her point...

    I’ve just listened to that.

    It’s excellent.

    I fear it’s futile, though. Reads like a speech from ten years ago. Perhaps rather naive, too. A point which she addresses and unconvincingly encourages us to embrace.

    I think the strongest argument is, perhaps, one she doesn’t make strongly enough. It’s to read political history as a battle of powerful elites and their constituencies who inevitably seek to crush dissent from the out groups, until they’re overthrown - often with violence - by a different group who pursue the same strategy - against different out groups.

    Free speech for all is our way out of that cycle.
    I just posted this at the end of the last thread. Apologies for repetition:

    Following earlier comments on Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, I've just listened to her Reith lecture on freedom of speech, and the Q&A session following it.

    She's absolutely brilliant, and does indeed provide a 'liberal' critique of self-censorship that many on the left (e.g. me) can agree with entirely, and I hope some on the right would also accept. Well worth a listen. Without using the 'woke' word, she debunks various aspects of 'cancel culture' such as 'sensitivity readers' in universities. At the same time, she acknowledges that freedom of speech can't be absolutist if, for example, it is used to advocate physical violence. In answering a direct question, she argues that while both the right and the left are to blame for the current malaise, the right should carry the heavier burden. particularly for using social media to spread 'untruths'. (She argues strongly that there is an objective truth, and that the relativist position is liable to end up with subjective opinions).

    Okay, I guess she's arguing a case that aligns absolutely with my own views - but she does it so much better than I ever could. Strongly recommended to all those with an open mind.
    Kind of lost me a bit towards the end. Even if there is an objective truth, that doesn't mean that we know what it is yet; nor does it mean that it should be protected from challenge.
    Objective truth = religion.

    Forms the basis of Sumption's critique of post-hoc apologies (for eg slavery, etc)
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,405

    ping said:

    FPT;

    ydoethur said:

    Haven't heard the whole thing, but it sounds like this person talked a lot of sense:

    Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie: Author warns about 'epidemic of self-censorship'
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-63797087

    I'm willing to bet she will now face a torrent of abuse for being 'a coconut, an apologist for slaving, anti-trans,' etc etc.

    Which will rather prove her point...

    I’ve just listened to that.

    It’s excellent.

    I fear it’s futile, though. Reads like a speech from ten years ago. Perhaps rather naive, too. A point which she addresses and unconvincingly encourages us to embrace.

    I think the strongest argument is, perhaps, one she doesn’t make strongly enough. It’s to read political history as a battle of powerful elites and their constituencies who inevitably seek to crush dissent from the out groups, until they’re overthrown - often with violence - by a different group who pursue the same strategy - against different out groups.

    Free speech for all is our way out of that cycle.
    I just posted this at the end of the last thread. Apologies for repetition:

    Following earlier comments on Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, I've just listened to her Reith lecture on freedom of speech, and the Q&A session following it.

    She's absolutely brilliant, and does indeed provide a 'liberal' critique of self-censorship that many on the left (e.g. me) can agree with entirely, and I hope some on the right would also accept. Well worth a listen. Without using the 'woke' word, she debunks various aspects of 'cancel culture' such as 'sensitivity readers' in universities. At the same time, she acknowledges that freedom of speech can't be absolutist if, for example, it is used to advocate physical violence. In answering a direct question, she argues that while both the right and the left are to blame for the current malaise, the right should carry the heavier burden. particularly for using social media to spread 'untruths'. (She argues strongly that there is an objective truth, and that the relativist position is liable to end up with subjective opinions).

    Okay, I guess she's arguing a case that aligns absolutely with my own views - but she does it so much better than I ever could. Strongly recommended to all those with an open mind.
    I don't think the right wins for using the media to spread 'untruths', plenty on the left do too. My favourite is good old 'Luxury communist' herself, Ash Sarkar. One of the funniest moments of the 2015 was Novara Media's broadcast as the exit poll came in.
    Whilst that's true, the hard left's 'untruths' don't seem to spread quite as far. The January 6th insurrection being a classic example of how the hard right's untruths seem to have much more impact on politics and society.

    Although that could change.
    I don't know, the left in this country have been very successful in creating the image of Tories as evil, rather than as people who differ in opinion about how best to allow people to prosper.
    The whole Tories are evil thing should be ditched anyway, not because it's not true but because it doesn't work. Labour should attack them over competence, where they're far more vulnerable.
    No disagreement there. The last 12 years have shown that.
  • Selebian said:

    The spider plant suffers from a lack of focus, for me :wink:

    But, more importantly, WTF is going on with that laptop - is SKS holding it in the air, possibly with assistance from a stack of books? Or is it some dodgy photoshop with the laptop replacing the beer and curry?
    Definitely a photoshopped laptop. Haven't find the original yet - tried Google Lens but it only found that version.
    Not photoshopped imo. The laptop is on a stack of books so that the camera is at the right height for a Zoom call (or interview) so that SKS is framed straight on or slightly from above. If SKS left the laptop on the desk, as most people do, it would show his double chins and possibly worse.
  • Driver said:

    ping said:

    FPT;

    ydoethur said:

    Haven't heard the whole thing, but it sounds like this person talked a lot of sense:

    Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie: Author warns about 'epidemic of self-censorship'
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-63797087

    I'm willing to bet she will now face a torrent of abuse for being 'a coconut, an apologist for slaving, anti-trans,' etc etc.

    Which will rather prove her point...

    I’ve just listened to that.

    It’s excellent.

    I fear it’s futile, though. Reads like a speech from ten years ago. Perhaps rather naive, too. A point which she addresses and unconvincingly encourages us to embrace.

    I think the strongest argument is, perhaps, one she doesn’t make strongly enough. It’s to read political history as a battle of powerful elites and their constituencies who inevitably seek to crush dissent from the out groups, until they’re overthrown - often with violence - by a different group who pursue the same strategy - against different out groups.

    Free speech for all is our way out of that cycle.
    I just posted this at the end of the last thread. Apologies for repetition:

    Following earlier comments on Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, I've just listened to her Reith lecture on freedom of speech, and the Q&A session following it.

    She's absolutely brilliant, and does indeed provide a 'liberal' critique of self-censorship that many on the left (e.g. me) can agree with entirely, and I hope some on the right would also accept. Well worth a listen. Without using the 'woke' word, she debunks various aspects of 'cancel culture' such as 'sensitivity readers' in universities. At the same time, she acknowledges that freedom of speech can't be absolutist if, for example, it is used to advocate physical violence. In answering a direct question, she argues that while both the right and the left are to blame for the current malaise, the right should carry the heavier burden. particularly for using social media to spread 'untruths'. (She argues strongly that there is an objective truth, and that the relativist position is liable to end up with subjective opinions).

    Okay, I guess she's arguing a case that aligns absolutely with my own views - but she does it so much better than I ever could. Strongly recommended to all those with an open mind.
    I don't think the right wins for using the media to spread 'untruths', plenty on the left do too. My favourite is good old 'Luxury communist' herself, Ash Sarkar. One of the funniest moments of the 2015 was Novara Media's broadcast as the exit poll came in.
    Whilst that's true, the hard left's 'untruths' don't seem to spread quite as far. The January 6th insurrection being a classic example of how the hard right's untruths seem to have much more impact on politics and society.

    Although that could change.
    I don't know, the left in this country have been very successful in creating the image of Tories as evil, rather than as people who differ in opinion about how best to allow people to prosper.
    The whole Tories are evil thing should be ditched anyway, not because it's not true but because it doesn't work. Labour should attack them over competence, where they're far more vulnerable.
    The problem with that is, for many on the left it's not just something they say, it's something that they fundamentally believe - one of the axioms that everything they argue for is built on.
    Lots of politically passionate people need to divide the world up into goodies and baddies. Don't think it doesn't happen on the right - folk on here frothing about the evil of woke or various conspiracies to rub people's noses in diversity - they hate the left and believe the left has truly malign intent towards this country rather than just a different view of how it should be run.
    I do think that there are right wing politicians whose apparent lack of empathy is troubling, eg JRM's comments about the Grenfell victims or Braverman on migrants, but I would ascribe that to failures in their upbringing rather than being evil. True evil exists I think but is pretty rare and I'm not sure any of our politicians are evil. Trump is perhaps. Putin is, I think.
  • mickydroy said:

    I find it hard to see Labour most seats at around 70% as an overreaction. Sure, the polls are mid parliament and the Tories will run an effective negative campaign and the voters are not totally sold on Starmer or Labour, but most people feel worse off than they were 12 years ago and the public has soured on the Tories' only "achievement" in power - Brexit. If you speak to senior Tories or people who speak to senior Tories, none of them think they will win the next election. My impression is they don't even want to win the next election, seeing as how they have punted all the difficult spending decisions until after it. I think the plan is to leave the mess for Labour to sort out and pin it on them when they fail.
    So no, I don't think the markets have underestimated the Tories' chances at the next election.

    The Tories, and their friends in the media will definitely run a negative campaign, in that respect Starmer might be an asset for labour, they have had trouble pinning much on him, and they can hardly go all out on him being dull, if anything Sunak is duller
    The attack lines on Starmer have been Corbyn and Brexit. It's no coincidence that these are the areas that Starmer has been putting most effort into - carving out a (tactically smart, strategically wrong) hard Brexit stance and kicking Corbyn and Corbymism out of the party. Starmer may be dull but he's not thick. The Tories and their media lackeys will struggle to go after him at the next election although of course they'll give it a go.
    Can we trust the CCHQ dirty tricks department not to resort, as Boris did in the Commons, to the Savile smear? It would be at arm's length, no doubt, via some sockpuppet bots. Then Rishi could go on camera to deny it and express full confidence in Starmer's integrity.
  • mickydroy said:

    I find it hard to see Labour most seats at around 70% as an overreaction. Sure, the polls are mid parliament and the Tories will run an effective negative campaign and the voters are not totally sold on Starmer or Labour, but most people feel worse off than they were 12 years ago and the public has soured on the Tories' only "achievement" in power - Brexit. If you speak to senior Tories or people who speak to senior Tories, none of them think they will win the next election. My impression is they don't even want to win the next election, seeing as how they have punted all the difficult spending decisions until after it. I think the plan is to leave the mess for Labour to sort out and pin it on them when they fail.
    So no, I don't think the markets have underestimated the Tories' chances at the next election.

    The Tories, and their friends in the media will definitely run a negative campaign, in that respect Starmer might be an asset for labour, they have had trouble pinning much on him, and they can hardly go all out on him being dull, if anything Sunak is duller
    The attack lines on Starmer have been Corbyn and Brexit. It's no coincidence that these are the areas that Starmer has been putting most effort into - carving out a (tactically smart, strategically wrong) hard Brexit stance and kicking Corbyn and Corbymism out of the party. Starmer may be dull but he's not thick. The Tories and their media lackeys will struggle to go after him at the next election although of course they'll give it a go.
    Can we trust the CCHQ dirty tricks department not to resort, as Boris did in the Commons, to the Savile smear? It would be at arm's length, no doubt, via some sockpuppet bots. Then Rishi could go on camera to deny it and express full confidence in Starmer's integrity.
    I don't think they'll go there. Sunak is a much better human being than Johnson.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,963

    Driver said:

    ping said:

    FPT;

    ydoethur said:

    Haven't heard the whole thing, but it sounds like this person talked a lot of sense:

    Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie: Author warns about 'epidemic of self-censorship'
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-63797087

    I'm willing to bet she will now face a torrent of abuse for being 'a coconut, an apologist for slaving, anti-trans,' etc etc.

    Which will rather prove her point...

    I’ve just listened to that.

    It’s excellent.

    I fear it’s futile, though. Reads like a speech from ten years ago. Perhaps rather naive, too. A point which she addresses and unconvincingly encourages us to embrace.

    I think the strongest argument is, perhaps, one she doesn’t make strongly enough. It’s to read political history as a battle of powerful elites and their constituencies who inevitably seek to crush dissent from the out groups, until they’re overthrown - often with violence - by a different group who pursue the same strategy - against different out groups.

    Free speech for all is our way out of that cycle.
    I just posted this at the end of the last thread. Apologies for repetition:

    Following earlier comments on Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, I've just listened to her Reith lecture on freedom of speech, and the Q&A session following it.

    She's absolutely brilliant, and does indeed provide a 'liberal' critique of self-censorship that many on the left (e.g. me) can agree with entirely, and I hope some on the right would also accept. Well worth a listen. Without using the 'woke' word, she debunks various aspects of 'cancel culture' such as 'sensitivity readers' in universities. At the same time, she acknowledges that freedom of speech can't be absolutist if, for example, it is used to advocate physical violence. In answering a direct question, she argues that while both the right and the left are to blame for the current malaise, the right should carry the heavier burden. particularly for using social media to spread 'untruths'. (She argues strongly that there is an objective truth, and that the relativist position is liable to end up with subjective opinions).

    Okay, I guess she's arguing a case that aligns absolutely with my own views - but she does it so much better than I ever could. Strongly recommended to all those with an open mind.
    I don't think the right wins for using the media to spread 'untruths', plenty on the left do too. My favourite is good old 'Luxury communist' herself, Ash Sarkar. One of the funniest moments of the 2015 was Novara Media's broadcast as the exit poll came in.
    She must have forgotten Ash Sarkar and her widespread 'untruths'. Much more important than Donald Trump and his mates, or the Covid deniers, obviously.
    Calling people who queried the cost/benefit relationship of lockdown "Covid deniers", as many (especially on the left) did, is certainly an untruth.
    My definition of 'Covid deniers' has nothing at all to do with lockdown.
    I take it to mean those (usually on the far right) who questioned the existence of Covid as an infectious disease and spread fake news on social media, QAnon style, that Covid was just a global conspiracy, Soros, yadda yadda yadda.
    There really weren't that many who actually denied Covid existed at all, from memory. Were they there and just didn't break out of their echo chamber? If so, that's another difference with the untruths of the left.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,359
    TOPPING said:

    Driver said:

    ping said:

    FPT;

    ydoethur said:

    Haven't heard the whole thing, but it sounds like this person talked a lot of sense:

    Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie: Author warns about 'epidemic of self-censorship'
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-63797087

    I'm willing to bet she will now face a torrent of abuse for being 'a coconut, an apologist for slaving, anti-trans,' etc etc.

    Which will rather prove her point...

    I’ve just listened to that.

    It’s excellent.

    I fear it’s futile, though. Reads like a speech from ten years ago. Perhaps rather naive, too. A point which she addresses and unconvincingly encourages us to embrace.

    I think the strongest argument is, perhaps, one she doesn’t make strongly enough. It’s to read political history as a battle of powerful elites and their constituencies who inevitably seek to crush dissent from the out groups, until they’re overthrown - often with violence - by a different group who pursue the same strategy - against different out groups.

    Free speech for all is our way out of that cycle.
    I just posted this at the end of the last thread. Apologies for repetition:

    Following earlier comments on Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, I've just listened to her Reith lecture on freedom of speech, and the Q&A session following it.

    She's absolutely brilliant, and does indeed provide a 'liberal' critique of self-censorship that many on the left (e.g. me) can agree with entirely, and I hope some on the right would also accept. Well worth a listen. Without using the 'woke' word, she debunks various aspects of 'cancel culture' such as 'sensitivity readers' in universities. At the same time, she acknowledges that freedom of speech can't be absolutist if, for example, it is used to advocate physical violence. In answering a direct question, she argues that while both the right and the left are to blame for the current malaise, the right should carry the heavier burden. particularly for using social media to spread 'untruths'. (She argues strongly that there is an objective truth, and that the relativist position is liable to end up with subjective opinions).

    Okay, I guess she's arguing a case that aligns absolutely with my own views - but she does it so much better than I ever could. Strongly recommended to all those with an open mind.
    Kind of lost me a bit towards the end. Even if there is an objective truth, that doesn't mean that we know what it is yet; nor does it mean that it should be protected from challenge.
    Objective truth = religion.

    Forms the basis of Sumption's critique of post-hoc apologies (for eg slavery, etc)
    The growth of the post-hoc apology for things one was not responsible for, has gone hand in hand with the "sorry if you were offended" type of apology for things one was responsible for.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,072

    ping said:

    FPT;

    ydoethur said:

    Haven't heard the whole thing, but it sounds like this person talked a lot of sense:

    Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie: Author warns about 'epidemic of self-censorship'
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-63797087

    I'm willing to bet she will now face a torrent of abuse for being 'a coconut, an apologist for slaving, anti-trans,' etc etc.

    Which will rather prove her point...

    I’ve just listened to that.

    It’s excellent.

    I fear it’s futile, though. Reads like a speech from ten years ago. Perhaps rather naive, too. A point which she addresses and unconvincingly encourages us to embrace.

    I think the strongest argument is, perhaps, one she doesn’t make strongly enough. It’s to read political history as a battle of powerful elites and their constituencies who inevitably seek to crush dissent from the out groups, until they’re overthrown - often with violence - by a different group who pursue the same strategy - against different out groups.

    Free speech for all is our way out of that cycle.
    I just posted this at the end of the last thread. Apologies for repetition:

    Following earlier comments on Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, I've just listened to her Reith lecture on freedom of speech, and the Q&A session following it.

    She's absolutely brilliant, and does indeed provide a 'liberal' critique of self-censorship that many on the left (e.g. me) can agree with entirely, and I hope some on the right would also accept. Well worth a listen. Without using the 'woke' word, she debunks various aspects of 'cancel culture' such as 'sensitivity readers' in universities. At the same time, she acknowledges that freedom of speech can't be absolutist if, for example, it is used to advocate physical violence. In answering a direct question, she argues that while both the right and the left are to blame for the current malaise, the right should carry the heavier burden. particularly for using social media to spread 'untruths'. (She argues strongly that there is an objective truth, and that the relativist position is liable to end up with subjective opinions).

    Okay, I guess she's arguing a case that aligns absolutely with my own views - but she does it so much better than I ever could. Strongly recommended to all those with an open mind.
    Agree with a lot of that, except for 'objective truth'; the search for that is a futile, and arguably dangerous endeavour.

    What is incontrovertible is that you can demonstrate things are objectively untrue.
    That's the essence of the scientific method - and not a bad approach to political argument.
  • Scott_xP said:
    There is part of me wishing Starmer was PM now facing the same issues

    I believe a good part of his popularity is coming from the public sector who assume he would give them a far better pay settlement than the conservatives, and importantly more than the country can afford as there is no evidence he would take difficult and unpopular decisions
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,072
    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    ping said:

    FPT;

    ydoethur said:

    Haven't heard the whole thing, but it sounds like this person talked a lot of sense:

    Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie: Author warns about 'epidemic of self-censorship'
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-63797087

    I'm willing to bet she will now face a torrent of abuse for being 'a coconut, an apologist for slaving, anti-trans,' etc etc.

    Which will rather prove her point...

    I’ve just listened to that.

    It’s excellent.

    I fear it’s futile, though. Reads like a speech from ten years ago. Perhaps rather naive, too. A point which she addresses and unconvincingly encourages us to embrace.

    I think the strongest argument is, perhaps, one she doesn’t make strongly enough. It’s to read political history as a battle of powerful elites and their constituencies who inevitably seek to crush dissent from the out groups, until they’re overthrown - often with violence - by a different group who pursue the same strategy - against different out groups.

    Free speech for all is our way out of that cycle.
    I just posted this at the end of the last thread. Apologies for repetition:

    Following earlier comments on Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, I've just listened to her Reith lecture on freedom of speech, and the Q&A session following it.

    She's absolutely brilliant, and does indeed provide a 'liberal' critique of self-censorship that many on the left (e.g. me) can agree with entirely, and I hope some on the right would also accept. Well worth a listen. Without using the 'woke' word, she debunks various aspects of 'cancel culture' such as 'sensitivity readers' in universities. At the same time, she acknowledges that freedom of speech can't be absolutist if, for example, it is used to advocate physical violence. In answering a direct question, she argues that while both the right and the left are to blame for the current malaise, the right should carry the heavier burden. particularly for using social media to spread 'untruths'. (She argues strongly that there is an objective truth, and that the relativist position is liable to end up with subjective opinions).

    Okay, I guess she's arguing a case that aligns absolutely with my own views - but she does it so much better than I ever could. Strongly recommended to all those with an open mind.
    I don't think the right wins for using the media to spread 'untruths', plenty on the left do too. My favourite is good old 'Luxury communist' herself, Ash Sarkar. One of the funniest moments of the 2015 was Novara Media's broadcast as the exit poll came in.
    She must have forgotten Ash Sarkar and her widespread 'untruths'. Much more important than Donald Trump and his mates, or the Covid deniers, obviously.
    Calling people who queried the cost/benefit relationship of lockdown "Covid deniers", as many (especially on the left) did, is certainly an untruth.
    My definition of 'Covid deniers' has nothing at all to do with lockdown.
    I take it to mean those (usually on the far right) who questioned the existence of Covid as an infectious disease and spread fake news on social media, QAnon style, that Covid was just a global conspiracy, Soros, yadda yadda yadda.
    There really weren't that many who actually denied Covid existed at all, from memory. Were they there and just didn't break out of their echo chamber? If so, that's another difference with the untruths of the left.
    Also the vaccine deniers, who are quite numerous.
  • PhilPhil Posts: 2,316

    Selebian said:

    The spider plant suffers from a lack of focus, for me :wink:

    But, more importantly, WTF is going on with that laptop - is SKS holding it in the air, possibly with assistance from a stack of books? Or is it some dodgy photoshop with the laptop replacing the beer and curry?
    Definitely a photoshopped laptop. Haven't find the original yet - tried Google Lens but it only found that version.
    Nah, just an optical illusion. The laptop is on a pile of books and top book has been pulled forward towards SKS, so that the laptop covers some of the camera’s view of it - is looks like some of the cover is visible in the shadow under the laptop . You can also see the pages of the bottom of the book behind the power cable - it’s covering SKS’s left index finger.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,103



    I don't know, the left in this country have been very successful in creating the image of Tories as evil, rather than as people who differ in opinion about how best to allow people to prosper.

    I don't know anyone who thinks Tories are all evil (and I know a lot of lefties, including people further left than me). The more dangerous judgment that is becoming commonplace is that they're absurd - constant leadership changes, policies reversed on a whim, people like Rees-Mogg, etc. It seems obvious that they aren't in a state to run the country. Naturally that might change, but once people get used to laughing at something, it's hard to get them to take it seriously again.
    I agree with your broad point, but one glance at twitter would reveal lots of people at least prepared to state all Tories are evil, and I know at least one person in real life who does genuinely think that.

    Is it the same proportion who think all on the left are evil communists? Hard to say. The cliche is that the left thinks the right is evil, while the right thinks the left are stupid, but there's obviously plenty of crossover.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,103

    mickydroy said:

    I find it hard to see Labour most seats at around 70% as an overreaction. Sure, the polls are mid parliament and the Tories will run an effective negative campaign and the voters are not totally sold on Starmer or Labour, but most people feel worse off than they were 12 years ago and the public has soured on the Tories' only "achievement" in power - Brexit. If you speak to senior Tories or people who speak to senior Tories, none of them think they will win the next election. My impression is they don't even want to win the next election, seeing as how they have punted all the difficult spending decisions until after it. I think the plan is to leave the mess for Labour to sort out and pin it on them when they fail.
    So no, I don't think the markets have underestimated the Tories' chances at the next election.

    The Tories, and their friends in the media will definitely run a negative campaign, in that respect Starmer might be an asset for labour, they have had trouble pinning much on him, and they can hardly go all out on him being dull, if anything Sunak is duller
    The attack lines on Starmer have been Corbyn and Brexit. It's no coincidence that these are the areas that Starmer has been putting most effort into - carving out a (tactically smart, strategically wrong) hard Brexit stance and kicking Corbyn and Corbymism out of the party. Starmer may be dull but he's not thick. The Tories and their media lackeys will struggle to go after him at the next election although of course they'll give it a go.
    It'll gain some traction, but it just won't be as effective as they need it to be given Starmer's actions. That he probably genuinely believed Corbyn would make a good PM when he said such a thing will be a point of attack, but even for many who agree with that attack line they will see the repudiation of Corbyn for years afterwards as significant.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,317
    Nigelb said:

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    ping said:

    FPT;

    ydoethur said:

    Haven't heard the whole thing, but it sounds like this person talked a lot of sense:

    Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie: Author warns about 'epidemic of self-censorship'
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-63797087

    I'm willing to bet she will now face a torrent of abuse for being 'a coconut, an apologist for slaving, anti-trans,' etc etc.

    Which will rather prove her point...

    I’ve just listened to that.

    It’s excellent.

    I fear it’s futile, though. Reads like a speech from ten years ago. Perhaps rather naive, too. A point which she addresses and unconvincingly encourages us to embrace.

    I think the strongest argument is, perhaps, one she doesn’t make strongly enough. It’s to read political history as a battle of powerful elites and their constituencies who inevitably seek to crush dissent from the out groups, until they’re overthrown - often with violence - by a different group who pursue the same strategy - against different out groups.

    Free speech for all is our way out of that cycle.
    I just posted this at the end of the last thread. Apologies for repetition:

    Following earlier comments on Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, I've just listened to her Reith lecture on freedom of speech, and the Q&A session following it.

    She's absolutely brilliant, and does indeed provide a 'liberal' critique of self-censorship that many on the left (e.g. me) can agree with entirely, and I hope some on the right would also accept. Well worth a listen. Without using the 'woke' word, she debunks various aspects of 'cancel culture' such as 'sensitivity readers' in universities. At the same time, she acknowledges that freedom of speech can't be absolutist if, for example, it is used to advocate physical violence. In answering a direct question, she argues that while both the right and the left are to blame for the current malaise, the right should carry the heavier burden. particularly for using social media to spread 'untruths'. (She argues strongly that there is an objective truth, and that the relativist position is liable to end up with subjective opinions).

    Okay, I guess she's arguing a case that aligns absolutely with my own views - but she does it so much better than I ever could. Strongly recommended to all those with an open mind.
    I don't think the right wins for using the media to spread 'untruths', plenty on the left do too. My favourite is good old 'Luxury communist' herself, Ash Sarkar. One of the funniest moments of the 2015 was Novara Media's broadcast as the exit poll came in.
    She must have forgotten Ash Sarkar and her widespread 'untruths'. Much more important than Donald Trump and his mates, or the Covid deniers, obviously.
    Calling people who queried the cost/benefit relationship of lockdown "Covid deniers", as many (especially on the left) did, is certainly an untruth.
    My definition of 'Covid deniers' has nothing at all to do with lockdown.
    I take it to mean those (usually on the far right) who questioned the existence of Covid as an infectious disease and spread fake news on social media, QAnon style, that Covid was just a global conspiracy, Soros, yadda yadda yadda.
    There really weren't that many who actually denied Covid existed at all, from memory. Were they there and just didn't break out of their echo chamber? If so, that's another difference with the untruths of the left.
    Also the vaccine deniers, who are quite numerous.
    What is ‘vaccine denial’?

    Denying vaccines exist? That’s pretty lunatic and extremely rare

    No, you’re talking about ‘vaccine skepticism’, which is not one single belief but a whole spectrum, from people who were shocked to find vaccines don’t actually prevent infection (= many people), to people who hate vaccine compulsion or vaxports, to people who think the Jews put pork and microchips in each jab
  • Incumbency is always there in any GE, the more so when a governing party has had big gains as in 2019. Against that are the boundary changes, plus the fact that a number of good number of incumbent Conservative MPs seem likely to be standing down at the next GE.

    The added risk to Labour is the threat of large numbers of potential electors finding them disenfranchised when they try to vote without ID, which is of course why the Conservatives are so keen to "solve" a non-existent problem, while ensuring that it's not going to be a problem for their favoured demographic (pensioners being allowed to vote using their bus passes.) The 2023 local elections are at least a dry run for the most committed electors, but given low local election turnouts 2024 will be the first time that many turn up at a polling station in the next two years.

    Labour with most seats still seems to me to be highly likely, my doubts being more over whether Starmer can secure an overall majority, which is a much bigger ask.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 4,668
    Phil said:

    Selebian said:

    The spider plant suffers from a lack of focus, for me :wink:

    But, more importantly, WTF is going on with that laptop - is SKS holding it in the air, possibly with assistance from a stack of books? Or is it some dodgy photoshop with the laptop replacing the beer and curry?
    Definitely a photoshopped laptop. Haven't find the original yet - tried Google Lens but it only found that version.
    Nah, just an optical illusion. The laptop is on a pile of books and top book has been pulled forward towards SKS, so that the laptop covers some of the camera’s view of it - is looks like some of the cover is visible in the shadow under the laptop . You can also see the pages of the bottom of the book behind the power cable - it’s covering SKS’s left index finger.

    It was the finger that looked particularly odd, although, yes, it could just about be hidden by a top book pulled forward. Not very balanced though!

    Strange that Google can't find the original.

    Not that it matters...
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,103
    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    ping said:

    FPT;

    ydoethur said:

    Haven't heard the whole thing, but it sounds like this person talked a lot of sense:

    Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie: Author warns about 'epidemic of self-censorship'
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-63797087

    I'm willing to bet she will now face a torrent of abuse for being 'a coconut, an apologist for slaving, anti-trans,' etc etc.

    Which will rather prove her point...

    I’ve just listened to that.

    It’s excellent.

    I fear it’s futile, though. Reads like a speech from ten years ago. Perhaps rather naive, too. A point which she addresses and unconvincingly encourages us to embrace.

    I think the strongest argument is, perhaps, one she doesn’t make strongly enough. It’s to read political history as a battle of powerful elites and their constituencies who inevitably seek to crush dissent from the out groups, until they’re overthrown - often with violence - by a different group who pursue the same strategy - against different out groups.

    Free speech for all is our way out of that cycle.
    I just posted this at the end of the last thread. Apologies for repetition:

    Following earlier comments on Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, I've just listened to her Reith lecture on freedom of speech, and the Q&A session following it.

    She's absolutely brilliant, and does indeed provide a 'liberal' critique of self-censorship that many on the left (e.g. me) can agree with entirely, and I hope some on the right would also accept. Well worth a listen. Without using the 'woke' word, she debunks various aspects of 'cancel culture' such as 'sensitivity readers' in universities. At the same time, she acknowledges that freedom of speech can't be absolutist if, for example, it is used to advocate physical violence. In answering a direct question, she argues that while both the right and the left are to blame for the current malaise, the right should carry the heavier burden. particularly for using social media to spread 'untruths'. (She argues strongly that there is an objective truth, and that the relativist position is liable to end up with subjective opinions).

    Okay, I guess she's arguing a case that aligns absolutely with my own views - but she does it so much better than I ever could. Strongly recommended to all those with an open mind.
    I don't think the right wins for using the media to spread 'untruths', plenty on the left do too. My favourite is good old 'Luxury communist' herself, Ash Sarkar. One of the funniest moments of the 2015 was Novara Media's broadcast as the exit poll came in.
    She must have forgotten Ash Sarkar and her widespread 'untruths'. Much more important than Donald Trump and his mates, or the Covid deniers, obviously.
    Calling people who queried the cost/benefit relationship of lockdown "Covid deniers", as many (especially on the left) did, is certainly an untruth.
    My definition of 'Covid deniers' has nothing at all to do with lockdown.
    I take it to mean those (usually on the far right) who questioned the existence of Covid as an infectious disease and spread fake news on social media, QAnon style, that Covid was just a global conspiracy, Soros, yadda yadda yadda.
    There really weren't that many who actually denied Covid existed at all, from memory. Were they there and just didn't break out of their echo chamber? If so, that's another difference with the untruths of the left.
    Also the vaccine deniers, who are quite numerous.
    What is ‘vaccine denial’?

    Denying vaccines exist? That’s pretty lunatic and extremely rare

    No, you’re talking about ‘vaccine skepticism’, which is not one single belief but a whole spectrum, from people who were shocked to find vaccines don’t actually prevent infection (= many people), to people who hate vaccine compulsion or vaxports, to people who think the Jews put pork and microchips in each jab
    That's true, and really 'vaccine conspiracism' is the most worrying, though disproportionate skepticism (eg unrealistic demands of proof/level of efficacy) leading to the same outcome was more common and still an issue.
  • kle4 said:



    I don't know, the left in this country have been very successful in creating the image of Tories as evil, rather than as people who differ in opinion about how best to allow people to prosper.

    I don't know anyone who thinks Tories are all evil (and I know a lot of lefties, including people further left than me). The more dangerous judgment that is becoming commonplace is that they're absurd - constant leadership changes, policies reversed on a whim, people like Rees-Mogg, etc. It seems obvious that they aren't in a state to run the country. Naturally that might change, but once people get used to laughing at something, it's hard to get them to take it seriously again.
    I agree with your broad point, but one glance at twitter would reveal lots of people at least prepared to state all Tories are evil, and I know at least one person in real life who does genuinely think that.

    Is it the same proportion who think all on the left are evil communists? Hard to say. The cliche is that the left thinks the right is evil, while the right thinks the left are stupid, but there's obviously plenty of crossover.
    Happy to offer a counter-example. I think people on the right are much more stupid than evil.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,072
    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    ping said:

    FPT;

    ydoethur said:

    Haven't heard the whole thing, but it sounds like this person talked a lot of sense:

    Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie: Author warns about 'epidemic of self-censorship'
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-63797087

    I'm willing to bet she will now face a torrent of abuse for being 'a coconut, an apologist for slaving, anti-trans,' etc etc.

    Which will rather prove her point...

    I’ve just listened to that.

    It’s excellent.

    I fear it’s futile, though. Reads like a speech from ten years ago. Perhaps rather naive, too. A point which she addresses and unconvincingly encourages us to embrace.

    I think the strongest argument is, perhaps, one she doesn’t make strongly enough. It’s to read political history as a battle of powerful elites and their constituencies who inevitably seek to crush dissent from the out groups, until they’re overthrown - often with violence - by a different group who pursue the same strategy - against different out groups.

    Free speech for all is our way out of that cycle.
    I just posted this at the end of the last thread. Apologies for repetition:

    Following earlier comments on Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, I've just listened to her Reith lecture on freedom of speech, and the Q&A session following it.

    She's absolutely brilliant, and does indeed provide a 'liberal' critique of self-censorship that many on the left (e.g. me) can agree with entirely, and I hope some on the right would also accept. Well worth a listen. Without using the 'woke' word, she debunks various aspects of 'cancel culture' such as 'sensitivity readers' in universities. At the same time, she acknowledges that freedom of speech can't be absolutist if, for example, it is used to advocate physical violence. In answering a direct question, she argues that while both the right and the left are to blame for the current malaise, the right should carry the heavier burden. particularly for using social media to spread 'untruths'. (She argues strongly that there is an objective truth, and that the relativist position is liable to end up with subjective opinions).

    Okay, I guess she's arguing a case that aligns absolutely with my own views - but she does it so much better than I ever could. Strongly recommended to all those with an open mind.
    I don't think the right wins for using the media to spread 'untruths', plenty on the left do too. My favourite is good old 'Luxury communist' herself, Ash Sarkar. One of the funniest moments of the 2015 was Novara Media's broadcast as the exit poll came in.
    She must have forgotten Ash Sarkar and her widespread 'untruths'. Much more important than Donald Trump and his mates, or the Covid deniers, obviously.
    Calling people who queried the cost/benefit relationship of lockdown "Covid deniers", as many (especially on the left) did, is certainly an untruth.
    My definition of 'Covid deniers' has nothing at all to do with lockdown.
    I take it to mean those (usually on the far right) who questioned the existence of Covid as an infectious disease and spread fake news on social media, QAnon style, that Covid was just a global conspiracy, Soros, yadda yadda yadda.
    There really weren't that many who actually denied Covid existed at all, from memory. Were they there and just didn't break out of their echo chamber? If so, that's another difference with the untruths of the left.
    Also the vaccine deniers, who are quite numerous.
    What is ‘vaccine denial’?

    Denying vaccines exist? That’s pretty lunatic and extremely rare

    No, you’re talking about ‘vaccine skepticism’, which is not one single belief but a whole spectrum, from people who were shocked to find vaccines don’t actually prevent infection (= many people), to people who hate vaccine compulsion or vaxports, to people who think the Jews put pork and microchips in each jab
    There is a very large movement in the US who hold, against all evidence, that Covid vaccines are both ineffective and dangerous.
    As a frequenter of Twitter, you'll be well aware of it.
  • kle4 said:

    mickydroy said:

    I find it hard to see Labour most seats at around 70% as an overreaction. Sure, the polls are mid parliament and the Tories will run an effective negative campaign and the voters are not totally sold on Starmer or Labour, but most people feel worse off than they were 12 years ago and the public has soured on the Tories' only "achievement" in power - Brexit. If you speak to senior Tories or people who speak to senior Tories, none of them think they will win the next election. My impression is they don't even want to win the next election, seeing as how they have punted all the difficult spending decisions until after it. I think the plan is to leave the mess for Labour to sort out and pin it on them when they fail.
    So no, I don't think the markets have underestimated the Tories' chances at the next election.

    The Tories, and their friends in the media will definitely run a negative campaign, in that respect Starmer might be an asset for labour, they have had trouble pinning much on him, and they can hardly go all out on him being dull, if anything Sunak is duller
    The attack lines on Starmer have been Corbyn and Brexit. It's no coincidence that these are the areas that Starmer has been putting most effort into - carving out a (tactically smart, strategically wrong) hard Brexit stance and kicking Corbyn and Corbymism out of the party. Starmer may be dull but he's not thick. The Tories and their media lackeys will struggle to go after him at the next election although of course they'll give it a go.
    It'll gain some traction, but it just won't be as effective as they need it to be given Starmer's actions. That he probably genuinely believed Corbyn would make a good PM when he said such a thing will be a point of attack, but even for many who agree with that attack line they will see the repudiation of Corbyn for years afterwards as significant.
    The optics of Starmer acting against Corbynism will go all the way to the 2024 GE, with Corbyn standing against an official Labour candidate in his parliamentary seat.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,963

    Incumbency is always there in any GE, the more so when a governing party has had big gains as in 2019. Against that are the boundary changes, plus the fact that a number of good number of incumbent Conservative MPs seem likely to be standing down at the next GE.

    The added risk to Labour is the threat of large numbers of potential electors finding them disenfranchised when they try to vote without ID, which is of course why the Conservatives are so keen to "solve" a non-existent problem, while ensuring that it's not going to be a problem for their favoured demographic (pensioners being allowed to vote using their bus passes.) The 2023 local elections are at least a dry run for the most committed electors, but given low local election turnouts 2024 will be the first time that many turn up at a polling station in the next two years.

    Labour with most seats still seems to me to be highly likely, my doubts being more over whether Starmer can secure an overall majority, which is a much bigger ask.

    Ah, the old "Labour-inclined voters are too thick to get proper ID" thing again.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 8,727

    Phil said:

    Selebian said:

    The spider plant suffers from a lack of focus, for me :wink:

    But, more importantly, WTF is going on with that laptop - is SKS holding it in the air, possibly with assistance from a stack of books? Or is it some dodgy photoshop with the laptop replacing the beer and curry?
    Definitely a photoshopped laptop. Haven't find the original yet - tried Google Lens but it only found that version.
    Nah, just an optical illusion. The laptop is on a pile of books and top book has been pulled forward towards SKS, so that the laptop covers some of the camera’s view of it - is looks like some of the cover is visible in the shadow under the laptop . You can also see the pages of the bottom of the book behind the power cable - it’s covering SKS’s left index finger.

    It was the finger that looked particularly odd, although, yes, it could just about be hidden by a top book pulled forward. Not very balanced though!

    Strange that Google can't find the original.

    Not that it matters...
    I think I'm satisfied with this explanation of laptopgate :wink:

    Slightly concerned though that Labour will be facing many employee lawsuits for DSE-related harm if this is their idea of workstation adjustment!
  • eekeek Posts: 28,370

    Incumbency is always there in any GE, the more so when a governing party has had big gains as in 2019. Against that are the boundary changes, plus the fact that a number of good number of incumbent Conservative MPs seem likely to be standing down at the next GE.

    The added risk to Labour is the threat of large numbers of potential electors finding them disenfranchised when they try to vote without ID, which is of course why the Conservatives are so keen to "solve" a non-existent problem, while ensuring that it's not going to be a problem for their favoured demographic (pensioners being allowed to vote using their bus passes.) The 2023 local elections are at least a dry run for the most committed electors, but given low local election turnouts 2024 will be the first time that many turn up at a polling station in the next two years.

    Labour with most seats still seems to me to be highly likely, my doubts being more over whether Starmer can secure an overall majority, which is a much bigger ask.

    The way in which Starmer secures an overall majority is for Tory voters to disappear (either by not voting or by protest voting),

    I suspect that as public services disintegrate further over the next 2 years it's very possible that those votes will disappear.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,072

    Scott_xP said:
    There is part of me wishing Starmer was PM now facing the same issues

    I believe a good part of his popularity is coming from the public sector who assume he would give them a far better pay settlement than the conservatives, and importantly more than the country can afford as there is no evidence he would take difficult and unpopular decisions
    The Tories gave up on that when they decided to replace the PM without an election. Twice.

    Did you call for one at the time ?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,072
    102 year old grannie, helping weave camo nets for the front line.

    Holodomor survivor: 'I want to witness this victory'
    https://www.dw.com/en/holodomor-survivor-i-want-to-witness-this-victory/a-63933604?maca=en-Twitter-sharing
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,191
    edited November 2022
    I know Ronaldo's good but at 37 years old he ain't £432M good. (2.5 * 172.9)

    This deal is essentially another LIV golf.
  • Rishi better than Keir today.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,664

    Rishi better than Keir today.

    Rishi 'get tough' Sunak :lol:
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,072
    Tory members think Sunak one of worst-performing members of cabinet, survey suggests
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2022/nov/30/rishi-sunak-keir-starmer-pmqs-latest-live-news-uk-politics
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,362
    Pulpstar said:

    I know Ronaldo's good but at 37 years old he ain't £432M good. (2.5 * 172.9)

    This deal is essentially another LIV golf.

    Arguably he's harmful to the footballing prospects of a top team nowadays, but part of his value to a team will be on the commercial side, so that would offset some of the total.
  • Rishi better than Keir today.

    Interesting Blackford attacks Starmer as being more Brexit than Brexit
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,780
    edited November 2022
    Driver said:

    Incumbency is always there in any GE, the more so when a governing party has had big gains as in 2019. Against that are the boundary changes, plus the fact that a number of good number of incumbent Conservative MPs seem likely to be standing down at the next GE.

    The added risk to Labour is the threat of large numbers of potential electors finding them disenfranchised when they try to vote without ID, which is of course why the Conservatives are so keen to "solve" a non-existent problem, while ensuring that it's not going to be a problem for their favoured demographic (pensioners being allowed to vote using their bus passes.) The 2023 local elections are at least a dry run for the most committed electors, but given low local election turnouts 2024 will be the first time that many turn up at a polling station in the next two years.

    Labour with most seats still seems to me to be highly likely, my doubts being more over whether Starmer can secure an overall majority, which is a much bigger ask.

    Ah, the old "Labour-inclined voters are too thick to get proper ID" thing again.
    It's more a case of "Labour-inclined voters are too young to have proper ID." And of making sure that if they do have some form of photo ID, it bizarrely doesn't qualify as a form of "proper" photo ID so that instead they will need to go all the way to the town hall just to apply for a special photo ID in order to vote. Pensioners bus passes, on the other hand, are fine. It stinks.
  • Nigelb said:

    Tory members think Sunak one of worst-performing members of cabinet, survey suggests
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2022/nov/30/rishi-sunak-keir-starmer-pmqs-latest-live-news-uk-politics

    I think that shows how far away from reality the membership is
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,191

    Pulpstar said:

    I know Ronaldo's good but at 37 years old he ain't £432M good. (2.5 * 172.9)

    This deal is essentially another LIV golf.

    Arguably he's harmful to the footballing prospects of a top team nowadays, but part of his value to a team will be on the commercial side, so that would offset some of the total.
    I thought about this but I just can't see that many "Nassr 7 Ronaldo" shirts being sold to be perfectly honest - I think he adds more commercially to a Real Madrid or Man Utd; clubs with a following and history.
  • Rishi better than Keir today.

    Interesting Blackford attacks Starmer as being more Brexit than Brexit
    Maybe SNP will do a deal with CON after the election after all! 😈
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 5,001
    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    ping said:

    FPT;

    ydoethur said:

    Haven't heard the whole thing, but it sounds like this person talked a lot of sense:

    Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie: Author warns about 'epidemic of self-censorship'
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-63797087

    I'm willing to bet she will now face a torrent of abuse for being 'a coconut, an apologist for slaving, anti-trans,' etc etc.

    Which will rather prove her point...

    I’ve just listened to that.

    It’s excellent.

    I fear it’s futile, though. Reads like a speech from ten years ago. Perhaps rather naive, too. A point which she addresses and unconvincingly encourages us to embrace.

    I think the strongest argument is, perhaps, one she doesn’t make strongly enough. It’s to read political history as a battle of powerful elites and their constituencies who inevitably seek to crush dissent from the out groups, until they’re overthrown - often with violence - by a different group who pursue the same strategy - against different out groups.

    Free speech for all is our way out of that cycle.
    I just posted this at the end of the last thread. Apologies for repetition:

    Following earlier comments on Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, I've just listened to her Reith lecture on freedom of speech, and the Q&A session following it.

    She's absolutely brilliant, and does indeed provide a 'liberal' critique of self-censorship that many on the left (e.g. me) can agree with entirely, and I hope some on the right would also accept. Well worth a listen. Without using the 'woke' word, she debunks various aspects of 'cancel culture' such as 'sensitivity readers' in universities. At the same time, she acknowledges that freedom of speech can't be absolutist if, for example, it is used to advocate physical violence. In answering a direct question, she argues that while both the right and the left are to blame for the current malaise, the right should carry the heavier burden. particularly for using social media to spread 'untruths'. (She argues strongly that there is an objective truth, and that the relativist position is liable to end up with subjective opinions).

    Okay, I guess she's arguing a case that aligns absolutely with my own views - but she does it so much better than I ever could. Strongly recommended to all those with an open mind.
    I don't think the right wins for using the media to spread 'untruths', plenty on the left do too. My favourite is good old 'Luxury communist' herself, Ash Sarkar. One of the funniest moments of the 2015 was Novara Media's broadcast as the exit poll came in.
    She must have forgotten Ash Sarkar and her widespread 'untruths'. Much more important than Donald Trump and his mates, or the Covid deniers, obviously.
    Calling people who queried the cost/benefit relationship of lockdown "Covid deniers", as many (especially on the left) did, is certainly an untruth.
    My definition of 'Covid deniers' has nothing at all to do with lockdown.
    I take it to mean those (usually on the far right) who questioned the existence of Covid as an infectious disease and spread fake news on social media, QAnon style, that Covid was just a global conspiracy, Soros, yadda yadda yadda.
    There really weren't that many who actually denied Covid existed at all, from memory. Were they there and just didn't break out of their echo chamber? If so, that's another difference with the untruths of the left.
    Also the vaccine deniers, who are quite numerous.
    What is ‘vaccine denial’?

    Denying vaccines exist? That’s pretty lunatic and extremely rare

    No, you’re talking about ‘vaccine skepticism’, which is not one single belief but a whole spectrum, from people who were shocked to find vaccines don’t actually prevent infection (= many people), to people who hate vaccine compulsion or vaxports, to people who think the Jews put pork and microchips in each jab
    There is a very large movement in the US who hold, against all evidence, that Covid vaccines are both ineffective and dangerous.
    As a frequenter of Twitter, you'll be well aware of it.
    And in the UK.
    Like HART (incessantly amplified by Toby Young): "We need to seed the thought the vaccines cause covid."




  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,963

    Driver said:

    Incumbency is always there in any GE, the more so when a governing party has had big gains as in 2019. Against that are the boundary changes, plus the fact that a number of good number of incumbent Conservative MPs seem likely to be standing down at the next GE.

    The added risk to Labour is the threat of large numbers of potential electors finding them disenfranchised when they try to vote without ID, which is of course why the Conservatives are so keen to "solve" a non-existent problem, while ensuring that it's not going to be a problem for their favoured demographic (pensioners being allowed to vote using their bus passes.) The 2023 local elections are at least a dry run for the most committed electors, but given low local election turnouts 2024 will be the first time that many turn up at a polling station in the next two years.

    Labour with most seats still seems to me to be highly likely, my doubts being more over whether Starmer can secure an overall majority, which is a much bigger ask.

    Ah, the old "Labour-inclined voters are too thick to get proper ID" thing again.
    It's more a case of "Labour-inclined voters are too young to have proper ID."
    I had proper ID before I was old enough to vote. And even if I didn't, I was clever enough to have got a free voter ID card as part of the registration process.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,072
    Goodness, a Monbiot column which makes some sense, grandiose claims notwithstanding.
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/24/green-technology-precision-fermentation-farming

    Another technology whose development government should be actively funding.
  • Tedious Twickenham MP
  • Rishi better than Keir today.

    Interesting Blackford attacks Starmer as being more Brexit than Brexit
    Maybe SNP will do a deal with CON after the election after all! 😈
    If the electoral arithmetic favours them, the SNP will join with the Conservative opposition to make the country ungovernable and bring down a Labour minority government.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,664

    Rishi better than Keir today.

    Interesting Blackford attacks Starmer as being more Brexit than Brexit
    He knows where the challenge to the SNP is located.
  • PMQs score.

    Sunak 10

    Stamer 0

    The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.

    But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.
  • Rishi better than Keir today.

    Interesting Blackford attacks Starmer as being more Brexit than Brexit
    Maybe SNP will do a deal with CON after the election after all! 😈
    If the electoral arithmetic favours them, the SNP will join with the Conservative opposition to make the country ungovernable and bring down a Labour minority government.
    That worked out well for the SNP in 1979.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,664

    PMQs score.

    Sunak 10

    Stamer 0

    The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.

    But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.

    The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
  • Jonathan said:

    PMQs score.

    Sunak 10

    Stamer 0

    The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.

    But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.

    The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
    I was privately educated and I turned out alright.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,592
    Oh god, CCS raises its ugly head.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,664

    Jonathan said:

    PMQs score.

    Sunak 10

    Stamer 0

    The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.

    But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.

    The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
    I was privately educated and I turned out alright.
    QED
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,191
    Imagine if Portugal faced Saudi in either the semis or final. Would Ronaldo recuse himself :D
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,963

    Rishi better than Keir today.

    Interesting Blackford attacks Starmer as being more Brexit than Brexit
    Maybe SNP will do a deal with CON after the election after all! 😈
    If the electoral arithmetic favours them, the SNP will join with the Conservative opposition to make the country ungovernable and bring down a Labour minority government.
    Which would be appropriate karma for Labour not devolving to England as well as to Scotland and Wales in the 90s.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,157
    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    ping said:

    FPT;

    ydoethur said:

    Haven't heard the whole thing, but it sounds like this person talked a lot of sense:

    Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie: Author warns about 'epidemic of self-censorship'
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-63797087

    I'm willing to bet she will now face a torrent of abuse for being 'a coconut, an apologist for slaving, anti-trans,' etc etc.

    Which will rather prove her point...

    I’ve just listened to that.

    It’s excellent.

    I fear it’s futile, though. Reads like a speech from ten years ago. Perhaps rather naive, too. A point which she addresses and unconvincingly encourages us to embrace.

    I think the strongest argument is, perhaps, one she doesn’t make strongly enough. It’s to read political history as a battle of powerful elites and their constituencies who inevitably seek to crush dissent from the out groups, until they’re overthrown - often with violence - by a different group who pursue the same strategy - against different out groups.

    Free speech for all is our way out of that cycle.
    I just posted this at the end of the last thread. Apologies for repetition:

    Following earlier comments on Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, I've just listened to her Reith lecture on freedom of speech, and the Q&A session following it.

    She's absolutely brilliant, and does indeed provide a 'liberal' critique of self-censorship that many on the left (e.g. me) can agree with entirely, and I hope some on the right would also accept. Well worth a listen. Without using the 'woke' word, she debunks various aspects of 'cancel culture' such as 'sensitivity readers' in universities. At the same time, she acknowledges that freedom of speech can't be absolutist if, for example, it is used to advocate physical violence. In answering a direct question, she argues that while both the right and the left are to blame for the current malaise, the right should carry the heavier burden. particularly for using social media to spread 'untruths'. (She argues strongly that there is an objective truth, and that the relativist position is liable to end up with subjective opinions).

    Okay, I guess she's arguing a case that aligns absolutely with my own views - but she does it so much better than I ever could. Strongly recommended to all those with an open mind.
    I don't think the right wins for using the media to spread 'untruths', plenty on the left do too. My favourite is good old 'Luxury communist' herself, Ash Sarkar. One of the funniest moments of the 2015 was Novara Media's broadcast as the exit poll came in.
    She must have forgotten Ash Sarkar and her widespread 'untruths'. Much more important than Donald Trump and his mates, or the Covid deniers, obviously.
    Calling people who queried the cost/benefit relationship of lockdown "Covid deniers", as many (especially on the left) did, is certainly an untruth.
    My definition of 'Covid deniers' has nothing at all to do with lockdown.
    I take it to mean those (usually on the far right) who questioned the existence of Covid as an infectious disease and spread fake news on social media, QAnon style, that Covid was just a global conspiracy, Soros, yadda yadda yadda.
    There really weren't that many who actually denied Covid existed at all, from memory. Were they there and just didn't break out of their echo chamber? If so, that's another difference with the untruths of the left.
    Also the vaccine deniers, who are quite numerous.
    What is ‘vaccine denial’?

    Denying vaccines exist? That’s pretty lunatic and extremely rare

    No, you’re talking about ‘vaccine skepticism’, which is not one single belief but a whole spectrum, from people who were shocked to find vaccines don’t actually prevent infection (= many people), to people who hate vaccine compulsion or vaxports, to people who think the Jews put pork and microchips in each jab
    There is a very large movement in the US who hold, against all evidence, that Covid vaccines are both ineffective and dangerous.
    As a frequenter of Twitter, you'll be well aware of it.
    Re Objective Truth from earlier, wouldn't the statement "covid vaccines offer protection against serious illness" qualify? - ie someone who says they don't is not offering an opinion, they are either mistaken or lying. That's how I look at it anyway. And there are plenty of similar examples.
  • PMQs score.

    Sunak 10

    Stamer 0

    The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.

    But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.

    Yes they will agree with Starmer.

    In which case it wasn't 10-0. You can't score if you can't hit shots on target.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,072

    Jonathan said:

    PMQs score.

    Sunak 10

    Stamer 0

    The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.

    But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.

    The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
    I was privately educated and I turned out alright.
    There's always the ... odd exception.
  • Rishi better than Keir today.

    Interesting Blackford attacks Starmer as being more Brexit than Brexit
    Maybe SNP will do a deal with CON after the election after all! 😈
    If the electoral arithmetic favours them, the SNP will join with the Conservative opposition to make the country ungovernable and bring down a Labour minority government.
    That worked out well for the SNP in 1979.
    Indeed, I think Starmer would be quite prepared to let it happen and use the fallout in Scotland to Labour's electoral benefit.
  • pingping Posts: 3,805
    edited November 2022

    PMQs score.

    Sunak 10

    Stamer 0

    The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.

    But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.

    Times radio had a mini panel of three private school kids and their teacher.

    All thought Starmer won.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 9,154
    edited November 2022

    Jonathan said:

    PMQs score.

    Sunak 10

    Stamer 0

    The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.

    But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.

    The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
    I was privately educated and I turned out alright.
    I feel the same, although I've got deep suspicion of the most traditionally conservative public schools such as Eton.

    I think the charitable status policy is the worst kind of gesture politics, like the assisted places policy in 2000. You either change this public/private set-up entirely or leave it alone. The 2000-era policy removed many working-class students from public schools, and one this will simply remove more middle-class ones.

    The 1.7 billion generated will also be offset by the number of new state places needed.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 5,065

    Jonathan said:

    PMQs score.

    Sunak 10

    Stamer 0

    The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.

    But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.

    The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
    I was privately educated and I turned out alright.
    A great example of cherry picking and a very small sample size.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,072
    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    ping said:

    FPT;

    ydoethur said:

    Haven't heard the whole thing, but it sounds like this person talked a lot of sense:

    Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie: Author warns about 'epidemic of self-censorship'
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-63797087

    I'm willing to bet she will now face a torrent of abuse for being 'a coconut, an apologist for slaving, anti-trans,' etc etc.

    Which will rather prove her point...

    I’ve just listened to that.

    It’s excellent.

    I fear it’s futile, though. Reads like a speech from ten years ago. Perhaps rather naive, too. A point which she addresses and unconvincingly encourages us to embrace.

    I think the strongest argument is, perhaps, one she doesn’t make strongly enough. It’s to read political history as a battle of powerful elites and their constituencies who inevitably seek to crush dissent from the out groups, until they’re overthrown - often with violence - by a different group who pursue the same strategy - against different out groups.

    Free speech for all is our way out of that cycle.
    I just posted this at the end of the last thread. Apologies for repetition:

    Following earlier comments on Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, I've just listened to her Reith lecture on freedom of speech, and the Q&A session following it.

    She's absolutely brilliant, and does indeed provide a 'liberal' critique of self-censorship that many on the left (e.g. me) can agree with entirely, and I hope some on the right would also accept. Well worth a listen. Without using the 'woke' word, she debunks various aspects of 'cancel culture' such as 'sensitivity readers' in universities. At the same time, she acknowledges that freedom of speech can't be absolutist if, for example, it is used to advocate physical violence. In answering a direct question, she argues that while both the right and the left are to blame for the current malaise, the right should carry the heavier burden. particularly for using social media to spread 'untruths'. (She argues strongly that there is an objective truth, and that the relativist position is liable to end up with subjective opinions).

    Okay, I guess she's arguing a case that aligns absolutely with my own views - but she does it so much better than I ever could. Strongly recommended to all those with an open mind.
    I don't think the right wins for using the media to spread 'untruths', plenty on the left do too. My favourite is good old 'Luxury communist' herself, Ash Sarkar. One of the funniest moments of the 2015 was Novara Media's broadcast as the exit poll came in.
    She must have forgotten Ash Sarkar and her widespread 'untruths'. Much more important than Donald Trump and his mates, or the Covid deniers, obviously.
    Calling people who queried the cost/benefit relationship of lockdown "Covid deniers", as many (especially on the left) did, is certainly an untruth.
    My definition of 'Covid deniers' has nothing at all to do with lockdown.
    I take it to mean those (usually on the far right) who questioned the existence of Covid as an infectious disease and spread fake news on social media, QAnon style, that Covid was just a global conspiracy, Soros, yadda yadda yadda.
    There really weren't that many who actually denied Covid existed at all, from memory. Were they there and just didn't break out of their echo chamber? If so, that's another difference with the untruths of the left.
    Also the vaccine deniers, who are quite numerous.
    What is ‘vaccine denial’?

    Denying vaccines exist? That’s pretty lunatic and extremely rare

    No, you’re talking about ‘vaccine skepticism’, which is not one single belief but a whole spectrum, from people who were shocked to find vaccines don’t actually prevent infection (= many people), to people who hate vaccine compulsion or vaxports, to people who think the Jews put pork and microchips in each jab
    There is a very large movement in the US who hold, against all evidence, that Covid vaccines are both ineffective and dangerous.
    As a frequenter of Twitter, you'll be well aware of it.
    Re Objective Truth from earlier, wouldn't the statement "covid vaccines offer protection against serious illness" qualify? - ie someone who says they don't is not offering an opinion, they are either mistaken or lying. That's how I look at it anyway. And there are plenty of similar examples.
    Up to a point.
    Some vaccines are less effective than others; there will still be some vaccinated individuals who suffer serious illness.
    That's why I prefer to use 'objective' alongside untruths - eg 'vaccines don't work'.

    Objective facts - 'these are the clinical evidence for vaccine effectiveness' etc - are fine. "Truth" is a much more slippery concept.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,592
    Jonathan said:

    PMQs score.

    Sunak 10

    Stamer 0

    The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.

    But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.

    The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
    Privat education *can* screw people up for life. For others, it gives them a better education and a very fulfilling childhood.

    But state schools can also screw people up for life. Bullying in particular can ruin lives.

    I went to both private and state schools. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but it can be a meaningless comparison anyway, as there are some very poor private schools and some brilliant state schools, and vice versa.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,370

    Jonathan said:

    PMQs score.

    Sunak 10

    Stamer 0

    The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.

    But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.

    The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
    I was privately educated and I turned out alright.
    I feel the same, although I've got deep suspicion of the most traditionally conservative public schools such as Eton.

    I think the charitable status policy is the worst kind of gesture politics, like the assisted places policy in 2000. You either change this public/private set-up entirely or leave it alone. The 2000-era policy removed many working-class students from public schools, and one this will simply remove more middle-class ones.

    The 1.7 billion generated will also be offset by the number of new state places needed.
    Which someone else has calculated as £500m so the policy still generates 1.2bn of additional Government Revenue.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 5,065

    Scott_xP said:
    There is part of me wishing Starmer was PM now facing the same issues

    I believe a good part of his popularity is coming from the public sector who assume he would give them a far better pay settlement than the conservatives, and importantly more than the country can afford as there is no evidence he would take difficult and unpopular decisions
    That is way too narrow minded. Public sector workers look back at the last 12 years and think every aspect of their working life would be better without a conservative government.

    But that is the majority of public sector workers most of the time, so it doesn't really explain the big increase in Starmer's popularity over the last 12 months.
  • sladeslade Posts: 2,041
    An interesting local by-election in Surrey today. It is a Con defence but the party has suspended their candidate.
    Tomorrow we have Con defences in Norfolk, Southampton, and Waverley. There is also a Lab defence in West Lothian and a Green defence in Arun. To complete the picture Lab are unopposed in Kings Lynn in honour of the former councillor.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,832

    Jonathan said:

    PMQs score.

    Sunak 10

    Stamer 0

    The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.

    But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.

    The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
    I was privately educated and I turned out alright.
    What matters is the return on investment. Your parents will have to judge on that.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,963
    eek said:

    Jonathan said:

    PMQs score.

    Sunak 10

    Stamer 0

    The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.

    But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.

    The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
    I was privately educated and I turned out alright.
    I feel the same, although I've got deep suspicion of the most traditionally conservative public schools such as Eton.

    I think the charitable status policy is the worst kind of gesture politics, like the assisted places policy in 2000. You either change this public/private set-up entirely or leave it alone. The 2000-era policy removed many working-class students from public schools, and one this will simply remove more middle-class ones.

    The 1.7 billion generated will also be offset by the number of new state places needed.
    Which someone else has calculated as £500m so the policy still generates 1.2bn of additional Government Revenue.
    Assuming that the tax take generated matches the projection, which would be quite unusual.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,370
    Interestingly Alistair Meeks wonders when this Government will announce the U-turn and add VAT onto private school fees

    https://twitter.com/AlastairMeeks/status/1597938542541692931
    Alastair Meeks
    @AlastairMeeks
    The back-and-forth about private schooling today feels like the back-and-forth about windfall taxes in the spring. The govt will defy public opinion before eventually realising that it's unsustainable to leave a financial privilege for the rich.

    So, how long till the uturn?
  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,803
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I know Ronaldo's good but at 37 years old he ain't £432M good. (2.5 * 172.9)

    This deal is essentially another LIV golf.

    Arguably he's harmful to the footballing prospects of a top team nowadays, but part of his value to a team will be on the commercial side, so that would offset some of the total.
    I thought about this but I just can't see that many "Nassr 7 Ronaldo" shirts being sold to be perfectly honest - I think he adds more commercially to a Real Madrid or Man Utd; clubs with a following and history.
    The strategy is that he will front a Saudi Arabia WC 2030 bid. *shudder*
  • Jonathan said:

    PMQs score.

    Sunak 10

    Stamer 0

    The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.

    But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.

    The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
    I was privately educated and I turned out alright.
    What matters is the return on investment. Your parents will have to judge on that.
    Sad case of downward mobility: doctor to lawyer in one generation.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 8,258
    ping said:

    FPT;

    ydoethur said:

    Haven't heard the whole thing, but it sounds like this person talked a lot of sense:

    Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie: Author warns about 'epidemic of self-censorship'
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-63797087

    I'm willing to bet she will now face a torrent of abuse for being 'a coconut, an apologist for slaving, anti-trans,' etc etc.

    Which will rather prove her point...

    I’ve just listened to that.

    It’s excellent.

    I fear it’s futile, though. Reads like a speech from ten years ago. Perhaps rather naive, too. A point which she addresses and unconvincingly encourages us to embrace.

    I think the strongest argument is, perhaps, one she doesn’t make strongly enough. It’s to read political history as a battle of powerful elites and their constituencies who inevitably seek to crush dissent from the out groups, until they’re overthrown - often with violence - by a different group who pursue the same strategy - against different out groups.

    Free speech for all is our way out of that cycle.
    It’s that mindset that drives the CRT approach - all whites are part of the oppressor class and they must be humiliated. Equality is not enough. It’s very divisive

  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,994
    edited November 2022
    eek said:

    Interestingly Alistair Meeks wonders when this Government will announce the U-turn and add VAT onto private school fees

    https://twitter.com/AlastairMeeks/status/1597938542541692931
    Alastair Meeks
    @AlastairMeeks
    The back-and-forth about private schooling today feels like the back-and-forth about windfall taxes in the spring. The govt will defy public opinion before eventually realising that it's unsustainable to leave a financial privilege for the rich.

    So, how long till the uturn?

    I suspect he’s right. It’s one on the list of “all in it together” issues.

    I’m already paying through the nose for private school fees and increasingly wondering what’s the point. It’s financially ruinous, the educational benefits are marginal and offset by adjustments made by universities, and it leaves me with the feeling of social guilt that I could do without.

    It’s the bloody open days that do it, with all the swish facilities.
This discussion has been closed.