Hang on a minute — we were able, as a country, to construct Nightingale Hospitals in about 5 minutes (even though they were hardly used). If we could do that, why can't we install more beds in hospitals?
I think that required the cancellation of a lot of other NHS activities.
It'll be interesting to see how automation will be able to reduce staffing needs in the future - and the disadvantages of that approach, along with how vested interests screech.
There's lots of interesting work being done on this at the moment - but it'll take years for the NHS to take advantage.
If Labour do win I really do hope they deliver for young people, and force the Conservatives to pivot over to do the same.
The last thing I want is for them to abjectly fail to and to face an ultra-radical insurgent left-wing party in the offing that threatens to blow up everyone's assets (homes/pensions) and the economic foundations of the country.
You're on a hiding to nothing with that one, I fear. I shall be thrilled to be proven wrong, BUT... the only way to fund the state's colossal spending and debt servicing commitments without completely taxing earned incomes into the ground is to go after assets - that means, first and foremost, substantial increases in taxation of property wealth and of inheritances. Which most likely ain't happening; we need only look at the example of Theresa May's dementia tax to see what happens when ministers try to solve funding problems by going after the gargantuan store of wealth that's sunk into bricks and mortar.
Monied OAPs and their expectant heirs are an enormous constituency that also shows a greater tendency to bother to vote than the young. In all likelihood, Labour will kneel and suck pensioner dick just like the Tories, which means property gets left well alone, the triple lock remains in place to boot, and workers are bled dry to pay for everything. It's called a gerontocracy, and it's why this country is completely and irretrievably fucked.
If you're young and ambitious, your best option is to emigrate as soon as possible.
How very negative of you. There'll aways be scope for young and ambitious people with talent to do well.
The challenge is for those without buckets of talent or ambition who can get by but find they are working hard just to stand still.
I hope Labour do tackle the wealth issue, even though I would personally be hit. Maybe they will flunk it, I don't know.
One thing's for sure, the Tories will never tackle the issue.
If Labour do win I really do hope they deliver for young people, and force the Conservatives to pivot over to do the same.
The last thing I want is for them to abjectly fail to and to face an ultra-radical insurgent left-wing party in the offing that threatens to blow up everyone's assets (homes/pensions) and the economic foundations of the country.
Why? We had that in 2019 and it produced a Tory landslide.
Even if Labour fails to get most 25 to 40 year olds on the property ladder, most over 40s still own property and voted Conservative in 2019 to keep out Corbyn.
In any case the cycle means it is more likely the Conservatives move to the populist nationalist right in opposition if Sunak leads the Tories to defeat given Labour under Starmer will be a relatively centrist government than the reverse.
Labour and the left have had their populist fun under Corbyn, Abbott and McConnell now it is rightwingers turn with Badenoch, Braverman and Rees Mogg
The Tories have had their populist 'fun' under Johnson and Truss, and look what a fecking disaster that turned out to be.
The next Tory move will be to the centre, or to oblivion - their choice.
Hang on a minute — we were able, as a country, to construct Nightingale Hospitals in about 5 minutes (even though they were hardly used). If we could do that, why can't we install more beds in hospitals?
Duh! More beds achieve nothing; more staff is what is needed.
Edit: I see that's a hat-trick of posts. Is there a new thread or something?
If Labour do win I really do hope they deliver for young people, and force the Conservatives to pivot over to do the same.
The last thing I want is for them to abjectly fail to and to face an ultra-radical insurgent left-wing party in the offing that threatens to blow up everyone's assets (homes/pensions) and the economic foundations of the country.
Why? We had that in 2019 and it produced a Tory landslide.
Even if Labour fails to get most 25 to 40 year olds on the property ladder, most over 40s still own property and voted Conservative in 2019 to keep out Corbyn.
In any case the cycle means it is more likely the Conservatives move to the populist nationalist right in opposition if Sunak leads the Tories to defeat given Labour under Starmer will be a relatively centrist government than the reverse.
Labour and the left have had their populist fun under Corbyn, Abbott and McConnell now it is rightwingers turn with Badenoch, Braverman and Rees Mogg
The Tories have had their populist 'fun' under Johnson and Truss, and look what a fecking disaster that turned out to be.
The next Tory move will be to the centre, or to oblivion - their choice.
Nope, Johnson was centrist other than on Brexit, Truss was a libertarian. Sunak and Cameron centrist.
No, if we lose Tories will want a full redmeat right wing, social conservative, anti Woke, tough on immigration Brexiteer in charge, ultimately a Badenoch, Braverman or Rees Mogg with maybe Steve Barclay the bridge to them.
Just as Labour in opposition went for the left of centrist Blair and Brown Ed Miliband as the bridge to the full fat socialist, anti war, anti Israel Corbyn
If Labour do win I really do hope they deliver for young people, and force the Conservatives to pivot over to do the same.
The last thing I want is for them to abjectly fail to and to face an ultra-radical insurgent left-wing party in the offing that threatens to blow up everyone's assets (homes/pensions) and the economic foundations of the country.
Why? We had that in 2019 and it produced a Tory landslide.
Even if Labour fails to get most 25 to 40 year olds on the property ladder, most over 40s still own property and voted Conservative in 2019 to keep out Corbyn.
In any case the cycle means it is more likely the Conservatives move to the populist nationalist right in opposition if Sunak leads the Tories to defeat given Labour under Starmer will be a relatively centrist government than the reverse.
Labour and the left have had their populist fun under Corbyn, Abbott and McConnell now it is rightwingers turn with Badenoch, Braverman and Rees Mogg
The Tories have had their populist 'fun' under Johnson and Truss, and look what a fecking disaster that turned out to be.
The next Tory move will be to the centre, or to oblivion - their choice.
Nope, Johnson was centrist other than on Brexit, Truss was a libertarian. Sunak and Cameron centrist.
No, if we lose Tories will want a full redmeat right wing, social conservative, anti Woke, tough on immigration Brexiteer in charge, ultimately a Badenoch, Braverman or Rees Mogg with maybe Steve Barclay the bridge to them.
Just as Labour in opposition went for the left of centrist Blair and Brown Ed Miliband as the bridge to the full fat socialist, anti war, anti Israel Corbyn
Hang on a minute — we were able, as a country, to construct Nightingale Hospitals in about 5 minutes (even though they were hardly used). If we could do that, why can't we install more beds in hospitals?
Duh! More beds achieve nothing; more staff is what is needed. (Snip)
There appears to be a fundamental problem with the NHS: increasing amounts of money get thrown at it, and the service does not improve much, or even gets worse. Why? It cannot just be 'staffing': there must be reasons why this is happening, why the resources appear to be just being swallowed up. And unless those reasons are addressed, throwing more money at it is wasted.
I've seen lots of proposed 'reasons' for this failure (e.g. GP failures leading to people going straight to A&E, or the after-effects of Covid), but it'd be good to see a sane debate over this. Only then can we start to fix it.
And no, more money is not an automatic cure-all for its issues. It is swallowing up 12% of GDP atm.
If Labour do win I really do hope they deliver for young people, and force the Conservatives to pivot over to do the same.
The last thing I want is for them to abjectly fail to and to face an ultra-radical insurgent left-wing party in the offing that threatens to blow up everyone's assets (homes/pensions) and the economic foundations of the country.
Why? We had that in 2019 and it produced a Tory landslide.
Even if Labour fails to get most 25 to 40 year olds on the property ladder, most over 40s still own property and voted Conservative in 2019 to keep out Corbyn.
In any case the cycle means it is more likely the Conservatives move to the populist nationalist right in opposition if Sunak leads the Tories to defeat given Labour under Starmer will be a relatively centrist government than the reverse.
Labour and the left have had their populist fun under Corbyn, Abbott and McConnell now it is rightwingers turn with Badenoch, Braverman and Rees Mogg
The Tories have had their populist 'fun' under Johnson and Truss, and look what a fecking disaster that turned out to be.
The next Tory move will be to the centre, or to oblivion - their choice.
Nope, Johnson was centrist other than on Brexit, Truss was a libertarian. Sunak and Cameron centrist.
No, if we lose Tories will want a full redmeat right wing, social conservative, anti Woke, tough on immigration Brexiteer in charge, ultimately a Badenoch, Braverman or Rees Mogg with maybe Steve Barclay the bridge to them.
Just as Labour in opposition went for the left of centrist Blair and Brown Ed Miliband as the bridge to the full fat socialist, anti war, anti Israel Corbyn
Tory oblivion it is then. Suits me.
Nope, 31-32% voted for the populist right even in 2001 and 2005 under Hague, IDS and Howard v Blair's centrist New Labour government. Even now the Conservative plus RefUK score matches that.
If Labour muck up the economy in government as New Labour avoided doing until after 2008 then that could go higher still
If Labour do win I really do hope they deliver for young people, and force the Conservatives to pivot over to do the same.
The last thing I want is for them to abjectly fail to and to face an ultra-radical insurgent left-wing party in the offing that threatens to blow up everyone's assets (homes/pensions) and the economic foundations of the country.
Why? We had that in 2019 and it produced a Tory landslide.
Even if Labour fails to get most 25 to 40 year olds on the property ladder, most over 40s still own property and voted Conservative in 2019 to keep out Corbyn.
In any case the cycle means it is more likely the Conservatives move to the populist nationalist right in opposition if Sunak leads the Tories to defeat given Labour under Starmer will be a relatively centrist government than the reverse.
Labour and the left have had their populist fun under Corbyn, Abbott and McConnell now it is rightwingers turn with Badenoch, Braverman and Rees Mogg
The Tories have had their populist 'fun' under Johnson and Truss, and look what a fecking disaster that turned out to be.
The next Tory move will be to the centre, or to oblivion - their choice.
Nope, Johnson was centrist other than on Brexit, Truss was a libertarian. Sunak and Cameron centrist.
No, if we lose Tories will want a full redmeat right wing, social conservative, anti Woke, tough on immigration Brexiteer in charge, ultimately a Badenoch, Braverman or Rees Mogg with maybe Steve Barclay the bridge to them.
Just as Labour in opposition went for the left of centrist Blair and Brown Ed Miliband as the bridge to the full fat socialist, anti war, anti Israel Corbyn
Tory oblivion it is then. Suits me.
These days parties have the whole 2-axis political compass to negotiate. It’s economic and social left v right.
If things go the way regional polls suggest then their diagnosis will be that they lost the red wall and need to get it back. That means economically centrist and socially authoritarian. Kemi as leader (unless they keep Sunak. That might actually be a better option but it seems never to happen these days, not since Kinnock 1987).
The thing that worries me most is a loss of the long term consensus on the environment and climate change. But if they run focus groups then I think they’ll realise there’s no appetite for climate scepticism or environmental deregulation in the UK.
If Labour do win I really do hope they deliver for young people, and force the Conservatives to pivot over to do the same.
The last thing I want is for them to abjectly fail to and to face an ultra-radical insurgent left-wing party in the offing that threatens to blow up everyone's assets (homes/pensions) and the economic foundations of the country.
You're on a hiding to nothing with that one, I fear. I shall be thrilled to be proven wrong, BUT... the only way to fund the state's colossal spending and debt servicing commitments without completely taxing earned incomes into the ground is to go after assets - that means, first and foremost, substantial increases in taxation of property wealth and of inheritances. Which most likely ain't happening; we need only look at the example of Theresa May's dementia tax to see what happens when ministers try to solve funding problems by going after the gargantuan store of wealth that's sunk into bricks and mortar.
Monied OAPs and their expectant heirs are an enormous constituency that also shows a greater tendency to bother to vote than the young. In all likelihood, Labour will kneel and suck pensioner dick just like the Tories, which means property gets left well alone, the triple lock remains in place to boot, and workers are bled dry to pay for everything. It's called a gerontocracy, and it's why this country is completely and irretrievably fucked.
If you're young and ambitious, your best option is to emigrate as soon as possible.
It isn't really a gerontocracy, because the elderly overwhelmingly vote Conservative. They are highly vulnerable to a Labour government. So politically, there is little disadvantage for Labour to go in and increase the tax rates of wealthy elderly pensioners. There are other things that they could do as well... for instance set out a programme of housebuilding in the south east where people don't vote labour. Just grant outline planning permission by an act of Parliament to build a million homes around Berkshire, Essex etc. I don't understand why they focus instead on things like upping private school fees. Have they not looked in to what social class their voters overwhelmingly are? The biggest problem for the Labour party is that they don't really understand their own voters; they are in this delusional mindset where they are appealing to some mythical type of 'our people', the disadvantaged, the down and out, the abused, the 'working class'. They put too much emotional weight on appealing to this category of voter. But in fact... many labour voters are of working age, are more affluent and aspirational etc.... most of the working age people on here have confessed they are going to vote labour because they are so irritated by the tory gerontocracy. Labour need to start to switch the tax breaks for wealthy pensioners, and introduce them to working people instead; sort out early years childcare, etc. I don't think the Labour party really understand aspiration, they haven't quite ditched the "democratic socialism" baggage left over from the Corbyn era. They need another Blair, it may well be another 6 years until they get there.
I'm pleased to see Foakes back, but you have to wonder if England are a bowler light. Pakistan are all over them like a cheap suit at the moment.
I'm a lot more excited by the Battle of Brisbane. No. 1 and No. 2 test teams in the world already locked in a duel on what started out as an 'interesting' pitch. Should be a great series.
Also lovely to see a packed Gabba. The crowds in Pakistan have been bitterly disappointing.
They were pretty good for the first test. Less so for the last two.
I suspect if Pakistan were still in the series there would be more in today.
The crowds are still dismal. It’s a rare home Test against England. It’s sunny
Test cricket is over (even as England manfully strive to recreate it). I regret that, but we have to face it
eg Just now I tuned in and thought Wait, it’s a Test, I’ll come back when it’s more interesting
If it was a T20 game it would have immediately captured me. Because T20 is always interesting and tense
Have you watched England’s last nine Test Matches? Far more interesting, exciting, and tense than T20 could ever be. Tension means more when I can build.
I’ve watched them all and they’ve been brilliant. I love what Stokes and England are doing with Test cricket
But I’m afraid it feels like a last hurrah. I try to put myself in the position of a 17 or 27 year old, coming to the sport for the first time. From that perspective Test cricket is bewilderingly dull and slow - even with Stokes. An emotionally satisfying result is 3-5 days away, in an age of limited attention spans
The future of the sport is in South Asia and looking at these Test crowds the future is T20
Test cricket is safe according to the oracle:
"Test cricket is the highest and most traditional form of cricket, and it has a long and rich history dating back to the late 19th century. It is considered the ultimate test of a cricketer's skills and endurance, and it is played by the top international teams around the world. While the popularity of other forms of cricket, such as Twenty20 (T20), has increased in recent years, Test cricket remains an important and integral part of the sport.
There are many factors that suggest that Test cricket has a bright future. One of the main reasons is that it continues to attract a large and passionate fan base around the world, with many people enjoying the longer format of the game and the opportunity to see their favorite players and teams compete in a more challenging and nuanced environment. In addition, Test cricket is an important part of the cricketing calendar for many countries, and it is often used as a platform for developing the skills and talents of young cricketers.
However, it is also true that Test cricket faces some challenges in the modern era. The rise of T20 cricket has led to a proliferation of shorter, more fast-paced forms of the game, which have attracted younger audiences and bigger sponsorships. This has led to concerns about the future of Test cricket, with some suggesting that it may struggle to compete for attention and resources.
Overall, while Test cricket may face some challenges in the modern era, it remains an important and beloved part of the sport, and it is likely to continue to be enjoyed by fans and players around the world for many years to come."
So long as Leon didn’t write that, the future is safe.
Hang on a minute — we were able, as a country, to construct Nightingale Hospitals in about 5 minutes (even though they were hardly used). If we could do that, why can't we install more beds in hospitals?
Duh! More beds achieve nothing; more staff is what is needed. (Snip)
There appears to be a fundamental problem with the NHS: increasing amounts of money get thrown at it, and the service does not improve much, or even gets worse. Why? It cannot just be 'staffing': there must be reasons why this is happening, why the resources appear to be just being swallowed up. And unless those reasons are addressed, throwing more money at it is wasted.
I've seen lots of proposed 'reasons' for this failure (e.g. GP failures leading to people going straight to A&E, or the after-effects of Covid), but it'd be good to see a sane debate over this. Only then can we start to fix it.
And no, more money is not an automatic cure-all for its issues. It is swallowing up 12% of GDP atm.
That prompts several thoughts:
The 12% (11.9%) is in part due to covid of course (similarly in Germany (12.8 %) and France (12.2 %)).
Healthcare everywhere is a victim of its own success of course - people live longer and require more care.
Part of me thinks 'what is more important than health'? I'd rather remain healthy than have a low-taxed State Pension, I don't really need (I get that many do need it). I'd rather have good health care than a new car or a foreign holiday.
Also, worth remembering that the 12% of GDP 'swallowed' by healthcare is not lost but largely recycled through wages back into the economy.
None of which is to say that simply pumping more money in is the right solution.
Given that we are still going to be entering into long term contracts with the US and Norway, it seems like this is just the blob taking over again - obviously didn't like the idea of a task force doing an actual good job.
Not Norway, only the US and that deal is pretty good value for money. The Norway deal was going to lock in current prices for 5 years. Stupid.
The article says this:
'The government has also acknowledged in recent months that it has been seeking long-term deals with foreign states understood to include Norway and Qatar - sparking concerns that Britain would pay a 'security premium' in exchange for guaranteed supplies.'
If Labour do win I really do hope they deliver for young people, and force the Conservatives to pivot over to do the same.
The last thing I want is for them to abjectly fail to and to face an ultra-radical insurgent left-wing party in the offing that threatens to blow up everyone's assets (homes/pensions) and the economic foundations of the country.
Why? We had that in 2019 and it produced a Tory landslide.
Even if Labour fails to get most 25 to 40 year olds on the property ladder, most over 40s still own property and voted Conservative in 2019 to keep out Corbyn.
In any case the cycle means it is more likely the Conservatives move to the populist nationalist right in opposition if Sunak leads the Tories to defeat given Labour under Starmer will be a relatively centrist government than the reverse.
Labour and the left have had their populist fun under Corbyn, Abbott and McConnell now it is rightwingers turn with Badenoch, Braverman and Rees Mogg
The Tories have had their populist 'fun' under Johnson and Truss, and look what a fecking disaster that turned out to be.
The next Tory move will be to the centre, or to oblivion - their choice.
Nope, Johnson was centrist other than on Brexit, Truss was a libertarian. Sunak and Cameron centrist.
No, if we lose Tories will want a full redmeat right wing, social conservative, anti Woke, tough on immigration Brexiteer in charge, ultimately a Badenoch, Braverman or Rees Mogg with maybe Steve Barclay the bridge to them.
Just as Labour in opposition went for the left of centrist Blair and Brown Ed Miliband as the bridge to the full fat socialist, anti war, anti Israel Corbyn
Tory oblivion it is then. Suits me.
These days parties have the whole 2-axis political compass to negotiate. It’s economic and social left v right.
If things go the way regional polls suggest then their diagnosis will be that they lost the red wall and need to get it back. That means economically centrist and socially authoritarian. Kemi as leader (unless they keep Sunak. That might actually be a better option but it seems never to happen these days, not since Kinnock 1987).
The thing that worries me most is a loss of the long term consensus on the environment and climate change. But if they run focus groups then I think they’ll realise there’s no appetite for climate scepticism or environmental deregulation in the UK.
Yes, agreed in my view Rishi will lose the redwall but hold most of the bluewall.
So the party will shift to a leader who is populist enough to win the former again even if it risks the latter which the more cerebral and fiscally conservative Sunak holds
I had dinner with a friend yesterday who is a retired civil servant and on his pension. He worked for nearly 50 years; I would guess that he is getting about 50k per year in his various pensions, so he is paying about 15% income tax and no National Insurance.
He said that he has a great deal, he expects that the chancellor is hoping he will vote conservative - but he won't. He will be voting labour. However, his son is a doctor and is hoping to send his children to private school; I think the prospective rise in school fees is a bit more of a concern.
I think that, from a political point of view, Labour would be much better off taxing wealthy pensioners; rather than aspirational parents sending their children to private school. Wealthy pensioners already vote conservative, those who don't are unlikely to be bothered by additional taxes as long as they are seen to be fair. I don't think there is a big market for this type of 'class war' politics.
Another clown who wants to grift people who worked all their lives for some lazy greedy young people. Many many more pensioners are poor or have nothing more than their house and pension. Get out and earn your own money you greedy git.
You keep reflexively replying in these terms but you aren't engaging with the issue. No one suggests pensioners on low to moderate incomes should be paying more tax, it is those on large incomes where the problem arises - there is a massive disparity between the combined tax (income tax and NI) you pay as a pensioner and that which you pay whilst in work; as acknowledged by my friend yesterday.
Actually, if Starmer really wanted a policy that would solve a great many problems and injustices, he should look at rebuilding the whole tax system from first principles. Because the current system is so farcically incompetent that even Monty Python would reject it as implausibly silly. It's so embarrassingly easy to evade tax right now if you have even a half-decent accountant that it's not surprising it's difficult to find extra ways of raising revenue. Yet at the same time, trying to manage your tax affairs yourself is a quick way to get into trouble and be fined, not helped by the poor quality of the government's online systems and the inadequacy of their record keeping.
Meanwhile, the Tories are foolishly putting forward proposals to make it much more complex and expensive.
I was talking to this with a friend who is a partner in one of the big accounting firms. The root of the problem is that the tax system has just been made too complicated. Also, too much is subject to legal interpretation where there is no case law. It has got to the point where some major companies circumvent accountants entirely and just go straight to tax barristers to get advice. It is not just the tax system where this problem has arisen, there are other areas as well like the planning system which have gone down the same road.
If you go to other countries then you find that there are just simple rules that everyone has to follow, no one has a personal accountant; people just deal with the tax office directly.
You should hear my accountant on the subject!
As for the Tories' future plans, the politest thing he will say about the proposal for everyone to do quarterly reporting is that it's 'unworkable madness.'
Tax law is written by tax lawyers. Who then tell us that all simplification is evil madness.
When several former fucked up countries (several former East Bloc counties included), flattened tax systems to make them simple and clear, I recall articles forecast Armageddon.
Afterwards the story changed - “obviously it can work in a completely destroyed economy. But an advanced economy needs a complex tax system….”
Actually most people in HMRC and the wider tax world would love some tax simplification. The trouble is more an editorial one. It’s easier to design a simple tax system from nothing than unravel an existing complex one. Like it’s easier to write a 500 word article from scratch than try to edit down a 2,000 word one because you’re always worried about “killing your darlings”.
The other issue with tax simplification is political, because it usually involves:
- rationalising bandings and thresholds, where there will always be noisy losers - removing special reliefs and incentives, which someone will always claim will destroy an industry - reducing or increasing the overall take: gard to make it tax neutral
It's certainly doable but the trouble is government and opposition are now terrified of radical tax reform after the Truss debacle.
I remember when Osborne destroyed the interesting investment in rubbish British films - they were being used as a
Hang on a minute — we were able, as a country, to construct Nightingale Hospitals in about 5 minutes (even though they were hardly used). If we could do that, why can't we install more beds in hospitals?
Duh! More beds achieve nothing; more staff is what is needed. (Snip)
There appears to be a fundamental problem with the NHS: increasing amounts of money get thrown at it, and the service does not improve much, or even gets worse. Why? It cannot just be 'staffing': there must be reasons why this is happening, why the resources appear to be just being swallowed up. And unless those reasons are addressed, throwing more money at it is wasted.
I've seen lots of proposed 'reasons' for this failure (e.g. GP failures leading to people going straight to A&E, or the after-effects of Covid), but it'd be good to see a sane debate over this. Only then can we start to fix it.
And no, more money is not an automatic cure-all for its issues. It is swallowing up 12% of GDP atm.
- Obsolete management structures and practises - Obsolete employment structures - Poor delivery on productivity investment - cliques and tongs everywhere
The last is why change is so hard. A friend doing a masters in OR made a study of a hospital - specifically the NMR stuff.
They attempted to have him thrown out of the university - his sin was to have written a cogently written thesis on how to improve both patient experience and through out. Based on using the same machines in other countries.
Hang on a minute — we were able, as a country, to construct Nightingale Hospitals in about 5 minutes (even though they were hardly used). If we could do that, why can't we install more beds in hospitals?
We're cornering the market on Diversity and Lived Experience officers in healthcare though, each of which costs as much as several nurses and God knows how many beds.
Patients may have to sleep on floors, but at least black patients are as likely to find themselves there as white ones.
If Labour do win I really do hope they deliver for young people, and force the Conservatives to pivot over to do the same.
The last thing I want is for them to abjectly fail to and to face an ultra-radical insurgent left-wing party in the offing that threatens to blow up everyone's assets (homes/pensions) and the economic foundations of the country.
Why? We had that in 2019 and it produced a Tory landslide.
Even if Labour fails to get most 25 to 40 year olds on the property ladder, most over 40s still own property and voted Conservative in 2019 to keep out Corbyn.
In any case the cycle means it is more likely the Conservatives move to the populist nationalist right in opposition if Sunak leads the Tories to defeat given Labour under Starmer will be a relatively centrist government than the reverse.
Labour and the left have had their populist fun under Corbyn, Abbott and McConnell now it is rightwingers turn with Badenoch, Braverman and Rees Mogg
The Tories have had their populist 'fun' under Johnson and Truss, and look what a fecking disaster that turned out to be.
The next Tory move will be to the centre, or to oblivion - their choice.
Nope, Johnson was centrist other than on Brexit, Truss was a libertarian. Sunak and Cameron centrist.
No, if we lose Tories will want a full redmeat right wing, social conservative, anti Woke, tough on immigration Brexiteer in charge, ultimately a Badenoch, Braverman or Rees Mogg with maybe Steve Barclay the bridge to them.
Just as Labour in opposition went for the left of centrist Blair and Brown Ed Miliband as the bridge to the full fat socialist, anti war, anti Israel Corbyn
Tory oblivion it is then. Suits me.
These days parties have the whole 2-axis political compass to negotiate. It’s economic and social left v right.
If things go the way regional polls suggest then their diagnosis will be that they lost the red wall and need to get it back. That means economically centrist and socially authoritarian. Kemi as leader (unless they keep Sunak. That might actually be a better option but it seems never to happen these days, not since Kinnock 1987).
The thing that worries me most is a loss of the long term consensus on the environment and climate change. But if they run focus groups then I think they’ll realise there’s no appetite for climate scepticism or environmental deregulation in the UK.
Yes, agreed in my view Rishi will lose the redwall but hold most of the bluewall.
So the party will shift to a leader who is populist enough to win the former again even if it risks the latter which the more cerebral and fiscally conservative Sunak holds
Meaning in the following election that if Labour do OK, but not quite so well as they’d like, the Lib Dem vote share will start rising and after 4 more years of demographic change the blue wall will collapse.
That’s the long term trend assuming we follow the US experience.
I don’t think he’ll do that well in the South this time either though. Just not as badly as Boris would have done.
I'm pleased to see Foakes back, but you have to wonder if England are a bowler light. Pakistan are all over them like a cheap suit at the moment.
I'm a lot more excited by the Battle of Brisbane. No. 1 and No. 2 test teams in the world already locked in a duel on what started out as an 'interesting' pitch. Should be a great series.
Also lovely to see a packed Gabba. The crowds in Pakistan have been bitterly disappointing.
They were pretty good for the first test. Less so for the last two.
I suspect if Pakistan were still in the series there would be more in today.
The crowds are still dismal. It’s a rare home Test against England. It’s sunny
Test cricket is over (even as England manfully strive to recreate it). I regret that, but we have to face it
eg Just now I tuned in and thought Wait, it’s a Test, I’ll come back when it’s more interesting
If it was a T20 game it would have immediately captured me. Because T20 is always interesting and tense
Have you watched England’s last nine Test Matches? Far more interesting, exciting, and tense than T20 could ever be. Tension means more when I can build.
I’ve watched them all and they’ve been brilliant. I love what Stokes and England are doing with Test cricket
But I’m afraid it feels like a last hurrah. I try to put myself in the position of a 17 or 27 year old, coming to the sport for the first time. From that perspective Test cricket is bewilderingly dull and slow - even with Stokes. An emotionally satisfying result is 3-5 days away, in an age of limited attention spans
The future of the sport is in South Asia and looking at these Test crowds the future is T20
Test cricket is safe according to the oracle:
"Test cricket is the highest and most traditional form of cricket, and it has a long and rich history dating back to the late 19th century. It is considered the ultimate test of a cricketer's skills and endurance, and it is played by the top international teams around the world. While the popularity of other forms of cricket, such as Twenty20 (T20), has increased in recent years, Test cricket remains an important and integral part of the sport.
There are many factors that suggest that Test cricket has a bright future. One of the main reasons is that it continues to attract a large and passionate fan base around the world, with many people enjoying the longer format of the game and the opportunity to see their favorite players and teams compete in a more challenging and nuanced environment. In addition, Test cricket is an important part of the cricketing calendar for many countries, and it is often used as a platform for developing the skills and talents of young cricketers.
However, it is also true that Test cricket faces some challenges in the modern era. The rise of T20 cricket has led to a proliferation of shorter, more fast-paced forms of the game, which have attracted younger audiences and bigger sponsorships. This has led to concerns about the future of Test cricket, with some suggesting that it may struggle to compete for attention and resources.
Overall, while Test cricket may face some challenges in the modern era, it remains an important and beloved part of the sport, and it is likely to continue to be enjoyed by fans and players around the world for many years to come."
So long as Leon didn’t write that, the future is safe.
Heehee. I now have an image of Leon as Professor Marvel behind the ChatGPT curtain busily typing all the answers
I'm pleased to see Foakes back, but you have to wonder if England are a bowler light. Pakistan are all over them like a cheap suit at the moment.
I'm a lot more excited by the Battle of Brisbane. No. 1 and No. 2 test teams in the world already locked in a duel on what started out as an 'interesting' pitch. Should be a great series.
Also lovely to see a packed Gabba. The crowds in Pakistan have been bitterly disappointing.
They were pretty good for the first test. Less so for the last two.
I suspect if Pakistan were still in the series there would be more in today.
The crowds are still dismal. It’s a rare home Test against England. It’s sunny
Test cricket is over (even as England manfully strive to recreate it). I regret that, but we have to face it
eg Just now I tuned in and thought Wait, it’s a Test, I’ll come back when it’s more interesting
If it was a T20 game it would have immediately captured me. Because T20 is always interesting and tense
Have you watched England’s last nine Test Matches? Far more interesting, exciting, and tense than T20 could ever be. Tension means more when I can build.
I’ve watched them all and they’ve been brilliant. I love what Stokes and England are doing with Test cricket
But I’m afraid it feels like a last hurrah. I try to put myself in the position of a 17 or 27 year old, coming to the sport for the first time. From that perspective Test cricket is bewilderingly dull and slow - even with Stokes. An emotionally satisfying result is 3-5 days away, in an age of limited attention spans
The future of the sport is in South Asia and looking at these Test crowds the future is T20
Test cricket is safe according to the oracle:
"Test cricket is the highest and most traditional form of cricket, and it has a long and rich history dating back to the late 19th century. It is considered the ultimate test of a cricketer's skills and endurance, and it is played by the top international teams around the world. While the popularity of other forms of cricket, such as Twenty20 (T20), has increased in recent years, Test cricket remains an important and integral part of the sport.
There are many factors that suggest that Test cricket has a bright future. One of the main reasons is that it continues to attract a large and passionate fan base around the world, with many people enjoying the longer format of the game and the opportunity to see their favorite players and teams compete in a more challenging and nuanced environment. In addition, Test cricket is an important part of the cricketing calendar for many countries, and it is often used as a platform for developing the skills and talents of young cricketers.
However, it is also true that Test cricket faces some challenges in the modern era. The rise of T20 cricket has led to a proliferation of shorter, more fast-paced forms of the game, which have attracted younger audiences and bigger sponsorships. This has led to concerns about the future of Test cricket, with some suggesting that it may struggle to compete for attention and resources.
Overall, while Test cricket may face some challenges in the modern era, it remains an important and beloved part of the sport, and it is likely to continue to be enjoyed by fans and players around the world for many years to come."
So long as Leon didn’t write that, the future is safe.
Heehee. I now have an image of Leon as Professor Marvel behind the ChatGPT curtain busily typing all the answers
Hang on a minute — we were able, as a country, to construct Nightingale Hospitals in about 5 minutes (even though they were hardly used). If we could do that, why can't we install more beds in hospitals?
We're cornering the market on Diversity and Lived Experience officers in healthcare though, each of which costs as much as several nurses and God knows how many beds.
Patients may have to sleep on floors, but at least black patients are as likely to find themselves there as white ones.
So the state of the NHS is all down to those damned 'wokists' again, presumably?
Nothing to do with the government of the past 12.5 years. Oh no.
I wonder how much is spent on Diversity and Lived Experience officers versus how much was given out to Tory cronies in fake PPE contracts?
Medical imaging is an interesting area. The costs and ease of use of ultrasound are dropping sharply, as the quality of imaging increases
That and combining better resolution with image processing. Which can mean better resolution, 3D imaging, motion imaging, les la requirement for the patient to be perfectly still, less need for contrast dye stuff etc etc
Which can mean less staff to man the machines and faster throughput, since it is easier to get a good scan
Medical imaging is an interesting area. The costs and ease of use of ultrasound are dropping sharply, as the quality of imaging increases
That and combining better resolution with image processing. Which can mean better resolution, 3D imaging, motion imaging, les la requirement for the patient to be perfectly still, less need for contrast dye stuff etc etc
Which can mean less staff to man the machines and faster throughput, since it is easier to get a good scan
It could be, but if any failure leads to legal action, the path of least resistance politically is to keep hiring people.
If Labour do win I really do hope they deliver for young people, and force the Conservatives to pivot over to do the same.
The last thing I want is for them to abjectly fail to and to face an ultra-radical insurgent left-wing party in the offing that threatens to blow up everyone's assets (homes/pensions) and the economic foundations of the country.
Why? We had that in 2019 and it produced a Tory landslide.
Even if Labour fails to get most 25 to 40 year olds on the property ladder, most over 40s still own property and voted Conservative in 2019 to keep out Corbyn.
In any case the cycle means it is more likely the Conservatives move to the populist nationalist right in opposition if Sunak leads the Tories to defeat given Labour under Starmer will be a relatively centrist government than the reverse.
Labour and the left have had their populist fun under Corbyn, Abbott and McConnell now it is rightwingers turn with Badenoch, Braverman and Rees Mogg
The Tories have had their populist 'fun' under Johnson and Truss, and look what a fecking disaster that turned out to be.
The next Tory move will be to the centre, or to oblivion - their choice.
Nope, Johnson was centrist other than on Brexit, Truss was a libertarian. Sunak and Cameron centrist.
No, if we lose Tories will want a full redmeat right wing, social conservative, anti Woke, tough on immigration Brexiteer in charge, ultimately a Badenoch, Braverman or Rees Mogg with maybe Steve Barclay the bridge to them.
Just as Labour in opposition went for the left of centrist Blair and Brown Ed Miliband as the bridge to the full fat socialist, anti war, anti Israel Corbyn
Tory oblivion it is then. Suits me.
These days parties have the whole 2-axis political compass to negotiate. It’s economic and social left v right.
If things go the way regional polls suggest then their diagnosis will be that they lost the red wall and need to get it back. That means economically centrist and socially authoritarian. Kemi as leader (unless they keep Sunak. That might actually be a better option but it seems never to happen these days, not since Kinnock 1987).
The thing that worries me most is a loss of the long term consensus on the environment and climate change. But if they run focus groups then I think they’ll realise there’s no appetite for climate scepticism or environmental deregulation in the UK.
Yes, agreed in my view Rishi will lose the redwall but hold most of the bluewall.
So the party will shift to a leader who is populist enough to win the former again even if it risks the latter which the more cerebral and fiscally conservative Sunak holds
Meaning in the following election that if Labour do OK, but not quite so well as they’d like, the Lib Dem vote share will start rising and after 4 more years of demographic change the blue wall will collapse.
That’s the long term trend assuming we follow the US experience.
I don’t think he’ll do that well in the South this time either though. Just not as badly as Boris would have done.
Yes wealthy Orange County California or New Hampshire now lean Democrat having been safe Republican before
Or Australia earlier this year with the Liberals losing wealthy seats around Sydney and Melbourne to the Independents or indeed France where Macron and his party won seats in the wealthiest parts of Paris that had traditionally been Les Republicains and centre right strongholds.
The white working class though shifted more to the right, to Trump, the coalition in Australia eg 'Howard's battlers' and to Boris here and Le Pen in France
Yep - esp since he's no 'never right if he can help it' Meeksadamus.
I think he is wrong on inflation. It will be falling fairly soon, if it isn’t already. The huge shocks of the war etc will be dropping out of the 12 month cycle.
Yes, I'd hope so. V good article though. Alastair does have a nice style. And I think I'll definitely be going with the suggested SKS song:
There's a Starmer, waiting in the wings He'd like to be our PM, lots of expertise he brings There's a Starmer, waiting in the wings He's told us not to panic cos he knows it takes a while, he told us Let the Tories lose it, Let the Tories lose it, Let all the Tories lose it
... at this point there's a great guitar riff and he drapes his arm languidly around David Lammy
Medical imaging is an interesting area. The costs and ease of use of ultrasound are dropping sharply, as the quality of imaging increases
That and combining better resolution with image processing. Which can mean better resolution, 3D imaging, motion imaging, les la requirement for the patient to be perfectly still, less need for contrast dye stuff etc etc
Which can mean less staff to man the machines and faster throughput, since it is easier to get a good scan
It could be, but if any failure leads to legal action, the path of least resistance politically is to keep hiring people.
“The manufacturer of the machine recommends as best practise X and it is used thus in hospitals in 48 countries.”
Medical imaging is an interesting area. The costs and ease of use of ultrasound are dropping sharply, as the quality of imaging increases
That and combining better resolution with image processing. Which can mean better resolution, 3D imaging, motion imaging, les la requirement for the patient to be perfectly still, less need for contrast dye stuff etc etc
Which can mean less staff to man the machines and faster throughput, since it is easier to get a good scan
Yes, there’s a whole host of improvements happening - from handheld pocketable devices in primary healthcare, which are actually useful (and a lot cheaper both to purchase and to deploy), to very high resolution 3D scanning.
And NMR will steadily improve both with better image processing, and the new generation of magnets developed for the fusion programs.
Hang on a minute — we were able, as a country, to construct Nightingale Hospitals in about 5 minutes (even though they were hardly used). If we could do that, why can't we install more beds in hospitals?
Duh! More beds achieve nothing; more staff is what is needed. (Snip)
There appears to be a fundamental problem with the NHS: increasing amounts of money get thrown at it, and the service does not improve much, or even gets worse. Why? It cannot just be 'staffing': there must be reasons why this is happening, why the resources appear to be just being swallowed up. And unless those reasons are addressed, throwing more money at it is wasted.
I've seen lots of proposed 'reasons' for this failure (e.g. GP failures leading to people going straight to A&E, or the after-effects of Covid), but it'd be good to see a sane debate over this. Only then can we start to fix it.
And no, more money is not an automatic cure-all for its issues. It is swallowing up 12% of GDP atm.
That prompts several thoughts:
The 12% (11.9%) is in part due to covid of course (similarly in Germany (12.8 %) and France (12.2 %)).
Healthcare everywhere is a victim of its own success of course - people live longer and require more care.
Part of me thinks 'what is more important than health'? I'd rather remain healthy than have a low-taxed State Pension, I don't really need (I get that many do need it). I'd rather have good health care than a new car or a foreign holiday.
Also, worth remembering that the 12% of GDP 'swallowed' by healthcare is not lost but largely recycled through wages back into the economy.
None of which is to say that simply pumping more money in is the right solution.
No one seems to have a good solution though.
In part it is the same reason why state pensions spend keeps going up: the ratio of pensioners to workers is at an all-time high, and rising. So a lot of the apparent growth in taxes and government spend is just because people work for relatively less of their lives, so they have to "save" relatively more by paying in to the system. And one of the biggest spend items for older people is the medical sector.
(There were half as many over-75s in the early 90s than today, and despite the immigration rhetoric, there were actually MORE young adults back then, who obviously didn't use NHS services as much.)
Medical imaging is an interesting area. The costs and ease of use of ultrasound are dropping sharply, as the quality of imaging increases
That and combining better resolution with image processing. Which can mean better resolution, 3D imaging, motion imaging, les la requirement for the patient to be perfectly still, less need for contrast dye stuff etc etc
Which can mean less staff to man the machines and faster throughput, since it is easier to get a good scan
It could be, but if any failure leads to legal action, the path of least resistance politically is to keep hiring people.
“The manufacturer of the machine recommends as best practise X and it is used thus in hospitals in 48 countries.”
I'd sympathise with that. But British justice might not.
"Woke" arguments are , to a large extent, based upon ad hominems. The strength of an argument depends upon who is making it, and who is opposing it, rather than its logic, accuracy, and merits.
Interesting story on RSV in Sweden. There’s been a large rise worldwide this winter, with medics theorising it’s due to ‘immunity debt’ as we’ve spent a lot of the last two years isolating, so kids haven’t had the chance to catch it and develop immunity. Sweden, of course, didn’t lock down at all, and is experiencing much the same.
UK consumer confidence is currently lower than it was in the 2008 crisis.
Are you surprised ? We’re in a much worse state financially. (Not even counting Brexit.)
Oh no, 2008/09 was far more frightening. There was a real risk of the banking system freezing up completely (as it did in some rich countries). The drop in output was far more severe than anything we'll experience next year.
One can see the pathway out of trouble - victory in Ukraine, and a drop in energy prices. That pathway was not at all clear in the winter of 2008/09.
Hang on a minute — we were able, as a country, to construct Nightingale Hospitals in about 5 minutes (even though they were hardly used). If we could do that, why can't we install more beds in hospitals?
Duh! More beds achieve nothing; more staff is what is needed. (Snip)
There appears to be a fundamental problem with the NHS: increasing amounts of money get thrown at it, and the service does not improve much, or even gets worse. Why? It cannot just be 'staffing': there must be reasons why this is happening, why the resources appear to be just being swallowed up. And unless those reasons are addressed, throwing more money at it is wasted.
I've seen lots of proposed 'reasons' for this failure (e.g. GP failures leading to people going straight to A&E, or the after-effects of Covid), but it'd be good to see a sane debate over this. Only then can we start to fix it.
And no, more money is not an automatic cure-all for its issues. It is swallowing up 12% of GDP atm.
That prompts several thoughts:
The 12% (11.9%) is in part due to covid of course (similarly in Germany (12.8 %) and France (12.2 %)).
Healthcare everywhere is a victim of its own success of course - people live longer and require more care.
Part of me thinks 'what is more important than health'? I'd rather remain healthy than have a low-taxed State Pension, I don't really need (I get that many do need it). I'd rather have good health care than a new car or a foreign holiday.
Also, worth remembering that the 12% of GDP 'swallowed' by healthcare is not lost but largely recycled through wages back into the economy.
None of which is to say that simply pumping more money in is the right solution.
No one seems to have a good solution though.
There does come a point of diminishing returns. People are kept alive in increasing decrepitude.
It’s a definition, but not one which particularly convinces me, FWIW. It’s wrong about identity politics being a new thing, certainly.
It has nothing at all to say about empathy, which for me would be essential to my view of the term. And I think it wrong in drawing a straightforward distinction between feelings and facts. The whole point about woke, way back when, is that it involved thinking about facts previously ignored (the prevalence of sexual assault, for example).
What a great read. Alastair is much missed on PB. Compare with yesterday's Gypsy Rose Lee jibberish
It would be nice to know that he gets a decent readership for his opinions because they are more solidly grounded in careful analysis than many journalistic op-eds.
UK consumer confidence is currently lower than it was in the 2008 crisis.
Are you surprised ? We’re in a much worse state financially. (Not even counting Brexit.)
Oh no, 2008/09 was far more frightening. There was a real risk of the banking system freezing up completely (as it did in some rich countries)…
That was quite short lived, though.
The point was that government borrowed a great deal of money back then to solve the problem. The current set of stuff has piled a whole load more debt on top of that, so the two things are cumulative.
The shock of 2008 was much sharper, but its effects continue to contribute to our current predicament. A medium term recovery was a lot easier to envisage back then.
It’s a definition, but not one which particularly convinces me, FWIW. It’s wrong about identity politics being a new thing, certainly.
It has nothing at all to say about empathy, which for me would be essential to my view of the term. And I think it wrong in drawing a straightforward distinction between feelings and facts. The whole point about woke, way back when, is that it involved thinking about facts previously ignored (the prevalence of sexual assault, for example).
Not impressed.
The idea that a person's view automatically carries more weight simply because of who they are is hardly new either. It's just different people.
UK consumer confidence is currently lower than it was in the 2008 crisis.
Are you surprised ? We’re in a much worse state financially. (Not even counting Brexit.)
Oh no, 2008/09 was far more frightening. There was a real risk of the banking system freezing up completely (as it did in some rich countries). The drop in output was far more severe than anything we'll experience next year.
One can see the pathway out of trouble - victory in Ukraine, and a drop in energy prices. That pathway was not at all clear in the winter of 2008/09.
Totally agree.
To some extent, our current economic problems are artificial - caused by the fallout of a horrible pandemic and the invasion of Ukraine, both black swan events.
One quote "I’ve seen scenarios where the whole class has been evacuated because of one child kicking off.”
I see that weekly personally. In my school as a whole it's a daily occurrence.
As health goes, so goes education. After years of ditching spare capacity (aka efficiency savings) there are not enough facilities or staff, and those who are left are buried under increased admin and bureaucracy.
It’s a definition, but not one which particularly convinces me, FWIW. It’s wrong about identity politics being a new thing, certainly.
It has nothing at all to say about empathy, which for me would be essential to my view of the term.
In the sense that wokeness is based on a denial of the capacity for empathy?
That seems a pretty perverse view to me, but if that makes you happy, feel free to think so.
Your response does rather well demonstrate that there is zero agreement on what the term means. Which makes the idea of an ‘even handed definition’ illusory.
Right now £1,900 will buy you a BUSINESS return London Bangkok. The catch? Lots of stops. Yet these are in fascinating places: Delhi, Cairo. That’s an amazing winter trip: right there
It’s a definition, but not one which particularly convinces me, FWIW. It’s wrong about identity politics being a new thing, certainly.
It has nothing at all to say about empathy, which for me would be essential to my view of the term.
In the sense that wokeness is based on a denial of the capacity for empathy?
That seems a pretty perverse view to me, but if that makes you happy, feel free to think so.
Your response does rather well demonstrate that there is zero agreement on what the term means. Which makes the idea of an ‘even handed definition’ illusory.
It does mean different things to different people, true, but that doesn't mean it is not a thing. As it is, there seem to be about 4 different takes, some of them (like 1 and 2) occasionally advanced simultaneously even though they are contradictory.
1) There is no such thing woke 2) There is, and it is a good thing 3) It is the end of western civilization 4) It is an attitude advancing specific agendas, cloaked in virtuousness, utilising a specific tone and language.
One quote "I’ve seen scenarios where the whole class has been evacuated because of one child kicking off.”
I see that weekly personally. In my school as a whole it's a daily occurrence.
As health goes, so goes education. After years of ditching spare capacity (aka efficiency savings) there are not enough facilities or staff, and those who are left are buried under increased admin and bureaucracy.
Yet SEN is an area where spend has been rising over time. The challenge more so being that eligibility has risen in lockstep due to the sudden surge in diagnoses.
It’s a definition, but not one which particularly convinces me, FWIW. It’s wrong about identity politics being a new thing, certainly.
It has nothing at all to say about empathy, which for me would be essential to my view of the term.
In the sense that wokeness is based on a denial of the capacity for empathy?
That seems a pretty perverse view to me, but if that makes you happy, feel free to think so.
Your response does rather well demonstrate that there is zero agreement on what the term means. Which makes the idea of an ‘even handed definition’ illusory.
It does mean different things to different people, true, but that doesn't mean it is not a thing. As it is, there seem to be about 4 different takes, some of them (like 1 and 2) occasionally advanced simultaneously even though they are contradictory.
1) There is no such thing woke 2) There is, and it is a good thing 3) It is the end of western civilization 4) It is an attitude advancing specific agendas, cloaked in virtuousness, utilising a specific tone and language.
It’s something, or perhaps some things. But ‘a thing’ ?
Hang on a minute — we were able, as a country, to construct Nightingale Hospitals in about 5 minutes (even though they were hardly used). If we could do that, why can't we install more beds in hospitals?
We're cornering the market on Diversity and Lived Experience officers in healthcare though, each of which costs as much as several nurses and God knows how many beds.
Patients may have to sleep on floors, but at least black patients are as likely to find themselves there as white ones.
So the state of the NHS is all down to those damned 'wokists' again, presumably?
Nothing to do with the government of the past 12.5 years. Oh no.
I wonder how much is spent on Diversity and Lived Experience officers versus how much was given out to Tory cronies in fake PPE contracts?
I’ll be honest, I don’t have issues with a job that aims to improve patient care, as the £100,000+ job in the Times is (when you get past the guff). The issue is is it really that demanding and needing such a salary? £30,000 would seem more appropriate.
It’s a definition, but not one which particularly convinces me, FWIW. It’s wrong about identity politics being a new thing, certainly.
It has nothing at all to say about empathy, which for me would be essential to my view of the term.
In the sense that wokeness is based on a denial of the capacity for empathy?
That seems a pretty perverse view to me, but if that makes you happy, feel free to think so.
Your response does rather well demonstrate that there is zero agreement on what the term means. Which makes the idea of an ‘even handed definition’ illusory.
It does mean different things to different people, true, but that doesn't mean it is not a thing. As it is, there seem to be about 4 different takes, some of them (like 1 and 2) occasionally advanced simultaneously even though they are contradictory.
1) There is no such thing woke 2) There is, and it is a good thing 3) It is the end of western civilization 4) It is an attitude advancing specific agendas, cloaked in virtuousness, utilising a specific tone and language.
It’s something, or perhaps some things. But ‘a thing’ ?
I don’t accept that it’s (yet) an ‘ideology’.
Well, people can go in circles forever on that. What counts as an ideology? I'd think of it as part of the cultural zeitgesit which gets taken too far without necessarily being a cohesive ideology, but I don't think that makes much difference.
It’s a definition, but not one which particularly convinces me, FWIW. It’s wrong about identity politics being a new thing, certainly.
It has nothing at all to say about empathy, which for me would be essential to my view of the term.
In the sense that wokeness is based on a denial of the capacity for empathy?
That seems a pretty perverse view to me, but if that makes you happy, feel free to think so.
Your response does rather well demonstrate that there is zero agreement on what the term means. Which makes the idea of an ‘even handed definition’ illusory.
It does mean different things to different people, true, but that doesn't mean it is not a thing. As it is, there seem to be about 4 different takes, some of them (like 1 and 2) occasionally advanced simultaneously even though they are contradictory.
1) There is no such thing woke 2) There is, and it is a good thing 3) It is the end of western civilization 4) It is an attitude advancing specific agendas, cloaked in virtuousness, utilising a specific tone and language.
I thought the article was good, and quite convincing. Of course there can never be a universally agreed definition of something as contested as “woke”, but he’s made a valiant effort. Clearly the meaning has moved on a lot since its inception.
His principal argument is that we can’t make the whole concept go away by pretending there’s no such thing, or that it’s simply about being nice.
Regardless of what it’s called, there’s definitely been a shift in Western politics towards more identity based and “my team” ideology in recent years, on both left and right as well as - in the UK at least - in the centre too. The very fact people call themselves centrists where previously they might have said they were floating voters is an example.
It’s a definition, but not one which particularly convinces me, FWIW. It’s wrong about identity politics being a new thing, certainly.
It has nothing at all to say about empathy, which for me would be essential to my view of the term.
In the sense that wokeness is based on a denial of the capacity for empathy?
That seems a pretty perverse view to me, but if that makes you happy, feel free to think so.
Your response does rather well demonstrate that there is zero agreement on what the term means. Which makes the idea of an ‘even handed definition’ illusory.
It does mean different things to different people, true, but that doesn't mean it is not a thing. As it is, there seem to be about 4 different takes, some of them (like 1 and 2) occasionally advanced simultaneously even though they are contradictory.
1) There is no such thing woke 2) There is, and it is a good thing 3) It is the end of western civilization 4) It is an attitude advancing specific agendas, cloaked in virtuousness, utilising a specific tone and language.
It’s something, or perhaps some things. But ‘a thing’ ?
I don’t accept that it’s (yet) an ‘ideology’.
Well, people can go in circles forever on that. What counts as an ideology? I'd think of it as part of the cultural zeitgesit which gets taken too far without necessarily being a cohesive ideology, but I don't think that makes much difference.
The missing piece, perhaps, is to be able to pinpoint the equal and opposite phenomenon on the right. Because it’s definitely there. It just has multiple labels and variants in different contexts (MAGA, alt right, national conservatism, anti-woke etc).
It’s a definition, but not one which particularly convinces me, FWIW. It’s wrong about identity politics being a new thing, certainly.
It has nothing at all to say about empathy, which for me would be essential to my view of the term.
In the sense that wokeness is based on a denial of the capacity for empathy?
That seems a pretty perverse view to me, but if that makes you happy, feel free to think so.
Your response does rather well demonstrate that there is zero agreement on what the term means. Which makes the idea of an ‘even handed definition’ illusory.
It does mean different things to different people, true, but that doesn't mean it is not a thing. As it is, there seem to be about 4 different takes, some of them (like 1 and 2) occasionally advanced simultaneously even though they are contradictory.
1) There is no such thing woke 2) There is, and it is a good thing 3) It is the end of western civilization 4) It is an attitude advancing specific agendas, cloaked in virtuousness, utilising a specific tone and language.
I thought the article was good, and quite convincing. Of course there can never be a universally agreed definition of something as contested as “woke”, but he’s made a valiant effort. Clearly the meaning has moved on a lot since its inception.
His principal argument is that we can’t make the whole concept go away by pretending there’s no such thing, or that it’s simply about being nice.
Regardless of what it’s called, there’s definitely been a shift in Western politics towards more identity based and “my team” ideology in recent years, on both left and right as well as - in the UK at least - in the centre too. The very fact people call themselves centrists where previously they might have said they were floating voters is an example.
I don't know if it is identity-based in the UK, at least not in a way different to ideology or beliefs. There are plenty of rich white woke people and ethnic-minority right-wingers, including on the respective frontbenches.
It’s a definition, but not one which particularly convinces me, FWIW. It’s wrong about identity politics being a new thing, certainly.
It has nothing at all to say about empathy, which for me would be essential to my view of the term.
In the sense that wokeness is based on a denial of the capacity for empathy?
That seems a pretty perverse view to me, but if that makes you happy, feel free to think so.
Your response does rather well demonstrate that there is zero agreement on what the term means. Which makes the idea of an ‘even handed definition’ illusory.
It does mean different things to different people, true, but that doesn't mean it is not a thing. As it is, there seem to be about 4 different takes, some of them (like 1 and 2) occasionally advanced simultaneously even though they are contradictory.
1) There is no such thing woke 2) There is, and it is a good thing 3) It is the end of western civilization 4) It is an attitude advancing specific agendas, cloaked in virtuousness, utilising a specific tone and language.
It’s something, or perhaps some things. But ‘a thing’ ?
I don’t accept that it’s (yet) an ‘ideology’.
Well, people can go in circles forever on that. What counts as an ideology? I'd think of it as part of the cultural zeitgesit which gets taken too far without necessarily being a cohesive ideology, but I don't think that makes much difference.
One of the big features of online discourse os the tendency to pick on the extreme ends of the opponent’s political ideology and critique them as if they were the mainstream. Definitely a thing.
Hence woke us going to force us all to abandon the concept biological sex and forcibly neuter young children, while the right wing is just fascists who want us to become Gilead.
It’s a definition, but not one which particularly convinces me, FWIW. It’s wrong about identity politics being a new thing, certainly.
It has nothing at all to say about empathy, which for me would be essential to my view of the term.
In the sense that wokeness is based on a denial of the capacity for empathy?
That seems a pretty perverse view to me, but if that makes you happy, feel free to think so.
Your response does rather well demonstrate that there is zero agreement on what the term means. Which makes the idea of an ‘even handed definition’ illusory.
It does mean different things to different people, true, but that doesn't mean it is not a thing. As it is, there seem to be about 4 different takes, some of them (like 1 and 2) occasionally advanced simultaneously even though they are contradictory.
1) There is no such thing woke 2) There is, and it is a good thing 3) It is the end of western civilization 4) It is an attitude advancing specific agendas, cloaked in virtuousness, utilising a specific tone and language.
It’s something, or perhaps some things. But ‘a thing’ ?
I don’t accept that it’s (yet) an ‘ideology’.
Well, people can go in circles forever on that. What counts as an ideology? I'd think of it as part of the cultural zeitgesit which gets taken too far without necessarily being a cohesive ideology, but I don't think that makes much difference.
One of the big features of online discourse os the tendency to pick on the extreme ends of the opponent’s political ideology and critique them as if they were the mainstream. Definitely a thing.
Hence woke us going to force us all to abandon the concept biological sex and forcibly neuter young children, while the right wing is just fascists who want us to become Gilead.
To some degree. However it can also be the case that some things need to be treated seriously and nipped in the bud early, before they can grow into something much more worrying and significant. So there is also a feature to act like something cannot be a big deal if it is not that most extreme example.
It’s a definition, but not one which particularly convinces me, FWIW. It’s wrong about identity politics being a new thing, certainly.
It has nothing at all to say about empathy, which for me would be essential to my view of the term.
In the sense that wokeness is based on a denial of the capacity for empathy?
That seems a pretty perverse view to me, but if that makes you happy, feel free to think so.
Your response does rather well demonstrate that there is zero agreement on what the term means. Which makes the idea of an ‘even handed definition’ illusory.
It does mean different things to different people, true, but that doesn't mean it is not a thing. As it is, there seem to be about 4 different takes, some of them (like 1 and 2) occasionally advanced simultaneously even though they are contradictory.
1) There is no such thing woke 2) There is, and it is a good thing 3) It is the end of western civilization 4) It is an attitude advancing specific agendas, cloaked in virtuousness, utilising a specific tone and language.
I thought the article was good, and quite convincing. Of course there can never be a universally agreed definition of something as contested as “woke”, but he’s made a valiant effort. Clearly the meaning has moved on a lot since its inception.
His principal argument is that we can’t make the whole concept go away by pretending there’s no such thing, or that it’s simply about being nice.
Regardless of what it’s called, there’s definitely been a shift in Western politics towards more identity based and “my team” ideology in recent years, on both left and right as well as - in the UK at least - in the centre too. The very fact people call themselves centrists where previously they might have said they were floating voters is an example.
I don't know if it is identity-based in the UK, at least not in a way different to ideology or beliefs. There are plenty of rich white woke people and ethnic-minority right-wingers, including on the respective frontbenches.
Identity based doesn’t equal racially based. Look at the various flag emojis or the blue hearts, FBPE, MAGA, and the recent light blue globes on Twitter. Those are all very clearly defined identities.
The lived experience trumping statistics thing is an element of the discourse I think, rather than the identity itself.
One quote "I’ve seen scenarios where the whole class has been evacuated because of one child kicking off.”
I see that weekly personally. In my school as a whole it's a daily occurrence.
As health goes, so goes education. After years of ditching spare capacity (aka efficiency savings) there are not enough facilities or staff, and those who are left are buried under increased admin and bureaucracy.
Yet SEN is an area where spend has been rising over time. The challenge more so being that eligibility has risen in lockstep due to the sudden surge in diagnoses.
Many specialist schools were closed, many to save money, some with good intentions around integration (although whether that was actually a good idea is a separate question). The acute crisis mentioned in the article is loss of TAs, primarily for financial reasons but this triggers a vicious spiral by increasing workload and stress levels on those who remain, which makes them more likely to quit and so on. Again, also seen in healthcare.
It’s a definition, but not one which particularly convinces me, FWIW. It’s wrong about identity politics being a new thing, certainly.
It has nothing at all to say about empathy, which for me would be essential to my view of the term.
In the sense that wokeness is based on a denial of the capacity for empathy?
That seems a pretty perverse view to me, but if that makes you happy, feel free to think so.
Your response does rather well demonstrate that there is zero agreement on what the term means. Which makes the idea of an ‘even handed definition’ illusory.
It does mean different things to different people, true, but that doesn't mean it is not a thing. As it is, there seem to be about 4 different takes, some of them (like 1 and 2) occasionally advanced simultaneously even though they are contradictory.
1) There is no such thing woke 2) There is, and it is a good thing 3) It is the end of western civilization 4) It is an attitude advancing specific agendas, cloaked in virtuousness, utilising a specific tone and language.
It’s something, or perhaps some things. But ‘a thing’ ?
I don’t accept that it’s (yet) an ‘ideology’.
Well, people can go in circles forever on that. What counts as an ideology? I'd think of it as part of the cultural zeitgesit which gets taken too far without necessarily being a cohesive ideology, but I don't think that makes much difference.
One of the big features of online discourse os the tendency to pick on the extreme ends of the opponent’s political ideology and critique them as if they were the mainstream. Definitely a thing.
Hence woke us going to force us all to abandon the concept biological sex and forcibly neuter young children, while the right wing is just fascists who want us to become Gilead.
To some degree. However it can also be the case that some things need to be treated seriously and nipped in the bud early, before they can grow into something much more worrying and significant. So there is also a feature to act like something cannot be a big deal if it is not that most extreme example.
There was an interesting essay by Twitter thread writer Gurwinder a couple of days ago. A useful corrective I thought, and worth a read.
Completely OT. Just been to Pisa. Attracted by a photographic exhibition on 30's and 40's fascism but took in the tower the cathedral etc etc. A bit like Arles in France. Majestic with no grandeur. I love those kind of places
It’s a definition, but not one which particularly convinces me, FWIW. It’s wrong about identity politics being a new thing, certainly.
It has nothing at all to say about empathy, which for me would be essential to my view of the term.
In the sense that wokeness is based on a denial of the capacity for empathy?
That seems a pretty perverse view to me, but if that makes you happy, feel free to think so.
Your response does rather well demonstrate that there is zero agreement on what the term means. Which makes the idea of an ‘even handed definition’ illusory.
It does mean different things to different people, true, but that doesn't mean it is not a thing. As it is, there seem to be about 4 different takes, some of them (like 1 and 2) occasionally advanced simultaneously even though they are contradictory.
1) There is no such thing woke 2) There is, and it is a good thing 3) It is the end of western civilization 4) It is an attitude advancing specific agendas, cloaked in virtuousness, utilising a specific tone and language.
I thought the article was good, and quite convincing. Of course there can never be a universally agreed definition of something as contested as “woke”, but he’s made a valiant effort. Clearly the meaning has moved on a lot since its inception.
His principal argument is that we can’t make the whole concept go away by pretending there’s no such thing, or that it’s simply about being nice.
Regardless of what it’s called, there’s definitely been a shift in Western politics towards more identity based and “my team” ideology in recent years, on both left and right as well as - in the UK at least - in the centre too. The very fact people call themselves centrists where previously they might have said they were floating voters is an example.
I don't know if it is identity-based in the UK, at least not in a way different to ideology or beliefs. There are plenty of rich white woke people and ethnic-minority right-wingers, including on the respective frontbenches.
Identity based doesn’t equal racially based. Look at the various flag emojis or the blue hearts, FBPE, MAGA, and the recent light blue globes on Twitter. Those are all very clearly defined identities.
The lived experience trumping statistics thing is an element of the discourse I think, rather than the identity itself.
But I don't think that they are identities that people started out with, and then became Woke or whatever. I think they are two types of belief sets that form a large part of people's world view, no different to being a Labour family back in the olden days when political identity was stronger.
One quote "I’ve seen scenarios where the whole class has been evacuated because of one child kicking off.”
I see that weekly personally. In my school as a whole it's a daily occurrence.
As health goes, so goes education. After years of ditching spare capacity (aka efficiency savings) there are not enough facilities or staff, and those who are left are buried under increased admin and bureaucracy.
Yet SEN is an area where spend has been rising over time. The challenge more so being that eligibility has risen in lockstep due to the sudden surge in diagnoses.
Many specialist schools were closed, many to save money, some with good intentions around integration (although whether that was actually a good idea is a separate question). The acute crisis mentioned in the article is loss of TAs, primarily for financial reasons but this triggers a vicious spiral by increasing workload and stress levels on those who remain, which makes them more likely to quit and so on. Again, also seen in healthcare.
The mistake around 'integration' as an idea (and what tells me it was never more than a slogan to sell a pre-existing policy in a different political environment) was that the money to support these children properly in a mainstream environment was never put in place when the special schools were closed.
Integration itself is a good idea, for a great many reasons. But it needs to come with smaller class sizes and properly trained and funded support staff if it's not to be an epic clusterfuck that damages the children being 'integrated' and everyone around them, and it never has been.
Completely OT. Just been to Pisa. Attracted by a photographic exhibition on 30's and 40's fascism but took in the tower the cathedral etc etc. A bit like Arles in France. Majestic with no grandeur. I love those kind of places
Either that could have been more happily phrased, or I have somewhat misjudged your politics.
What a deeply penetrating pleasure being back in the UK after a month in southern India - except for the freezing conditions, exacerbated by our boiler losing pressure! But it's been re-filled and working OK since last night.
Thought the football would be on at 7pm instead, but only noticed it was on because of @DecrepiterJohnL
Completely OT. Just been to Pisa. Attracted by a photographic exhibition on 30's and 40's fascism but took in the tower the cathedral etc etc. A bit like Arles in France. Majestic with no grandeur. I love those kind of places
Probably the best season to go. I went once on summer and it was as bad as Venice or the colosseum for tourist hordes and Disneyfied tat.
Completely OT. Just been to Pisa. Attracted by a photographic exhibition on 30's and 40's fascism but took in the tower the cathedral etc etc. A bit like Arles in France. Majestic with no grandeur. I love those kind of places
Some lovely restaurants there too.
The Leaning Tower and the surrounding Piazza dei Miracoli should be on everyone's bucket list.
Comments
There's lots of interesting work being done on this at the moment - but it'll take years for the NHS to take advantage.
The challenge is for those without buckets of talent or ambition who can get by but find they are working hard just to stand still.
I hope Labour do tackle the wealth issue, even though I would personally be hit. Maybe they will flunk it, I don't know.
One thing's for sure, the Tories will never tackle the issue.
The Tories have had their populist 'fun' under Johnson and Truss, and look what a fecking disaster that turned out to be.
The next Tory move will be to the centre, or to oblivion - their choice.
Edit: I see that's a hat-trick of posts. Is there a new thread or something?
Sunak and Cameron centrist.
No, if we lose Tories will want a full redmeat right wing, social conservative, anti Woke, tough on immigration Brexiteer in charge, ultimately a Badenoch, Braverman or Rees Mogg with maybe Steve Barclay the bridge to them.
Just as Labour in opposition went for
the left of centrist Blair and Brown Ed Miliband as the bridge to the full fat socialist, anti war, anti Israel Corbyn
I've seen lots of proposed 'reasons' for this failure (e.g. GP failures leading to people going straight to A&E, or the after-effects of Covid), but it'd be good to see a sane debate over this. Only then can we start to fix it.
And no, more money is not an automatic cure-all for its issues. It is swallowing up 12% of GDP atm.
If Labour muck up the economy in government as New Labour avoided doing until after 2008 then that could go higher still
France have ridden their luck in the last two games and are unlikely to be that lucky a third time.
Messi is in peak form; Mbappé not quite so much.
If things go the way regional polls suggest then their diagnosis will be that they lost the red wall and need to get it back. That means economically centrist and socially authoritarian. Kemi as leader (unless they keep Sunak. That might actually be a better option but it seems never to happen these days, not since Kinnock 1987).
The thing that worries me most is a loss of the long term consensus on the environment and climate change. But if they run focus groups then I think they’ll realise there’s no appetite for climate scepticism or environmental deregulation in the UK.
So politically, there is little disadvantage for Labour to go in and increase the tax rates of wealthy elderly pensioners.
There are other things that they could do as well... for instance set out a programme of housebuilding in the south east where people don't vote labour. Just grant outline planning permission by an act of Parliament to build a million homes around Berkshire, Essex etc.
I don't understand why they focus instead on things like upping private school fees. Have they not looked in to what social class their voters overwhelmingly are?
The biggest problem for the Labour party is that they don't really understand their own voters; they are in this delusional mindset where they are appealing to some mythical type of 'our people', the disadvantaged, the down and out, the abused, the 'working class'. They put too much emotional weight on appealing to this category of voter.
But in fact... many labour voters are of working age, are more affluent and aspirational etc.... most of the working age people on here have confessed they are going to vote labour because they are so irritated by the tory gerontocracy.
Labour need to start to switch the tax breaks for wealthy pensioners, and introduce them to working people instead; sort out early years childcare, etc.
I don't think the Labour party really understand aspiration, they haven't quite ditched the "democratic socialism" baggage left over from the Corbyn era. They need another Blair, it may well be another 6 years until they get there.
Today's XKCD is interactive. Click on the image and use cursor keys to fly. God to see Robert Hooke mentioned.
https://xkcd.com/2712/
Hence they prefer the quicker and more glitzy T20
The 12% (11.9%) is in part due to covid of course (similarly in Germany (12.8 %) and France (12.2 %)).
Healthcare everywhere is a victim of its own success of course - people live longer and require more care.
Part of me thinks 'what is more important than health'? I'd rather remain healthy than have a low-taxed State Pension, I don't really need (I get that many do need it). I'd rather have good health care than a new car or a foreign holiday.
Also, worth remembering that the 12% of GDP 'swallowed' by healthcare is not lost but largely recycled through wages back into the economy.
None of which is to say that simply pumping more money in is the right solution.
No one seems to have a good solution though.
'The government has also acknowledged in recent months that it has been seeking long-term deals with foreign states understood to include Norway and Qatar - sparking concerns that Britain would pay a 'security premium' in exchange for guaranteed supplies.'
So the party will shift to a leader who is populist enough to win the former again even if it risks the latter which the more cerebral and fiscally conservative Sunak holds
- Obsolete employment structures
- Poor delivery on productivity investment
- cliques and tongs everywhere
The last is why change is so hard. A friend doing a masters in OR made a study of a hospital - specifically the NMR stuff.
They attempted to have him thrown out of the university - his sin was to have written a cogently written thesis on how to improve both patient experience and through out. Based on using the same machines in other countries.
UK consumer confidence is currently lower than it was in the 2008 crisis.
Patients may have to sleep on floors, but at least black patients are as likely to find themselves there as white ones.
The costs and ease of use of ultrasound are dropping sharply, as the quality of imaging increases
That’s the long term trend assuming we follow the US experience.
I don’t think he’ll do that well in the South this time either though. Just not as badly as Boris would have done.
We’re in a much worse state financially. (Not even counting Brexit.)
Nothing to do with the government of the past 12.5 years. Oh no.
I wonder how much is spent on Diversity and Lived Experience officers versus how much was given out to Tory cronies in fake PPE contracts?
https://twitter.com/ByDonkeys/status/1603366602887536640?s=20&t=pxxfLXo-v-O72_Dkz8vQ5A
Which can mean less staff to man the machines and faster throughput, since it is easier to get a good scan
Or Australia earlier this year with the Liberals losing wealthy seats around Sydney and Melbourne to the Independents or indeed France where Macron and his party won seats in the wealthiest parts of Paris that had traditionally been Les Republicains and centre
right strongholds.
The white working class though shifted more to the right, to Trump, the coalition in Australia eg 'Howard's battlers' and to Boris here and Le Pen in France
https://takes.jamesomalley.co.uk/p/woke-is-a-new-ideology-and-its-proponents
There's a Starmer, waiting in the wings
He'd like to be our PM, lots of expertise he brings
There's a Starmer, waiting in the wings
He's told us not to panic cos he knows it takes a while, he told us
Let the Tories lose it, Let the Tories lose it, Let all the Tories lose it
... at this point there's a great guitar riff and he drapes his arm languidly around David Lammy
And NMR will steadily improve both with better image processing, and the new generation of magnets developed for the fusion programs.
(There were half as many over-75s in the early 90s than today, and despite the immigration rhetoric, there were actually MORE young adults back then, who obviously didn't use NHS services as much.)
"Woke" arguments are , to a large extent, based upon ad hominems. The strength of an argument depends upon who is making it, and who is opposing it, rather than its logic, accuracy, and merits.
There’s been a large rise worldwide this winter, with medics theorising it’s due to ‘immunity debt’ as we’ve spent a lot of the last two years isolating, so kids haven’t had the chance to catch it and develop immunity.
Sweden, of course, didn’t lock down at all, and is experiencing much the same.
Sweden
Karolinska pediatric hospital in chaos
But... In Sweden they never locked down, nor used masks... Where does this "immunity debt'" comes from?
https://twitter.com/itosettiMD_MBA/status/1603837878580219904
One can see the pathway out of trouble - victory in Ukraine, and a drop in energy prices. That pathway was not at all clear in the winter of 2008/09.
It’s wrong about identity politics being a new thing, certainly.
It has nothing at all to say about empathy, which for me would be essential to my view of the term.
And I think it wrong in drawing a straightforward distinction between feelings and facts. The whole point about woke, way back when, is that it involved thinking about facts previously ignored (the prevalence of sexual assault, for example).
Not impressed.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/dec/17/schools-crisis-in-england-as-special-needs-staff-quit-in-droves-over-pay
One quote "I’ve seen scenarios where the whole class has been evacuated because of one child kicking off.”
I see that weekly personally. In my school as a whole it's a daily occurrence.
The point was that government borrowed a great deal of money back then to solve the problem. The current set of stuff has piled a whole load more debt on top of that, so the two things are cumulative.
The shock of 2008 was much sharper, but its effects continue to contribute to our current predicament. A medium term recovery was a lot easier to envisage back then.
It's just different people.
To some extent, our current economic problems are artificial - caused by the fallout of a horrible pandemic and the invasion of Ukraine, both black swan events.
I don't think it's that bad.
Your response does rather well demonstrate that there is zero agreement on what the term means. Which makes the idea of an ‘even handed definition’ illusory.
Right now £1,900 will buy you a BUSINESS return London Bangkok. The catch? Lots of stops. Yet these are in fascinating places: Delhi, Cairo. That’s an amazing winter trip: right there
1) There is no such thing woke
2) There is, and it is a good thing
3) It is the end of western civilization
4) It is an attitude advancing specific agendas, cloaked in virtuousness, utilising a specific tone and language.
They only charged me £99 a head to upgrade each way.
But ‘a thing’ ?
I don’t accept that it’s (yet) an ‘ideology’.
His principal argument is that we can’t make the whole concept go away by pretending there’s no such thing, or that it’s simply about
being nice.
Regardless of what it’s called, there’s definitely been a shift in Western politics towards more identity based and “my team” ideology in recent years, on both left and right as well as - in the UK at least - in the centre too. The very fact people call themselves centrists where previously they might have said they were floating voters is an example.
conservatism, anti-woke etc).
One of the big features of online discourse os the tendency to pick on the extreme ends of the opponent’s political ideology and critique them as if they were the mainstream. Definitely a thing.
Hence woke us going to force us all to abandon the concept biological sex and forcibly neuter young children, while the right wing is just fascists who want us to become Gilead.
The lived experience trumping statistics thing is an element of the discourse I think, rather than the identity itself.
https://gurwinder.substack.com/p/dramageddon-the-virtual-civil-war
Integration itself is a good idea, for a great many reasons. But it needs to come with smaller class sizes and properly trained and funded support staff if it's not to be an epic clusterfuck that damages the children being 'integrated' and everyone around them, and it never has been.
What a deeply penetrating pleasure being back in the UK after a month in southern India - except for the freezing conditions, exacerbated by our boiler losing pressure! But it's been re-filled and working OK since last night.
Thought the football would be on at 7pm instead, but only noticed it was on because of @DecrepiterJohnL
The Leaning Tower and the surrounding Piazza dei Miracoli should be on everyone's bucket list.
New Thread
OTOH, Gatwick to Madrid with Iberia was outstanding.
https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1604129513918676993?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brimstone_(missile)