What this country needs is a patriotic strongman, right?
No not saying that either, as I said I believe in democracy I have just reached a point where I look at problems we have and most western countries have the same and realise fixing those problems can't be done in a democracy unless politicians lie about their intent or we dont go democratic for a few years. Personally I prefer politician do not tarnish their already low credibility further.
so two questions for you and second is only if you say no to the first
1) Do you see the problems in the western countries solvable by any politician being honest and still getting elected?
2) If no politician can get elected on what needs to be done what do you think should be done
1. Yes, certainly as much as in previous eras. The West has its issues but overall it’s in robust health. Politicians lied to us for years and are now about to get their comeuppance.
2. They can, and do in many countries. Democracy is a messy business but it always carries with it the hope and possibility of changing direction.
As an example I would give you the not always popular Emmanuel Macron. He spent his first term pissing off just about every interest group in France by telling them hard truths, and subsequently got re-elected.
It helps that France, like the USA, has a system where you can change the face of politics without paying your dues to the party bosses or the party membership. If you are a Macron or Trump, you can "just win" and take over your half of the political spectrum. Of course this route to power looks a little bit like "patriotic strongman", in the sense that the voters could get a forced choice between extremes that a different system might have mitigated.
You can’t in the US, unless you have a working majority in at least one chamber of Congress.
A new force has emerged in Europe. By acceding to their smaller allies’ demands, Germany and the U.S. are belatedly recognizing a slow but relentless shift in the Western approach toward Russia—which is being determined not in Washington or Berlin but in the capitals of countries that, until recently, have been seen as junior partners. Moreover, these new drivers of European security strategy are unlikely to ease up. They are among Europe’s richest and fastest-growing economies and have some of the continent’s best-equipped militaries. Plus, they will always have Russia close by, and that reality alone will keep them focused.
What this country needs is a patriotic strongman, right?
No not saying that either, as I said I believe in democracy I have just reached a point where I look at problems we have and most western countries have the same and realise fixing those problems can't be done in a democracy unless politicians lie about their intent or we dont go democratic for a few years. Personally I prefer politician do not tarnish their already low credibility further.
so two questions for you and second is only if you say no to the first
1) Do you see the problems in the western countries solvable by any politician being honest and still getting elected?
2) If no politician can get elected on what needs to be done what do you think should be done
1. Yes, certainly as much as in previous eras. The West has its issues but overall it’s in robust health. Politicians lied to us for years and are now about to get their comeuppance.
2. They can, and do in many countries. Democracy is a messy business but it always carries with it the hope and possibility of changing direction.
As an example I would give you the not always popular Emmanuel Macron. He spent his first term pissing off just about every interest group in France by telling them hard truths, and subsequently got re-elected.
And how many of those things he pissed them off about did he actually achieve wasnt the percentage 0? He didnt get his reforms to pensions through nor those on working practises. He achieved in fact bugger all of what he wanted
Reason he got reelected in fact is it was him or lepen....like choosing between walter the softy and hitler
Macron has achieved quite a bit. But not everything, though he is trying again on pensions. Rather like Blair, it’s too easy to simply say “he did nothing” when the evidence is he’s done rather a lot, particularly on labour law reform.
Reading the list yes he acheived little of consequence to sort the problems out.
Most western states and the uk in particular have 1 problem with 2 ways to deal with it
Tax income does not equal services cost even when services are underfunded.
so either 1) raise taxes and taxing the rich wont be enough you will need to tax everyone more
2) cut the services the state offers
Good luck getting elected on either premise
First world problems
UK median household income: $46.7k France median household income: $61k
Similar net debt to UK. Vastly better healthcare (I can testify as someone who’s experienced it), virtually free childcare from birth, high quality state education, actual high speed rail lines, nice food, brilliant wine, lovely scenery and climate, pretty towns, affordable houses, good looking people with clothes that fit, and free firewood from your local communal woodland if you can find someone to cut it for you. (But admittedly their plumbers merchants are a complete cartel). France is doing fine.
You think france is doing fine then all good I dont really care as I dont live there the argument is not about france its about the uk and we have underfunded services that dont deliver and cost more than tax.
Yes I believe most of the west has the same issue but will happily concede the point to you and focus on the uk because I do live there and its important to me therefore.
The point remains the same we have two options, tax a hell of a lot more on everyone or cut services.
I would estimate that if we full fund everything then the tax required would be about double what we currently pay though thats a guess admittedly
So which political party is going to stand on tax more or reduce services and win? answer none
Well that’s kind of the Tory policy position. And it’s wrong. In the short term we need to tax a bit more, focus tax reliefs and incentives on the areas of infrastructure investment where we’re most lacking, borrow as much as we can manage without pushing up gilt yields, and spend significantly more on the public infrastructure and services that will enable the economy to grow.
Tax rises plus spending cuts equal a steadily falling apart and clinically depressed country.
NO MORE BORROWING FROM OUR CHILDREN AND GRAND CHILDREN. THEY WAY THINGS ARE GOING THE WHOLE TAX TAKE THEY PAY WILL BE SETTLING THE DEBTS OF OUR GENERATION. IT IS NOT JUST A TORY POSITION ITS AN ALL POLITICIAN POSITION BORROW MORE SO WE GET ELECTED NOW AND WE WONT BE AROUND WHEN THE BILLS ARE DUE.
You are a selfish idiot.
If we cant raise tax to pay for everything in the here and now then the state does less.
If we can get more tax in the here and now to fully fund things fine
You’re talking the ideology of 2010. It was a cataclysmic failure then, it would be a cataclysmic failure now.
I’ve worked with companies take that kind of asset sweating approach to investment. They invariably end up failing.
Every pound we don’t spend on essential infrastructure now is two pounds we’ll have to spend on the same thing in a decade.
Investment is the definition of leaving something for our children. Look at the HS2 nonsense today. There were actual MPs suggesting we can the whole thing. They’re the selfish idiots.
What this country needs is a patriotic strongman, right?
No not saying that either, as I said I believe in democracy I have just reached a point where I look at problems we have and most western countries have the same and realise fixing those problems can't be done in a democracy unless politicians lie about their intent or we dont go democratic for a few years. Personally I prefer politician do not tarnish their already low credibility further.
so two questions for you and second is only if you say no to the first
1) Do you see the problems in the western countries solvable by any politician being honest and still getting elected?
2) If no politician can get elected on what needs to be done what do you think should be done
1. Yes, certainly as much as in previous eras. The West has its issues but overall it’s in robust health. Politicians lied to us for years and are now about to get their comeuppance.
2. They can, and do in many countries. Democracy is a messy business but it always carries with it the hope and possibility of changing direction.
As an example I would give you the not always popular Emmanuel Macron. He spent his first term pissing off just about every interest group in France by telling them hard truths, and subsequently got re-elected.
And how many of those things he pissed them off about did he actually achieve wasnt the percentage 0? He didnt get his reforms to pensions through nor those on working practises. He achieved in fact bugger all of what he wanted
Reason he got reelected in fact is it was him or lepen....like choosing between walter the softy and hitler
Macron has achieved quite a bit. But not everything, though he is trying again on pensions. Rather like Blair, it’s too easy to simply say “he did nothing” when the evidence is he’s done rather a lot, particularly on labour law reform.
Reading the list yes he acheived little of consequence to sort the problems out.
Most western states and the uk in particular have 1 problem with 2 ways to deal with it
Tax income does not equal services cost even when services are underfunded.
so either 1) raise taxes and taxing the rich wont be enough you will need to tax everyone more
2) cut the services the state offers
Good luck getting elected on either premise
First world problems
UK median household income: $46.7k France median household income: $61k
Similar net debt to UK. Vastly better healthcare (I can testify as someone who’s experienced it), virtually free childcare from birth, high quality state education, actual high speed rail lines, nice food, brilliant wine, lovely scenery and climate, pretty towns, affordable houses, good looking people with clothes that fit, and free firewood from your local communal woodland if you can find someone to cut it for you. (But admittedly their plumbers merchants are a complete cartel). France is doing fine.
You think france is doing fine then all good I dont really care as I dont live there the argument is not about france its about the uk and we have underfunded services that dont deliver and cost more than tax.
Yes I believe most of the west has the same issue but will happily concede the point to you and focus on the uk because I do live there and its important to me therefore.
The point remains the same we have two options, tax a hell of a lot more on everyone or cut services.
I would estimate that if we full fund everything then the tax required would be about double what we currently pay though thats a guess admittedly
So which political party is going to stand on tax more or reduce services and win? answer none
Well that’s kind of the Tory policy position. And it’s wrong. In the short term we need to tax a bit more, focus tax reliefs and incentives on the areas of infrastructure investment where we’re most lacking, borrow as much as we can manage without pushing up gilt yields, and spend significantly more on the public infrastructure and services that will enable the economy to grow.
Tax rises plus spending cuts equal a steadily falling apart and clinically depressed country.
NO MORE BORROWING FROM OUR CHILDREN AND GRAND CHILDREN. THEY WAY THINGS ARE GOING THE WHOLE TAX TAKE THEY PAY WILL BE SETTLING THE DEBTS OF OUR GENERATION. IT IS NOT JUST A TORY POSITION ITS AN ALL POLITICIAN POSITION BORROW MORE SO WE GET ELECTED NOW AND WE WONT BE AROUND WHEN THE BILLS ARE DUE.
You are a selfish idiot.
If we cant raise tax to pay for everything in the here and now then the state does less.
If we can get more tax in the here and now to fully fund things fine
You’re talking the ideology of 2010. It was a cataclysmic failure then, it would be a cataclysmic failure now.
I’ve worked with companies take that kind of asset sweating approach to investment. They invariably end up failing.
Every pound we don’t spend on essential infrastructure now is two pounds we’ll have to spend on the same thing in a decade.
Investment is the definition of leaving something for our children. Look at the HS2 nonsense today. There were actual MPs suggesting we can the whole thing. They’re the selfish idiots.
When our total debt is more than twice gdp its time to stop digging. Sheer lunacy to do otherwise and yes I included in debt the public sector pension liabilities which takes us north of 4 trillion in debt. If we only borrowed for infrastructure yes I wouldn't be so bothered however no government will not labour not tories and certainly not the lib dems if we ever found enough people to vote for them.
What this country needs is a patriotic strongman, right?
No not saying that either, as I said I believe in democracy I have just reached a point where I look at problems we have and most western countries have the same and realise fixing those problems can't be done in a democracy unless politicians lie about their intent or we dont go democratic for a few years. Personally I prefer politician do not tarnish their already low credibility further.
so two questions for you and second is only if you say no to the first
1) Do you see the problems in the western countries solvable by any politician being honest and still getting elected?
2) If no politician can get elected on what needs to be done what do you think should be done
1. Yes, certainly as much as in previous eras. The West has its issues but overall it’s in robust health. Politicians lied to us for years and are now about to get their comeuppance.
2. They can, and do in many countries. Democracy is a messy business but it always carries with it the hope and possibility of changing direction.
As an example I would give you the not always popular Emmanuel Macron. He spent his first term pissing off just about every interest group in France by telling them hard truths, and subsequently got re-elected.
And how many of those things he pissed them off about did he actually achieve wasnt the percentage 0? He didnt get his reforms to pensions through nor those on working practises. He achieved in fact bugger all of what he wanted
Reason he got reelected in fact is it was him or lepen....like choosing between walter the softy and hitler
Macron has achieved quite a bit. But not everything, though he is trying again on pensions. Rather like Blair, it’s too easy to simply say “he did nothing” when the evidence is he’s done rather a lot, particularly on labour law reform.
Reading the list yes he acheived little of consequence to sort the problems out.
Most western states and the uk in particular have 1 problem with 2 ways to deal with it
Tax income does not equal services cost even when services are underfunded.
so either 1) raise taxes and taxing the rich wont be enough you will need to tax everyone more
2) cut the services the state offers
Good luck getting elected on either premise
First world problems
UK median household income: $46.7k France median household income: $61k
Similar net debt to UK. Vastly better healthcare (I can testify as someone who’s experienced it), virtually free childcare from birth, high quality state education, actual high speed rail lines, nice food, brilliant wine, lovely scenery and climate, pretty towns, affordable houses, good looking people with clothes that fit, and free firewood from your local communal woodland if you can find someone to cut it for you. (But admittedly their plumbers merchants are a complete cartel). France is doing fine.
You think france is doing fine then all good I dont really care as I dont live there the argument is not about france its about the uk and we have underfunded services that dont deliver and cost more than tax.
Yes I believe most of the west has the same issue but will happily concede the point to you and focus on the uk because I do live there and its important to me therefore.
The point remains the same we have two options, tax a hell of a lot more on everyone or cut services.
I would estimate that if we full fund everything then the tax required would be about double what we currently pay though thats a guess admittedly
So which political party is going to stand on tax more or reduce services and win? answer none
Well that’s kind of the Tory policy position. And it’s wrong. In the short term we need to tax a bit more, focus tax reliefs and incentives on the areas of infrastructure investment where we’re most lacking, borrow as much as we can manage without pushing up gilt yields, and spend significantly more on the public infrastructure and services that will enable the economy to grow.
Tax rises plus spending cuts equal a steadily falling apart and clinically depressed country.
NO MORE BORROWING FROM OUR CHILDREN AND GRAND CHILDREN. THEY WAY THINGS ARE GOING THE WHOLE TAX TAKE THEY PAY WILL BE SETTLING THE DEBTS OF OUR GENERATION. IT IS NOT JUST A TORY POSITION ITS AN ALL POLITICIAN POSITION BORROW MORE SO WE GET ELECTED NOW AND WE WONT BE AROUND WHEN THE BILLS ARE DUE.
You are a selfish idiot.
If we cant raise tax to pay for everything in the here and now then the state does less.
If we can get more tax in the here and now to fully fund things fine
You’re talking the ideology of 2010. It was a cataclysmic failure then, it would be a cataclysmic failure now.
I’ve worked with companies take that kind of asset sweating approach to investment. They invariably end up failing.
Every pound we don’t spend on essential infrastructure now is two pounds we’ll have to spend on the same thing in a decade.
Investment is the definition of leaving something for our children. Look at the HS2 nonsense today. There were actual MPs suggesting we can the whole thing. They’re the selfish idiots.
When our total debt is more than twice gdp its time to stop digging. Sheer lunacy to do otherwise and yes I included in debt the public sector pension liabilities which takes us north of 4 trillion in debt. If we only borrowed for infrastructure yes I wouldn't be so bothered however no government will not labour not tories and certainly not the lib dems if we ever found enough people to vote for them.
OTOH the country has £17trillion of assets so we're not bankrupt.
You say you don't care about France but you should. It's the most comparable country to the UK in many ways but doing a lot better. Perhaps we should emulate France a bit more.
PS France's debt is 113% of GDP compared to our 95%. Japan's is 260% of GDP and they're not bust either.
What this country needs is a patriotic strongman, right?
No not saying that either, as I said I believe in democracy I have just reached a point where I look at problems we have and most western countries have the same and realise fixing those problems can't be done in a democracy unless politicians lie about their intent or we dont go democratic for a few years. Personally I prefer politician do not tarnish their already low credibility further.
so two questions for you and second is only if you say no to the first
1) Do you see the problems in the western countries solvable by any politician being honest and still getting elected?
2) If no politician can get elected on what needs to be done what do you think should be done
1. Yes, certainly as much as in previous eras. The West has its issues but overall it’s in robust health. Politicians lied to us for years and are now about to get their comeuppance.
2. They can, and do in many countries. Democracy is a messy business but it always carries with it the hope and possibility of changing direction.
As an example I would give you the not always popular Emmanuel Macron. He spent his first term pissing off just about every interest group in France by telling them hard truths, and subsequently got re-elected.
And how many of those things he pissed them off about did he actually achieve wasnt the percentage 0? He didnt get his reforms to pensions through nor those on working practises. He achieved in fact bugger all of what he wanted
Reason he got reelected in fact is it was him or lepen....like choosing between walter the softy and hitler
Macron has achieved quite a bit. But not everything, though he is trying again on pensions. Rather like Blair, it’s too easy to simply say “he did nothing” when the evidence is he’s done rather a lot, particularly on labour law reform.
Reading the list yes he acheived little of consequence to sort the problems out.
Most western states and the uk in particular have 1 problem with 2 ways to deal with it
Tax income does not equal services cost even when services are underfunded.
so either 1) raise taxes and taxing the rich wont be enough you will need to tax everyone more
2) cut the services the state offers
Good luck getting elected on either premise
First world problems
UK median household income: $46.7k France median household income: $61k
Similar net debt to UK. Vastly better healthcare (I can testify as someone who’s experienced it), virtually free childcare from birth, high quality state education, actual high speed rail lines, nice food, brilliant wine, lovely scenery and climate, pretty towns, affordable houses, good looking people with clothes that fit, and free firewood from your local communal woodland if you can find someone to cut it for you. (But admittedly their plumbers merchants are a complete cartel). France is doing fine.
You think france is doing fine then all good I dont really care as I dont live there the argument is not about france its about the uk and we have underfunded services that dont deliver and cost more than tax.
Yes I believe most of the west has the same issue but will happily concede the point to you and focus on the uk because I do live there and its important to me therefore.
The point remains the same we have two options, tax a hell of a lot more on everyone or cut services.
I would estimate that if we full fund everything then the tax required would be about double what we currently pay though thats a guess admittedly
So which political party is going to stand on tax more or reduce services and win? answer none
Well that’s kind of the Tory policy position. And it’s wrong. In the short term we need to tax a bit more, focus tax reliefs and incentives on the areas of infrastructure investment where we’re most lacking, borrow as much as we can manage without pushing up gilt yields, and spend significantly more on the public infrastructure and services that will enable the economy to grow.
Tax rises plus spending cuts equal a steadily falling apart and clinically depressed country.
NO MORE BORROWING FROM OUR CHILDREN AND GRAND CHILDREN. THEY WAY THINGS ARE GOING THE WHOLE TAX TAKE THEY PAY WILL BE SETTLING THE DEBTS OF OUR GENERATION. IT IS NOT JUST A TORY POSITION ITS AN ALL POLITICIAN POSITION BORROW MORE SO WE GET ELECTED NOW AND WE WONT BE AROUND WHEN THE BILLS ARE DUE.
You are a selfish idiot.
If we cant raise tax to pay for everything in the here and now then the state does less.
If we can get more tax in the here and now to fully fund things fine
You’re talking the ideology of 2010. It was a cataclysmic failure then, it would be a cataclysmic failure now.
I’ve worked with companies take that kind of asset sweating approach to investment. They invariably end up failing.
Every pound we don’t spend on essential infrastructure now is two pounds we’ll have to spend on the same thing in a decade.
Investment is the definition of leaving something for our children. Look at the HS2 nonsense today. There were actual MPs suggesting we can the whole thing. They’re the selfish idiots.
When our total debt is more than twice gdp its time to stop digging. Sheer lunacy to do otherwise and yes I included in debt the public sector pension liabilities which takes us north of 4 trillion in debt. If we only borrowed for infrastructure yes I wouldn't be so bothered however no government will not labour not tories and certainly not the lib dems if we ever found enough people to vote for them.
Cut basic investment from the woeful current levels and debt to gdp will be 200% in short order.
Oh and households will get into unaffordable debt instead / too.
Seriously, I’ve seen enough businesses face this scenario - most of which of course have debt to earnings way higher than any country - and the ones that hide behind the sofa and sweat assets are the ones that eventually go bust.
We actually have decent headroom to borrow more when you compare our debt burden with those of other large economies. The issue we face is our currency and credit rating are shaky. But we decided to leave the EU so that’s a cross we must bear.
What this country needs is a patriotic strongman, right?
No not saying that either, as I said I believe in democracy I have just reached a point where I look at problems we have and most western countries have the same and realise fixing those problems can't be done in a democracy unless politicians lie about their intent or we dont go democratic for a few years. Personally I prefer politician do not tarnish their already low credibility further.
so two questions for you and second is only if you say no to the first
1) Do you see the problems in the western countries solvable by any politician being honest and still getting elected?
2) If no politician can get elected on what needs to be done what do you think should be done
1. Yes, certainly as much as in previous eras. The West has its issues but overall it’s in robust health. Politicians lied to us for years and are now about to get their comeuppance.
2. They can, and do in many countries. Democracy is a messy business but it always carries with it the hope and possibility of changing direction.
As an example I would give you the not always popular Emmanuel Macron. He spent his first term pissing off just about every interest group in France by telling them hard truths, and subsequently got re-elected.
And how many of those things he pissed them off about did he actually achieve wasnt the percentage 0? He didnt get his reforms to pensions through nor those on working practises. He achieved in fact bugger all of what he wanted
Reason he got reelected in fact is it was him or lepen....like choosing between walter the softy and hitler
Macron has achieved quite a bit. But not everything, though he is trying again on pensions. Rather like Blair, it’s too easy to simply say “he did nothing” when the evidence is he’s done rather a lot, particularly on labour law reform.
Reading the list yes he acheived little of consequence to sort the problems out.
Most western states and the uk in particular have 1 problem with 2 ways to deal with it
Tax income does not equal services cost even when services are underfunded.
so either 1) raise taxes and taxing the rich wont be enough you will need to tax everyone more
2) cut the services the state offers
Good luck getting elected on either premise
First world problems
UK median household income: $46.7k France median household income: $61k
Similar net debt to UK. Vastly better healthcare (I can testify as someone who’s experienced it), virtually free childcare from birth, high quality state education, actual high speed rail lines, nice food, brilliant wine, lovely scenery and climate, pretty towns, affordable houses, good looking people with clothes that fit, and free firewood from your local communal woodland if you can find someone to cut it for you. (But admittedly their plumbers merchants are a complete cartel). France is doing fine.
You think france is doing fine then all good I dont really care as I dont live there the argument is not about france its about the uk and we have underfunded services that dont deliver and cost more than tax.
Yes I believe most of the west has the same issue but will happily concede the point to you and focus on the uk because I do live there and its important to me therefore.
The point remains the same we have two options, tax a hell of a lot more on everyone or cut services.
I would estimate that if we full fund everything then the tax required would be about double what we currently pay though thats a guess admittedly
So which political party is going to stand on tax more or reduce services and win? answer none
Well that’s kind of the Tory policy position. And it’s wrong. In the short term we need to tax a bit more, focus tax reliefs and incentives on the areas of infrastructure investment where we’re most lacking, borrow as much as we can manage without pushing up gilt yields, and spend significantly more on the public infrastructure and services that will enable the economy to grow.
Tax rises plus spending cuts equal a steadily falling apart and clinically depressed country.
NO MORE BORROWING FROM OUR CHILDREN AND GRAND CHILDREN. THEY WAY THINGS ARE GOING THE WHOLE TAX TAKE THEY PAY WILL BE SETTLING THE DEBTS OF OUR GENERATION. IT IS NOT JUST A TORY POSITION ITS AN ALL POLITICIAN POSITION BORROW MORE SO WE GET ELECTED NOW AND WE WONT BE AROUND WHEN THE BILLS ARE DUE.
You are a selfish idiot.
If we cant raise tax to pay for everything in the here and now then the state does less.
If we can get more tax in the here and now to fully fund things fine
You’re talking the ideology of 2010. It was a cataclysmic failure then, it would be a cataclysmic failure now.
I’ve worked with companies take that kind of asset sweating approach to investment. They invariably end up failing.
Every pound we don’t spend on essential infrastructure now is two pounds we’ll have to spend on the same thing in a decade.
Investment is the definition of leaving something for our children. Look at the HS2 nonsense today. There were actual MPs suggesting we can the whole thing. They’re the selfish idiots.
What this country needs is a patriotic strongman, right?
No not saying that either, as I said I believe in democracy I have just reached a point where I look at problems we have and most western countries have the same and realise fixing those problems can't be done in a democracy unless politicians lie about their intent or we dont go democratic for a few years. Personally I prefer politician do not tarnish their already low credibility further.
so two questions for you and second is only if you say no to the first
1) Do you see the problems in the western countries solvable by any politician being honest and still getting elected?
2) If no politician can get elected on what needs to be done what do you think should be done
1. Yes, certainly as much as in previous eras. The West has its issues but overall it’s in robust health. Politicians lied to us for years and are now about to get their comeuppance.
2. They can, and do in many countries. Democracy is a messy business but it always carries with it the hope and possibility of changing direction.
As an example I would give you the not always popular Emmanuel Macron. He spent his first term pissing off just about every interest group in France by telling them hard truths, and subsequently got re-elected.
And how many of those things he pissed them off about did he actually achieve wasnt the percentage 0? He didnt get his reforms to pensions through nor those on working practises. He achieved in fact bugger all of what he wanted
Reason he got reelected in fact is it was him or lepen....like choosing between walter the softy and hitler
Macron has achieved quite a bit. But not everything, though he is trying again on pensions. Rather like Blair, it’s too easy to simply say “he did nothing” when the evidence is he’s done rather a lot, particularly on labour law reform.
Reading the list yes he acheived little of consequence to sort the problems out.
Most western states and the uk in particular have 1 problem with 2 ways to deal with it
Tax income does not equal services cost even when services are underfunded.
so either 1) raise taxes and taxing the rich wont be enough you will need to tax everyone more
2) cut the services the state offers
Good luck getting elected on either premise
First world problems
UK median household income: $46.7k France median household income: $61k
Similar net debt to UK. Vastly better healthcare (I can testify as someone who’s experienced it), virtually free childcare from birth, high quality state education, actual high speed rail lines, nice food, brilliant wine, lovely scenery and climate, pretty towns, affordable houses, good looking people with clothes that fit, and free firewood from your local communal woodland if you can find someone to cut it for you. (But admittedly their plumbers merchants are a complete cartel). France is doing fine.
You think france is doing fine then all good I dont really care as I dont live there the argument is not about france its about the uk and we have underfunded services that dont deliver and cost more than tax.
Yes I believe most of the west has the same issue but will happily concede the point to you and focus on the uk because I do live there and its important to me therefore.
The point remains the same we have two options, tax a hell of a lot more on everyone or cut services.
I would estimate that if we full fund everything then the tax required would be about double what we currently pay though thats a guess admittedly
So which political party is going to stand on tax more or reduce services and win? answer none
Well that’s kind of the Tory policy position. And it’s wrong. In the short term we need to tax a bit more, focus tax reliefs and incentives on the areas of infrastructure investment where we’re most lacking, borrow as much as we can manage without pushing up gilt yields, and spend significantly more on the public infrastructure and services that will enable the economy to grow.
Tax rises plus spending cuts equal a steadily falling apart and clinically depressed country.
NO MORE BORROWING FROM OUR CHILDREN AND GRAND CHILDREN. THEY WAY THINGS ARE GOING THE WHOLE TAX TAKE THEY PAY WILL BE SETTLING THE DEBTS OF OUR GENERATION. IT IS NOT JUST A TORY POSITION ITS AN ALL POLITICIAN POSITION BORROW MORE SO WE GET ELECTED NOW AND WE WONT BE AROUND WHEN THE BILLS ARE DUE.
You are a selfish idiot.
If we cant raise tax to pay for everything in the here and now then the state does less.
If we can get more tax in the here and now to fully fund things fine
You’re talking the ideology of 2010. It was a cataclysmic failure then, it would be a cataclysmic failure now.
I’ve worked with companies take that kind of asset sweating approach to investment. They invariably end up failing.
Every pound we don’t spend on essential infrastructure now is two pounds we’ll have to spend on the same thing in a decade.
Investment is the definition of leaving something for our children. Look at the HS2 nonsense today. There were actual MPs suggesting we can the whole thing. They’re the selfish idiots.
When our total debt is more than twice gdp its time to stop digging. Sheer lunacy to do otherwise and yes I included in debt the public sector pension liabilities which takes us north of 4 trillion in debt. If we only borrowed for infrastructure yes I wouldn't be so bothered however no government will not labour not tories and certainly not the lib dems if we ever found enough people to vote for them.
And by infrastructure I don’t just mean roads and railways. Education, childcare, adult skills, healthcare, the effective functioning of the courts. These are all essential infrastructure for an investable economy.
If the majority doesn't get over it and want to make the best of it
We do want to make the best of it, by reversing as much as possible
Then why did Sir Keir lead Labour in choosing Boris's deal over May's?
The two were not on the table at the same time, so your question is bunk.
No, it really isn't. He certainly should have known in leading his party against May's deal that if he was successful in defeating it, something very much like Boris's deal was inevitable. Certainly the ERG realised that!
This is all hindsight chat.
May’s deal even unto itself was a “hard” Brexit, as that term was understood in the early post-vote period.
Remainer opponents of May’s deal hoped first and foremost to swing Brexit toward terms thought more favourable to Remainers (48% of the population, lest we forget).
Even if Labour (which was led by Corbyn at the time) HAD voted for May’s deal, she would just as likely have been deposed by her own party to prevent its execution and in retaliation at the disgrace of trying to pass a deal over the heads of the large rump of Tory backbenchers.
Far too great a chunk of *influential* (press, MPs etc) Remainer thinking was on reversal. They went max, and lost. Again.
They learned nothing from the actual campaign.
Sure the FBPE guys and the People's Vote guys, and the like were scum,
But I don't remember the clamour of offers from our side for a compromise Brexit.
Before the referendum, when it looked like a narrow Remain win was likely, Dominic Raab gave a little speech, where he said that a narrow win for one side should mean that we shouldn't discount the losers.
His point was that if Remain won narrowly, it shouldn't be taken as a sign that the British were gung ho for further integration, but rather that it was narrowly balanced, and we should make sure the tens of millions of people who voted Leave were not forgotten.
And he was right.
But that cuts both ways too. While there was no serious effort from the losers to find a compromise, nor was their any effort from May or Johnson to reach out to the muddy middle.
Something I advocated in a thread header on here the day after the vote. There was a golden opportunity for Cameron - or certainly May - to say that they wanted the widest possible support and acceptance of the new direction and the best way to achieve that, in light of how close the vote was, was to look at compromise. Apply to EFTA as a first step and then see how things developed from there. That wouldn't even have needed Freedom of Movement but it would have indicated a willingness to travel towards a new, realistic relationship with the EU based on cooperation.
But May had to be the hardest of Brexiteers because she fundamentally misunderstood the attitude of both Parliament and the country as a whole. Hence no compromise on anything.
May understood that Efta would have divided her party, perhaps blown it in half. That's why she couldn't contemplate it. Every step of the process - calling the referendum, May's red lines, the refusal to compromise in parliament, Johnson's signing up to a Brexit deal in bad faith - has been determined by the goal of Tory Party unity, over the interests of the country. And it has failed because the Eurosceptic right of the Tory party can never be satisfied, as they are at war with reality.
I think that's right.
And I also think that EFTA/EEA (while it would probably have won a narrow majority) would not have honoured the spirit of the referendum.
But @Richard_Tyndall is absolutely right that if someone other than May had been in charge - someone with vision and charisma and courage - then it might have been possible to build a Brexit that looked more like Switzerland's relationship with the EU.
And which would have satisfied 80% of Leavers and 40% of Remainers.
Switzerland has free movement. No shot. It would have satisfied the rich Leavers but there's be no GE votes for it in Bishop Auckland or Bolsover.
Free movement is a problem in proportion to the actions taken to protect the wages of those in low end jobs.
See the rioting in France etc.
Switzerland places high barriers to entering their job market - “You are entirely free to work here. Providing you speak the required languages and have a Swiss qualification.”
On your coffee is very very expensive - and served by a Swiss person
High end jobs do not require protection because of the world wide shortage in high end skills.
The English language (or rather our shitness at foreign languages) causes big distortions even in our high skilled labour market, but especially at the low skilled end.
Only a small number of Brits have the language skills to be able to work successfully overseas, unless they go long haul to the US or beyond which is less suitable for temporary working abroad and much harder to get a Visa for unskilled work.
If the promise of free movement were more truly reciprocal for unskilled or skilled manual workers in the UK perhaps the forces behind Brexit would have held less sway.
Considering that people think it's appalling that people should consider moving out of low-wage regions of the UK for better-paid jobs within the country itself, I don't think emigration options further afield would have helped perceptions of the EU much. It would still have benefitted mostly wealthier older people and intrinsically open-minded grads.
What this country needs is a patriotic strongman, right?
No not saying that either, as I said I believe in democracy I have just reached a point where I look at problems we have and most western countries have the same and realise fixing those problems can't be done in a democracy unless politicians lie about their intent or we dont go democratic for a few years. Personally I prefer politician do not tarnish their already low credibility further.
so two questions for you and second is only if you say no to the first
1) Do you see the problems in the western countries solvable by any politician being honest and still getting elected?
2) If no politician can get elected on what needs to be done what do you think should be done
1. Yes, certainly as much as in previous eras. The West has its issues but overall it’s in robust health. Politicians lied to us for years and are now about to get their comeuppance.
2. They can, and do in many countries. Democracy is a messy business but it always carries with it the hope and possibility of changing direction.
As an example I would give you the not always popular Emmanuel Macron. He spent his first term pissing off just about every interest group in France by telling them hard truths, and subsequently got re-elected.
And how many of those things he pissed them off about did he actually achieve wasnt the percentage 0? He didnt get his reforms to pensions through nor those on working practises. He achieved in fact bugger all of what he wanted
Reason he got reelected in fact is it was him or lepen....like choosing between walter the softy and hitler
Macron has achieved quite a bit. But not everything, though he is trying again on pensions. Rather like Blair, it’s too easy to simply say “he did nothing” when the evidence is he’s done rather a lot, particularly on labour law reform.
Reading the list yes he acheived little of consequence to sort the problems out.
Most western states and the uk in particular have 1 problem with 2 ways to deal with it
Tax income does not equal services cost even when services are underfunded.
so either 1) raise taxes and taxing the rich wont be enough you will need to tax everyone more
2) cut the services the state offers
Good luck getting elected on either premise
First world problems
UK median household income: $46.7k France median household income: $61k
Similar net debt to UK. Vastly better healthcare (I can testify as someone who’s experienced it), virtually free childcare from birth, high quality state education, actual high speed rail lines, nice food, brilliant wine, lovely scenery and climate, pretty towns, affordable houses, good looking people with clothes that fit, and free firewood from your local communal woodland if you can find someone to cut it for you. (But admittedly their plumbers merchants are a complete cartel). France is doing fine.
You think france is doing fine then all good I dont really care as I dont live there the argument is not about france its about the uk and we have underfunded services that dont deliver and cost more than tax.
Yes I believe most of the west has the same issue but will happily concede the point to you and focus on the uk because I do live there and its important to me therefore.
The point remains the same we have two options, tax a hell of a lot more on everyone or cut services.
I would estimate that if we full fund everything then the tax required would be about double what we currently pay though thats a guess admittedly
So which political party is going to stand on tax more or reduce services and win? answer none
Well that’s kind of the Tory policy position. And it’s wrong. In the short term we need to tax a bit more, focus tax reliefs and incentives on the areas of infrastructure investment where we’re most lacking, borrow as much as we can manage without pushing up gilt yields, and spend significantly more on the public infrastructure and services that will enable the economy to grow.
Tax rises plus spending cuts equal a steadily falling apart and clinically depressed country.
NO MORE BORROWING FROM OUR CHILDREN AND GRAND CHILDREN. THEY WAY THINGS ARE GOING THE WHOLE TAX TAKE THEY PAY WILL BE SETTLING THE DEBTS OF OUR GENERATION. IT IS NOT JUST A TORY POSITION ITS AN ALL POLITICIAN POSITION BORROW MORE SO WE GET ELECTED NOW AND WE WONT BE AROUND WHEN THE BILLS ARE DUE.
You are a selfish idiot.
If we cant raise tax to pay for everything in the here and now then the state does less.
If we can get more tax in the here and now to fully fund things fine
You’re talking the ideology of 2010. It was a cataclysmic failure then, it would be a cataclysmic failure now.
I’ve worked with companies take that kind of asset sweating approach to investment. They invariably end up failing.
Every pound we don’t spend on essential infrastructure now is two pounds we’ll have to spend on the same thing in a decade.
Investment is the definition of leaving something for our children. Look at the HS2 nonsense today. There were actual MPs suggesting we can the whole thing. They’re the selfish idiots.
No they are absolutely right. I am all for infrastructure spending and would have no problem spending the amounts that we are going to have to spend on HS2. I agree with your analysis there. But we should not be spending it on HS2 - a project that was of dubious value even before the world changed and is defintely a massive white elephant now.
Take that same money and spend it on a whole host of regional infrastructure projects. Not just the East West train links in Northern England, but ultra fast broadband for every part of the country, improved rail links away from the main routes - not least connecting the docks and manufacturing centres to the network again. Tidal energy projects, tram and light rail systems. There are a whole host of things that can be done with that money that will give a far better return than just improving travel times and capacity on links into London. All the more so at a time when we are moving away from the commuting model for work and more towards distance working.
What this country needs is a patriotic strongman, right?
No not saying that either, as I said I believe in democracy I have just reached a point where I look at problems we have and most western countries have the same and realise fixing those problems can't be done in a democracy unless politicians lie about their intent or we dont go democratic for a few years. Personally I prefer politician do not tarnish their already low credibility further.
so two questions for you and second is only if you say no to the first
1) Do you see the problems in the western countries solvable by any politician being honest and still getting elected?
2) If no politician can get elected on what needs to be done what do you think should be done
1. Yes, certainly as much as in previous eras. The West has its issues but overall it’s in robust health. Politicians lied to us for years and are now about to get their comeuppance.
2. They can, and do in many countries. Democracy is a messy business but it always carries with it the hope and possibility of changing direction.
As an example I would give you the not always popular Emmanuel Macron. He spent his first term pissing off just about every interest group in France by telling them hard truths, and subsequently got re-elected.
And how many of those things he pissed them off about did he actually achieve wasnt the percentage 0? He didnt get his reforms to pensions through nor those on working practises. He achieved in fact bugger all of what he wanted
Reason he got reelected in fact is it was him or lepen....like choosing between walter the softy and hitler
Macron has achieved quite a bit. But not everything, though he is trying again on pensions. Rather like Blair, it’s too easy to simply say “he did nothing” when the evidence is he’s done rather a lot, particularly on labour law reform.
Reading the list yes he acheived little of consequence to sort the problems out.
Most western states and the uk in particular have 1 problem with 2 ways to deal with it
Tax income does not equal services cost even when services are underfunded.
so either 1) raise taxes and taxing the rich wont be enough you will need to tax everyone more
2) cut the services the state offers
Good luck getting elected on either premise
First world problems
UK median household income: $46.7k France median household income: $61k
Similar net debt to UK. Vastly better healthcare (I can testify as someone who’s experienced it), virtually free childcare from birth, high quality state education, actual high speed rail lines, nice food, brilliant wine, lovely scenery and climate, pretty towns, affordable houses, good looking people with clothes that fit, and free firewood from your local communal woodland if you can find someone to cut it for you. (But admittedly their plumbers merchants are a complete cartel). France is doing fine.
You think france is doing fine then all good I dont really care as I dont live there the argument is not about france its about the uk and we have underfunded services that dont deliver and cost more than tax.
Yes I believe most of the west has the same issue but will happily concede the point to you and focus on the uk because I do live there and its important to me therefore.
The point remains the same we have two options, tax a hell of a lot more on everyone or cut services.
I would estimate that if we full fund everything then the tax required would be about double what we currently pay though thats a guess admittedly
So which political party is going to stand on tax more or reduce services and win? answer none
Well that’s kind of the Tory policy position. And it’s wrong. In the short term we need to tax a bit more, focus tax reliefs and incentives on the areas of infrastructure investment where we’re most lacking, borrow as much as we can manage without pushing up gilt yields, and spend significantly more on the public infrastructure and services that will enable the economy to grow.
Tax rises plus spending cuts equal a steadily falling apart and clinically depressed country.
NO MORE BORROWING FROM OUR CHILDREN AND GRAND CHILDREN. THEY WAY THINGS ARE GOING THE WHOLE TAX TAKE THEY PAY WILL BE SETTLING THE DEBTS OF OUR GENERATION. IT IS NOT JUST A TORY POSITION ITS AN ALL POLITICIAN POSITION BORROW MORE SO WE GET ELECTED NOW AND WE WONT BE AROUND WHEN THE BILLS ARE DUE.
You are a selfish idiot.
If we cant raise tax to pay for everything in the here and now then the state does less.
If we can get more tax in the here and now to fully fund things fine
You’re talking the ideology of 2010. It was a cataclysmic failure then, it would be a cataclysmic failure now.
I’ve worked with companies take that kind of asset sweating approach to investment. They invariably end up failing.
Every pound we don’t spend on essential infrastructure now is two pounds we’ll have to spend on the same thing in a decade.
Investment is the definition of leaving something for our children. Look at the HS2 nonsense today. There were actual MPs suggesting we can the whole thing. They’re the selfish idiots.
When our total debt is more than twice gdp its time to stop digging. Sheer lunacy to do otherwise and yes I included in debt the public sector pension liabilities which takes us north of 4 trillion in debt. If we only borrowed for infrastructure yes I wouldn't be so bothered however no government will not labour not tories and certainly not the lib dems if we ever found enough people to vote for them.
OTOH the country has £17trillion of assets so we're not bankrupt.
You say you don't care about France but you should. It's the most comparable country to the UK in many ways but doing a lot better. Perhaps we should emulate France a bit more.
PS France's debt is 113% of GDP compared to our 95%. Japan's is 260% of GDP and they're not bust either.
The elementary difference is that 260% is almost exclusively due to other Japanese people so the interest paid stays in the economy. Because we have run trade deficits for the best part of 30 years now our 95% is mainly owed to foreigners so the interest paid drains from the economy reducing demand and investment here. They are simply not comparable.
What this country needs is a patriotic strongman, right?
No not saying that either, as I said I believe in democracy I have just reached a point where I look at problems we have and most western countries have the same and realise fixing those problems can't be done in a democracy unless politicians lie about their intent or we dont go democratic for a few years. Personally I prefer politician do not tarnish their already low credibility further.
so two questions for you and second is only if you say no to the first
1) Do you see the problems in the western countries solvable by any politician being honest and still getting elected?
2) If no politician can get elected on what needs to be done what do you think should be done
1. Yes, certainly as much as in previous eras. The West has its issues but overall it’s in robust health. Politicians lied to us for years and are now about to get their comeuppance.
2. They can, and do in many countries. Democracy is a messy business but it always carries with it the hope and possibility of changing direction.
As an example I would give you the not always popular Emmanuel Macron. He spent his first term pissing off just about every interest group in France by telling them hard truths, and subsequently got re-elected.
And how many of those things he pissed them off about did he actually achieve wasnt the percentage 0? He didnt get his reforms to pensions through nor those on working practises. He achieved in fact bugger all of what he wanted
Reason he got reelected in fact is it was him or lepen....like choosing between walter the softy and hitler
Macron has achieved quite a bit. But not everything, though he is trying again on pensions. Rather like Blair, it’s too easy to simply say “he did nothing” when the evidence is he’s done rather a lot, particularly on labour law reform.
Reading the list yes he acheived little of consequence to sort the problems out.
Most western states and the uk in particular have 1 problem with 2 ways to deal with it
Tax income does not equal services cost even when services are underfunded.
so either 1) raise taxes and taxing the rich wont be enough you will need to tax everyone more
2) cut the services the state offers
Good luck getting elected on either premise
First world problems
UK median household income: $46.7k France median household income: $61k
Similar net debt to UK. Vastly better healthcare (I can testify as someone who’s experienced it), virtually free childcare from birth, high quality state education, actual high speed rail lines, nice food, brilliant wine, lovely scenery and climate, pretty towns, affordable houses, good looking people with clothes that fit, and free firewood from your local communal woodland if you can find someone to cut it for you. (But admittedly their plumbers merchants are a complete cartel). France is doing fine.
You think france is doing fine then all good I dont really care as I dont live there the argument is not about france its about the uk and we have underfunded services that dont deliver and cost more than tax.
Yes I believe most of the west has the same issue but will happily concede the point to you and focus on the uk because I do live there and its important to me therefore.
The point remains the same we have two options, tax a hell of a lot more on everyone or cut services.
I would estimate that if we full fund everything then the tax required would be about double what we currently pay though thats a guess admittedly
So which political party is going to stand on tax more or reduce services and win? answer none
Well that’s kind of the Tory policy position. And it’s wrong. In the short term we need to tax a bit more, focus tax reliefs and incentives on the areas of infrastructure investment where we’re most lacking, borrow as much as we can manage without pushing up gilt yields, and spend significantly more on the public infrastructure and services that will enable the economy to grow.
Tax rises plus spending cuts equal a steadily falling apart and clinically depressed country.
NO MORE BORROWING FROM OUR CHILDREN AND GRAND CHILDREN. THEY WAY THINGS ARE GOING THE WHOLE TAX TAKE THEY PAY WILL BE SETTLING THE DEBTS OF OUR GENERATION. IT IS NOT JUST A TORY POSITION ITS AN ALL POLITICIAN POSITION BORROW MORE SO WE GET ELECTED NOW AND WE WONT BE AROUND WHEN THE BILLS ARE DUE.
You are a selfish idiot.
If we cant raise tax to pay for everything in the here and now then the state does less.
If we can get more tax in the here and now to fully fund things fine
You’re talking the ideology of 2010. It was a cataclysmic failure then, it would be a cataclysmic failure now.
I’ve worked with companies take that kind of asset sweating approach to investment. They invariably end up failing.
Every pound we don’t spend on essential infrastructure now is two pounds we’ll have to spend on the same thing in a decade.
Investment is the definition of leaving something for our children. Look at the HS2 nonsense today. There were actual MPs suggesting we can the whole thing. They’re the selfish idiots.
When our total debt is more than twice gdp its time to stop digging. Sheer lunacy to do otherwise and yes I included in debt the public sector pension liabilities which takes us north of 4 trillion in debt. If we only borrowed for infrastructure yes I wouldn't be so bothered however no government will not labour not tories and certainly not the lib dems if we ever found enough people to vote for them.
And by infrastructure I don’t just mean roads and railways. Education, childcare, adult skills, healthcare, the effective functioning of the courts. These are all essential infrastructure for an investable economy.
Start by paying the fees of students studying subjects that we need - not least new doctors and nurses.
Do the Conservatives even want to win next year? They give every impression of a clapped out, exhausted, brain-dead party that is absolutely desperate for a period in opposition.
It's a ChatGPT detector I've run 5 non-AI generated bits through and 5 ChatGPT bits through and it's been 100% accurate in determining what's been created by the bot and what's not.
This is useful for three reasons:
1. At some point there will be a plugin that can filter out ChatGPT generated content, the same way Adblock Plus and other ad blockers work. So if you don't want to see content created by a robot, you won't.
2. The ability to detect AI written content will mean AI written content can be discarded from future training models
3. People paying good money for professional services, e.g. consultancy, copywriting etc can be reasonably sure they're paying for a human to give their best shot at it (even if they've used ChatGPT for background research or an early draft).
But the really big one, perhaps bigger than all three above. We can still tell the difference between humans and AI. There is something humans put into writing that a probabilistic word generator does not - so while ChatGPT may provide very convincing answers, and even sound convincingly human at times, it's still only at best an attempt at a close copy of what a human can do - not a substitute, not a replacement.
What this country needs is a patriotic strongman, right?
No not saying that either, as I said I believe in democracy I have just reached a point where I look at problems we have and most western countries have the same and realise fixing those problems can't be done in a democracy unless politicians lie about their intent or we dont go democratic for a few years. Personally I prefer politician do not tarnish their already low credibility further.
so two questions for you and second is only if you say no to the first
1) Do you see the problems in the western countries solvable by any politician being honest and still getting elected?
2) If no politician can get elected on what needs to be done what do you think should be done
1. Yes, certainly as much as in previous eras. The West has its issues but overall it’s in robust health. Politicians lied to us for years and are now about to get their comeuppance.
2. They can, and do in many countries. Democracy is a messy business but it always carries with it the hope and possibility of changing direction.
As an example I would give you the not always popular Emmanuel Macron. He spent his first term pissing off just about every interest group in France by telling them hard truths, and subsequently got re-elected.
And how many of those things he pissed them off about did he actually achieve wasnt the percentage 0? He didnt get his reforms to pensions through nor those on working practises. He achieved in fact bugger all of what he wanted
Reason he got reelected in fact is it was him or lepen....like choosing between walter the softy and hitler
Macron has achieved quite a bit. But not everything, though he is trying again on pensions. Rather like Blair, it’s too easy to simply say “he did nothing” when the evidence is he’s done rather a lot, particularly on labour law reform.
Reading the list yes he acheived little of consequence to sort the problems out.
Most western states and the uk in particular have 1 problem with 2 ways to deal with it
Tax income does not equal services cost even when services are underfunded.
so either 1) raise taxes and taxing the rich wont be enough you will need to tax everyone more
2) cut the services the state offers
Good luck getting elected on either premise
First world problems
UK median household income: $46.7k France median household income: $61k
Similar net debt to UK. Vastly better healthcare (I can testify as someone who’s experienced it), virtually free childcare from birth, high quality state education, actual high speed rail lines, nice food, brilliant wine, lovely scenery and climate, pretty towns, affordable houses, good looking people with clothes that fit, and free firewood from your local communal woodland if you can find someone to cut it for you. (But admittedly their plumbers merchants are a complete cartel). France is doing fine.
You think france is doing fine then all good I dont really care as I dont live there the argument is not about france its about the uk and we have underfunded services that dont deliver and cost more than tax.
Yes I believe most of the west has the same issue but will happily concede the point to you and focus on the uk because I do live there and its important to me therefore.
The point remains the same we have two options, tax a hell of a lot more on everyone or cut services.
I would estimate that if we full fund everything then the tax required would be about double what we currently pay though thats a guess admittedly
So which political party is going to stand on tax more or reduce services and win? answer none
Well that’s kind of the Tory policy position. And it’s wrong. In the short term we need to tax a bit more, focus tax reliefs and incentives on the areas of infrastructure investment where we’re most lacking, borrow as much as we can manage without pushing up gilt yields, and spend significantly more on the public infrastructure and services that will enable the economy to grow.
Tax rises plus spending cuts equal a steadily falling apart and clinically depressed country.
NO MORE BORROWING FROM OUR CHILDREN AND GRAND CHILDREN. THEY WAY THINGS ARE GOING THE WHOLE TAX TAKE THEY PAY WILL BE SETTLING THE DEBTS OF OUR GENERATION. IT IS NOT JUST A TORY POSITION ITS AN ALL POLITICIAN POSITION BORROW MORE SO WE GET ELECTED NOW AND WE WONT BE AROUND WHEN THE BILLS ARE DUE.
You are a selfish idiot.
If we cant raise tax to pay for everything in the here and now then the state does less.
If we can get more tax in the here and now to fully fund things fine
You’re talking the ideology of 2010. It was a cataclysmic failure then, it would be a cataclysmic failure now.
I’ve worked with companies take that kind of asset sweating approach to investment. They invariably end up failing.
Every pound we don’t spend on essential infrastructure now is two pounds we’ll have to spend on the same thing in a decade.
Investment is the definition of leaving something for our children. Look at the HS2 nonsense today. There were actual MPs suggesting we can the whole thing. They’re the selfish idiots.
When our total debt is more than twice gdp its time to stop digging. Sheer lunacy to do otherwise and yes I included in debt the public sector pension liabilities which takes us north of 4 trillion in debt. If we only borrowed for infrastructure yes I wouldn't be so bothered however no government will not labour not tories and certainly not the lib dems if we ever found enough people to vote for them.
And by infrastructure I don’t just mean roads and railways. Education, childcare, adult skills, healthcare, the effective functioning of the courts. These are all essential infrastructure for an investable economy.
Start by paying the fees of students studying subjects that we need - not least new doctors and nurses.
Medical students don't need their fees paying. There are way more applying for places than there are places available. The fees don't put them off.
Increase the number of places to increase the number of doctors.
What this country needs is a patriotic strongman, right?
No not saying that either, as I said I believe in democracy I have just reached a point where I look at problems we have and most western countries have the same and realise fixing those problems can't be done in a democracy unless politicians lie about their intent or we dont go democratic for a few years. Personally I prefer politician do not tarnish their already low credibility further.
so two questions for you and second is only if you say no to the first
1) Do you see the problems in the western countries solvable by any politician being honest and still getting elected?
2) If no politician can get elected on what needs to be done what do you think should be done
1. Yes, certainly as much as in previous eras. The West has its issues but overall it’s in robust health. Politicians lied to us for years and are now about to get their comeuppance.
2. They can, and do in many countries. Democracy is a messy business but it always carries with it the hope and possibility of changing direction.
As an example I would give you the not always popular Emmanuel Macron. He spent his first term pissing off just about every interest group in France by telling them hard truths, and subsequently got re-elected.
And how many of those things he pissed them off about did he actually achieve wasnt the percentage 0? He didnt get his reforms to pensions through nor those on working practises. He achieved in fact bugger all of what he wanted
Reason he got reelected in fact is it was him or lepen....like choosing between walter the softy and hitler
Macron has achieved quite a bit. But not everything, though he is trying again on pensions. Rather like Blair, it’s too easy to simply say “he did nothing” when the evidence is he’s done rather a lot, particularly on labour law reform.
Reading the list yes he acheived little of consequence to sort the problems out.
Most western states and the uk in particular have 1 problem with 2 ways to deal with it
Tax income does not equal services cost even when services are underfunded.
so either 1) raise taxes and taxing the rich wont be enough you will need to tax everyone more
2) cut the services the state offers
Good luck getting elected on either premise
First world problems
UK median household income: $46.7k France median household income: $61k
Similar net debt to UK. Vastly better healthcare (I can testify as someone who’s experienced it), virtually free childcare from birth, high quality state education, actual high speed rail lines, nice food, brilliant wine, lovely scenery and climate, pretty towns, affordable houses, good looking people with clothes that fit, and free firewood from your local communal woodland if you can find someone to cut it for you. (But admittedly their plumbers merchants are a complete cartel). France is doing fine.
You think france is doing fine then all good I dont really care as I dont live there the argument is not about france its about the uk and we have underfunded services that dont deliver and cost more than tax.
Yes I believe most of the west has the same issue but will happily concede the point to you and focus on the uk because I do live there and its important to me therefore.
The point remains the same we have two options, tax a hell of a lot more on everyone or cut services.
I would estimate that if we full fund everything then the tax required would be about double what we currently pay though thats a guess admittedly
So which political party is going to stand on tax more or reduce services and win? answer none
Well that’s kind of the Tory policy position. And it’s wrong. In the short term we need to tax a bit more, focus tax reliefs and incentives on the areas of infrastructure investment where we’re most lacking, borrow as much as we can manage without pushing up gilt yields, and spend significantly more on the public infrastructure and services that will enable the economy to grow.
Tax rises plus spending cuts equal a steadily falling apart and clinically depressed country.
NO MORE BORROWING FROM OUR CHILDREN AND GRAND CHILDREN. THEY WAY THINGS ARE GOING THE WHOLE TAX TAKE THEY PAY WILL BE SETTLING THE DEBTS OF OUR GENERATION. IT IS NOT JUST A TORY POSITION ITS AN ALL POLITICIAN POSITION BORROW MORE SO WE GET ELECTED NOW AND WE WONT BE AROUND WHEN THE BILLS ARE DUE.
You are a selfish idiot.
If we cant raise tax to pay for everything in the here and now then the state does less.
If we can get more tax in the here and now to fully fund things fine
You’re talking the ideology of 2010. It was a cataclysmic failure then, it would be a cataclysmic failure now.
I’ve worked with companies take that kind of asset sweating approach to investment. They invariably end up failing.
Every pound we don’t spend on essential infrastructure now is two pounds we’ll have to spend on the same thing in a decade.
Investment is the definition of leaving something for our children. Look at the HS2 nonsense today. There were actual MPs suggesting we can the whole thing. They’re the selfish idiots.
When our total debt is more than twice gdp its time to stop digging. Sheer lunacy to do otherwise and yes I included in debt the public sector pension liabilities which takes us north of 4 trillion in debt. If we only borrowed for infrastructure yes I wouldn't be so bothered however no government will not labour not tories and certainly not the lib dems if we ever found enough people to vote for them.
OTOH the country has £17trillion of assets so we're not bankrupt.
You say you don't care about France but you should. It's the most comparable country to the UK in many ways but doing a lot better. Perhaps we should emulate France a bit more.
PS France's debt is 113% of GDP compared to our 95%. Japan's is 260% of GDP and they're not bust either.
The elementary difference is that 260% is almost exclusively due to other Japanese people so the interest paid stays in the economy. Because we have run trade deficits for the best part of 30 years now our 95% is mainly owed to foreigners so the interest paid drains from the economy reducing demand and investment here. They are simply not comparable.
What this country needs is a patriotic strongman, right?
No not saying that either, as I said I believe in democracy I have just reached a point where I look at problems we have and most western countries have the same and realise fixing those problems can't be done in a democracy unless politicians lie about their intent or we dont go democratic for a few years. Personally I prefer politician do not tarnish their already low credibility further.
so two questions for you and second is only if you say no to the first
1) Do you see the problems in the western countries solvable by any politician being honest and still getting elected?
2) If no politician can get elected on what needs to be done what do you think should be done
1. Yes, certainly as much as in previous eras. The West has its issues but overall it’s in robust health. Politicians lied to us for years and are now about to get their comeuppance.
2. They can, and do in many countries. Democracy is a messy business but it always carries with it the hope and possibility of changing direction.
As an example I would give you the not always popular Emmanuel Macron. He spent his first term pissing off just about every interest group in France by telling them hard truths, and subsequently got re-elected.
And how many of those things he pissed them off about did he actually achieve wasnt the percentage 0? He didnt get his reforms to pensions through nor those on working practises. He achieved in fact bugger all of what he wanted
Reason he got reelected in fact is it was him or lepen....like choosing between walter the softy and hitler
Macron has achieved quite a bit. But not everything, though he is trying again on pensions. Rather like Blair, it’s too easy to simply say “he did nothing” when the evidence is he’s done rather a lot, particularly on labour law reform.
Reading the list yes he acheived little of consequence to sort the problems out.
Most western states and the uk in particular have 1 problem with 2 ways to deal with it
Tax income does not equal services cost even when services are underfunded.
so either 1) raise taxes and taxing the rich wont be enough you will need to tax everyone more
2) cut the services the state offers
Good luck getting elected on either premise
First world problems
UK median household income: $46.7k France median household income: $61k
Similar net debt to UK. Vastly better healthcare (I can testify as someone who’s experienced it), virtually free childcare from birth, high quality state education, actual high speed rail lines, nice food, brilliant wine, lovely scenery and climate, pretty towns, affordable houses, good looking people with clothes that fit, and free firewood from your local communal woodland if you can find someone to cut it for you. (But admittedly their plumbers merchants are a complete cartel). France is doing fine.
You think france is doing fine then all good I dont really care as I dont live there the argument is not about france its about the uk and we have underfunded services that dont deliver and cost more than tax.
Yes I believe most of the west has the same issue but will happily concede the point to you and focus on the uk because I do live there and its important to me therefore.
The point remains the same we have two options, tax a hell of a lot more on everyone or cut services.
I would estimate that if we full fund everything then the tax required would be about double what we currently pay though thats a guess admittedly
So which political party is going to stand on tax more or reduce services and win? answer none
Well that’s kind of the Tory policy position. And it’s wrong. In the short term we need to tax a bit more, focus tax reliefs and incentives on the areas of infrastructure investment where we’re most lacking, borrow as much as we can manage without pushing up gilt yields, and spend significantly more on the public infrastructure and services that will enable the economy to grow.
Tax rises plus spending cuts equal a steadily falling apart and clinically depressed country.
NO MORE BORROWING FROM OUR CHILDREN AND GRAND CHILDREN. THEY WAY THINGS ARE GOING THE WHOLE TAX TAKE THEY PAY WILL BE SETTLING THE DEBTS OF OUR GENERATION. IT IS NOT JUST A TORY POSITION ITS AN ALL POLITICIAN POSITION BORROW MORE SO WE GET ELECTED NOW AND WE WONT BE AROUND WHEN THE BILLS ARE DUE.
You are a selfish idiot.
If we cant raise tax to pay for everything in the here and now then the state does less.
If we can get more tax in the here and now to fully fund things fine
You’re talking the ideology of 2010. It was a cataclysmic failure then, it would be a cataclysmic failure now.
I’ve worked with companies take that kind of asset sweating approach to investment. They invariably end up failing.
Every pound we don’t spend on essential infrastructure now is two pounds we’ll have to spend on the same thing in a decade.
Investment is the definition of leaving something for our children. Look at the HS2 nonsense today. There were actual MPs suggesting we can the whole thing. They’re the selfish idiots.
When our total debt is more than twice gdp its time to stop digging. Sheer lunacy to do otherwise and yes I included in debt the public sector pension liabilities which takes us north of 4 trillion in debt. If we only borrowed for infrastructure yes I wouldn't be so bothered however no government will not labour not tories and certainly not the lib dems if we ever found enough people to vote for them.
And by infrastructure I don’t just mean roads and railways. Education, childcare, adult skills, healthcare, the effective functioning of the courts. These are all essential infrastructure for an investable economy.
Start by paying the fees of students studying subjects that we need - not least new doctors and nurses.
Medical students don't need their fees paying. There are way more applying for places than there are places available. The fees don't put them off.
Increase the number of places to increase the number of doctors.
What this country needs is a patriotic strongman, right?
No not saying that either, as I said I believe in democracy I have just reached a point where I look at problems we have and most western countries have the same and realise fixing those problems can't be done in a democracy unless politicians lie about their intent or we dont go democratic for a few years. Personally I prefer politician do not tarnish their already low credibility further.
so two questions for you and second is only if you say no to the first
1) Do you see the problems in the western countries solvable by any politician being honest and still getting elected?
2) If no politician can get elected on what needs to be done what do you think should be done
1. Yes, certainly as much as in previous eras. The West has its issues but overall it’s in robust health. Politicians lied to us for years and are now about to get their comeuppance.
2. They can, and do in many countries. Democracy is a messy business but it always carries with it the hope and possibility of changing direction.
As an example I would give you the not always popular Emmanuel Macron. He spent his first term pissing off just about every interest group in France by telling them hard truths, and subsequently got re-elected.
And how many of those things he pissed them off about did he actually achieve wasnt the percentage 0? He didnt get his reforms to pensions through nor those on working practises. He achieved in fact bugger all of what he wanted
Reason he got reelected in fact is it was him or lepen....like choosing between walter the softy and hitler
Macron has achieved quite a bit. But not everything, though he is trying again on pensions. Rather like Blair, it’s too easy to simply say “he did nothing” when the evidence is he’s done rather a lot, particularly on labour law reform.
Reading the list yes he acheived little of consequence to sort the problems out.
Most western states and the uk in particular have 1 problem with 2 ways to deal with it
Tax income does not equal services cost even when services are underfunded.
so either 1) raise taxes and taxing the rich wont be enough you will need to tax everyone more
2) cut the services the state offers
Good luck getting elected on either premise
First world problems
UK median household income: $46.7k France median household income: $61k
Similar net debt to UK. Vastly better healthcare (I can testify as someone who’s experienced it), virtually free childcare from birth, high quality state education, actual high speed rail lines, nice food, brilliant wine, lovely scenery and climate, pretty towns, affordable houses, good looking people with clothes that fit, and free firewood from your local communal woodland if you can find someone to cut it for you. (But admittedly their plumbers merchants are a complete cartel). France is doing fine.
You think france is doing fine then all good I dont really care as I dont live there the argument is not about france its about the uk and we have underfunded services that dont deliver and cost more than tax.
Yes I believe most of the west has the same issue but will happily concede the point to you and focus on the uk because I do live there and its important to me therefore.
The point remains the same we have two options, tax a hell of a lot more on everyone or cut services.
I would estimate that if we full fund everything then the tax required would be about double what we currently pay though thats a guess admittedly
So which political party is going to stand on tax more or reduce services and win? answer none
Well that’s kind of the Tory policy position. And it’s wrong. In the short term we need to tax a bit more, focus tax reliefs and incentives on the areas of infrastructure investment where we’re most lacking, borrow as much as we can manage without pushing up gilt yields, and spend significantly more on the public infrastructure and services that will enable the economy to grow.
Tax rises plus spending cuts equal a steadily falling apart and clinically depressed country.
NO MORE BORROWING FROM OUR CHILDREN AND GRAND CHILDREN. THEY WAY THINGS ARE GOING THE WHOLE TAX TAKE THEY PAY WILL BE SETTLING THE DEBTS OF OUR GENERATION. IT IS NOT JUST A TORY POSITION ITS AN ALL POLITICIAN POSITION BORROW MORE SO WE GET ELECTED NOW AND WE WONT BE AROUND WHEN THE BILLS ARE DUE.
You are a selfish idiot.
If we cant raise tax to pay for everything in the here and now then the state does less.
If we can get more tax in the here and now to fully fund things fine
You’re talking the ideology of 2010. It was a cataclysmic failure then, it would be a cataclysmic failure now.
I’ve worked with companies take that kind of asset sweating approach to investment. They invariably end up failing.
Every pound we don’t spend on essential infrastructure now is two pounds we’ll have to spend on the same thing in a decade.
Investment is the definition of leaving something for our children. Look at the HS2 nonsense today. There were actual MPs suggesting we can the whole thing. They’re the selfish idiots.
When our total debt is more than twice gdp its time to stop digging. Sheer lunacy to do otherwise and yes I included in debt the public sector pension liabilities which takes us north of 4 trillion in debt. If we only borrowed for infrastructure yes I wouldn't be so bothered however no government will not labour not tories and certainly not the lib dems if we ever found enough people to vote for them.
And by infrastructure I don’t just mean roads and railways. Education, childcare, adult skills, healthcare, the effective functioning of the courts. These are all essential infrastructure for an investable economy.
Start by paying the fees of students studying subjects that we need - not least new doctors and nurses.
Medical students don't need their fees paying. There are way more applying for places than there are places available. The fees don't put them off.
Increase the number of places to increase the number of doctors.
Quite, although it’s not simple to do that. Foxy will tell you more but lots of training revolves around clinical placement and that needs clinicians giving up time or new ones being hired to do the training. Being difficult doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done though.
What this country needs is a patriotic strongman, right?
No not saying that either, as I said I believe in democracy I have just reached a point where I look at problems we have and most western countries have the same and realise fixing those problems can't be done in a democracy unless politicians lie about their intent or we dont go democratic for a few years. Personally I prefer politician do not tarnish their already low credibility further.
so two questions for you and second is only if you say no to the first
1) Do you see the problems in the western countries solvable by any politician being honest and still getting elected?
2) If no politician can get elected on what needs to be done what do you think should be done
1. Yes, certainly as much as in previous eras. The West has its issues but overall it’s in robust health. Politicians lied to us for years and are now about to get their comeuppance.
2. They can, and do in many countries. Democracy is a messy business but it always carries with it the hope and possibility of changing direction.
As an example I would give you the not always popular Emmanuel Macron. He spent his first term pissing off just about every interest group in France by telling them hard truths, and subsequently got re-elected.
And how many of those things he pissed them off about did he actually achieve wasnt the percentage 0? He didnt get his reforms to pensions through nor those on working practises. He achieved in fact bugger all of what he wanted
Reason he got reelected in fact is it was him or lepen....like choosing between walter the softy and hitler
Macron has achieved quite a bit. But not everything, though he is trying again on pensions. Rather like Blair, it’s too easy to simply say “he did nothing” when the evidence is he’s done rather a lot, particularly on labour law reform.
Reading the list yes he acheived little of consequence to sort the problems out.
Most western states and the uk in particular have 1 problem with 2 ways to deal with it
Tax income does not equal services cost even when services are underfunded.
so either 1) raise taxes and taxing the rich wont be enough you will need to tax everyone more
2) cut the services the state offers
Good luck getting elected on either premise
First world problems
UK median household income: $46.7k France median household income: $61k
Similar net debt to UK. Vastly better healthcare (I can testify as someone who’s experienced it), virtually free childcare from birth, high quality state education, actual high speed rail lines, nice food, brilliant wine, lovely scenery and climate, pretty towns, affordable houses, good looking people with clothes that fit, and free firewood from your local communal woodland if you can find someone to cut it for you. (But admittedly their plumbers merchants are a complete cartel). France is doing fine.
You think france is doing fine then all good I dont really care as I dont live there the argument is not about france its about the uk and we have underfunded services that dont deliver and cost more than tax.
Yes I believe most of the west has the same issue but will happily concede the point to you and focus on the uk because I do live there and its important to me therefore.
The point remains the same we have two options, tax a hell of a lot more on everyone or cut services.
I would estimate that if we full fund everything then the tax required would be about double what we currently pay though thats a guess admittedly
So which political party is going to stand on tax more or reduce services and win? answer none
Well that’s kind of the Tory policy position. And it’s wrong. In the short term we need to tax a bit more, focus tax reliefs and incentives on the areas of infrastructure investment where we’re most lacking, borrow as much as we can manage without pushing up gilt yields, and spend significantly more on the public infrastructure and services that will enable the economy to grow.
Tax rises plus spending cuts equal a steadily falling apart and clinically depressed country.
NO MORE BORROWING FROM OUR CHILDREN AND GRAND CHILDREN. THEY WAY THINGS ARE GOING THE WHOLE TAX TAKE THEY PAY WILL BE SETTLING THE DEBTS OF OUR GENERATION. IT IS NOT JUST A TORY POSITION ITS AN ALL POLITICIAN POSITION BORROW MORE SO WE GET ELECTED NOW AND WE WONT BE AROUND WHEN THE BILLS ARE DUE.
You are a selfish idiot.
If we cant raise tax to pay for everything in the here and now then the state does less.
If we can get more tax in the here and now to fully fund things fine
You’re talking the ideology of 2010. It was a cataclysmic failure then, it would be a cataclysmic failure now.
I’ve worked with companies take that kind of asset sweating approach to investment. They invariably end up failing.
Every pound we don’t spend on essential infrastructure now is two pounds we’ll have to spend on the same thing in a decade.
Investment is the definition of leaving something for our children. Look at the HS2 nonsense today. There were actual MPs suggesting we can the whole thing. They’re the selfish idiots.
No they are absolutely right. I am all for infrastructure spending and would have no problem spending the amounts that we are going to have to spend on HS2. I agree with your analysis there. But we should not be spending it on HS2 - a project that was of dubious value even before the world changed and is defintely a massive white elephant now.
Take that same money and spend it on a whole host of regional infrastructure projects. Not just the East West train links in Northern England, but ultra fast broadband for every part of the country, improved rail links away from the main routes - not least connecting the docks and manufacturing centres to the network again. Tidal energy projects, tram and light rail systems. There are a whole host of things that can be done with that money that will give a far better return than just improving travel times and capacity on links into London. All the more so at a time when we are moving away from the commuting model for work and more towards distance working.
I’m in the and rather than or camp on this one. We need HS2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, and all the rest.
I struggle to think of any country that invested money on the inner wiring of the economy and that regretted it decades later.
Do the Conservatives even want to win next year? They give every impression of a clapped out, exhausted, brain-dead party that is absolutely desperate for a period in opposition.
My sense is that as a body they face both ways on this. For individuals, there are those MPs who simply want to keep their seat, and so in the great majority of cases are at some risk - wipe out is a real prospect - and so want the party a fortiori to do their best regardless of overall outcome.
Other MPs have had enough and don't care or won't stand again.
The sane membership (are there some still?) will know their only hope is lose big and regroup. The mad members are intellectually just mini-Trumpians and there is little point in analysis.
Those who hold actual power - few - always tend to want it to continue. That's how they are made.
The overall collective impression is that they know they will, must and need to lose; and that it may be nice to be able to have the luxury of opposition. The next election will be tough for the winners.
It's a ChatGPT detector I've run 5 non-AI generated bits through and 5 ChatGPT bits through and it's been 100% accurate in determining what's been created by the bot and what's not.
This is useful for three reasons:
1. At some point there will be a plugin that can filter out ChatGPT generated content, the same way Adblock Plus and other ad blockers work. So if you don't want to see content created by a robot, you won't.
2. The ability to detect AI written content will mean AI written content can be discarded from future training models
3. People paying good money for professional services, e.g. consultancy, copywriting etc can be reasonably sure they're paying for a human to give their best shot at it (even if they've used ChatGPT for background research or an early draft).
But the really big one, perhaps bigger than all three above. We can still tell the difference between humans and AI. There is something humans put into writing that a probabilistic word generator does not - so while ChatGPT may provide very convincing answers, and even sound convincingly human at times, it's still only at best an attempt at a close copy of what a human can do - not a substitute, not a replacement.
If the majority doesn't get over it and want to make the best of it
We do want to make the best of it, by reversing as much as possible
Then why did Sir Keir lead Labour in choosing Boris's deal over May's?
The two were not on the table at the same time, so your question is bunk.
No, it really isn't. He certainly should have known in leading his party against May's deal that if he was successful in defeating it, something very much like Boris's deal was inevitable. Certainly the ERG realised that!
This is all hindsight chat.
May’s deal even unto itself was a “hard” Brexit, as that term was understood in the early post-vote period.
Remainer opponents of May’s deal hoped first and foremost to swing Brexit toward terms thought more favourable to Remainers (48% of the population, lest we forget).
Even if Labour (which was led by Corbyn at the time) HAD voted for May’s deal, she would just as likely have been deposed by her own party to prevent its execution and in retaliation at the disgrace of trying to pass a deal over the heads of the large rump of Tory backbenchers.
Far too great a chunk of *influential* (press, MPs etc) Remainer thinking was on reversal. They went max, and lost. Again.
They learned nothing from the actual campaign.
Sure the FBPE guys and the People's Vote guys, and the like were scum,
But I don't remember the clamour of offers from our side for a compromise Brexit.
Before the referendum, when it looked like a narrow Remain win was likely, Dominic Raab gave a little speech, where he said that a narrow win for one side should mean that we shouldn't discount the losers.
His point was that if Remain won narrowly, it shouldn't be taken as a sign that the British were gung ho for further integration, but rather that it was narrowly balanced, and we should make sure the tens of millions of people who voted Leave were not forgotten.
And he was right.
But that cuts both ways too. While there was no serious effort from the losers to find a compromise, nor was their any effort from May or Johnson to reach out to the muddy middle.
Something I advocated in a thread header on here the day after the vote. There was a golden opportunity for Cameron - or certainly May - to say that they wanted the widest possible support and acceptance of the new direction and the best way to achieve that, in light of how close the vote was, was to look at compromise. Apply to EFTA as a first step and then see how things developed from there. That wouldn't even have needed Freedom of Movement but it would have indicated a willingness to travel towards a new, realistic relationship with the EU based on cooperation.
But May had to be the hardest of Brexiteers because she fundamentally misunderstood the attitude of both Parliament and the country as a whole. Hence no compromise on anything.
May understood that Efta would have divided her party, perhaps blown it in half. That's why she couldn't contemplate it. Every step of the process - calling the referendum, May's red lines, the refusal to compromise in parliament, Johnson's signing up to a Brexit deal in bad faith - has been determined by the goal of Tory Party unity, over the interests of the country. And it has failed because the Eurosceptic right of the Tory party can never be satisfied, as they are at war with reality.
I think that's right.
And I also think that EFTA/EEA (while it would probably have won a narrow majority) would not have honoured the spirit of the referendum.
But @Richard_Tyndall is absolutely right that if someone other than May had been in charge - someone with vision and charisma and courage - then it might have been possible to build a Brexit that looked more like Switzerland's relationship with the EU.
And which would have satisfied 80% of Leavers and 40% of Remainers.
Switzerland has free movement. No shot. It would have satisfied the rich Leavers but there's be no GE votes for it in Bishop Auckland or Bolsover.
Free movement is a problem in proportion to the actions taken to protect the wages of those in low end jobs.
See the rioting in France etc.
Switzerland places high barriers to entering their job market - “You are entirely free to work here. Providing you speak the required languages and have a Swiss qualification.”
On your coffee is very very expensive - and served by a Swiss person
High end jobs do not require protection because of the world wide shortage in high end skills.
The English language (or rather our shitness at foreign languages) causes big distortions even in our high skilled labour market, but especially at the low skilled end.
Only a small number of Brits have the language skills to be able to work successfully overseas, unless they go long haul to the US or beyond which is less suitable for temporary working abroad and much harder to get a Visa for unskilled work.
If the promise of free movement were more truly reciprocal for unskilled or skilled manual workers in the UK perhaps the forces behind Brexit would have held less sway.
The Economist did an article on that very issue back in the late 90s, suggesting that English being such a (sorry) lingua franca, was a significant disadvantage for the UK and the US.
It's less of a problem in the US because they have a giant domestic market that workers can move around to match their skills to available positions and industries without having to speak any language but American. The English language is one of the main draws for foreign workers to come to the UK. Probably the single biggest one in fact. So it is probably responsible for Brexit, in that it helped to encourage such significant immigration. Of course Brexit hasn't stopped the immigration, because we still speak English and we still have an ageing workforce.
It's a ChatGPT detector I've run 5 non-AI generated bits through and 5 ChatGPT bits through and it's been 100% accurate in determining what's been created by the bot and what's not.
This is useful for three reasons:
1. At some point there will be a plugin that can filter out ChatGPT generated content, the same way Adblock Plus and other ad blockers work. So if you don't want to see content created by a robot, you won't.
2. The ability to detect AI written content will mean AI written content can be discarded from future training models
3. People paying good money for professional services, e.g. consultancy, copywriting etc can be reasonably sure they're paying for a human to give their best shot at it (even if they've used ChatGPT for background research or an early draft).
But the really big one, perhaps bigger than all three above. We can still tell the difference between humans and AI. There is something humans put into writing that a probabilistic word generator does not - so while ChatGPT may provide very convincing answers, and even sound convincingly human at times, it's still only at best an attempt at a close copy of what a human can do - not a substitute, not a replacement.
Moving target, though.
What I was surprised at was how successful the detector was at detecting outputs from prompts like "write in the style of" or "pretend to be" - so even when I fed it output that looked to me like it was being written by very human actors as opposed to the "ChatGPT house style" of beige, rote, wiki-style essay writing, it still managed to detect AI written prose.
This suggests to me there is something inherently "beige" about the probabilistic way ChatGPT generates words and that it just doesn't replicate real human writing very well.
Do the Conservatives even want to win next year? They give every impression of a clapped out, exhausted, brain-dead party that is absolutely desperate for a period in opposition.
My sense is that as a body they face both ways on this. For individuals, there are those MPs who simply want to keep their seat, and so in the great majority of cases are at some risk - wipe out is a real prospect - and so want the party a fortiori to do their best regardless of overall outcome.
Other MPs have had enough and don't care or won't stand again.
The sane membership (are there some still?) will know their only hope is lose big and regroup. The mad members are intellectually just mini-Trumpians and there is little point in analysis.
Those who hold actual power - few - always tend to want it to continue. That's how they are made.
The overall collective impression is that they know they will, must and need to lose; and that it may be nice to be able to have the luxury of opposition. The next election will be tough for the winners.
Good summary. Unfortunately. Each group hasn't agreed amongst itself on the problem. Let alone the solution. So hideously split.
Do the Conservatives even want to win next year? They give every impression of a clapped out, exhausted, brain-dead party that is absolutely desperate for a period in opposition.
My sense is that as a body they face both ways on this. For individuals, there are those MPs who simply want to keep their seat, and so in the great majority of cases are at some risk - wipe out is a real prospect - and so want the party a fortiori to do their best regardless of overall outcome.
Other MPs have had enough and don't care or won't stand again.
The sane membership (are there some still?) will know their only hope is lose big and regroup. The mad members are intellectually just mini-Trumpians and there is little point in analysis.
Those who hold actual power - few - always tend to want it to continue. That's how they are made.
The overall collective impression is that they know they will, must and need to lose; and that it may be nice to be able to have the luxury of opposition. The next election will be tough for the winners.
Fair. But I just wonder whether Sunny and Hunters care that much. They have very possibly conceded internally and are looking forward to escaping the goldfish bowl.
It's a ChatGPT detector I've run 5 non-AI generated bits through and 5 ChatGPT bits through and it's been 100% accurate in determining what's been created by the bot and what's not.
This is useful for three reasons:
1. At some point there will be a plugin that can filter out ChatGPT generated content, the same way Adblock Plus and other ad blockers work. So if you don't want to see content created by a robot, you won't.
2. The ability to detect AI written content will mean AI written content can be discarded from future training models
3. People paying good money for professional services, e.g. consultancy, copywriting etc can be reasonably sure they're paying for a human to give their best shot at it (even if they've used ChatGPT for background research or an early draft).
But the really big one, perhaps bigger than all three above. We can still tell the difference between humans and AI. There is something humans put into writing that a probabilistic word generator does not - so while ChatGPT may provide very convincing answers, and even sound convincingly human at times, it's still only at best an attempt at a close copy of what a human can do - not a substitute, not a replacement.
Not an expert, and TBF this is so early days we have no idea what will emerge. But comments thus far, from me and others:
1) Its quality is O Level 2) It is unsubtle on famously tricky questions 3) It can replicate what HR and middle management can produce of the sort that fills up space but doesn't help, but can't replicate real problem solving. It could do all the useless people out of a job. Good. 4) It still has lots of reading to do. On the problem of fact/value distinction (the naturalistic fallacy) it seemed oblivious to everything thought since the Victorians. 5) Not only bad at metaphysics but also sub standard on issues like who would win a fight between a baboon and a badger.
Do the Conservatives even want to win next year? They give every impression of a clapped out, exhausted, brain-dead party that is absolutely desperate for a period in opposition.
My sense is that as a body they face both ways on this. For individuals, there are those MPs who simply want to keep their seat, and so in the great majority of cases are at some risk - wipe out is a real prospect - and so want the party a fortiori to do their best regardless of overall outcome.
Other MPs have had enough and don't care or won't stand again.
The sane membership (are there some still?) will know their only hope is lose big and regroup. The mad members are intellectually just mini-Trumpians and there is little point in analysis.
Those who hold actual power - few - always tend to want it to continue. That's how they are made.
The overall collective impression is that they know they will, must and need to lose; and that it may be nice to be able to have the luxury of opposition. The next election will be tough for the winners.
There's an interesting dynamic as well in a system that makes it highly likely that at worst you're the Opposition even if your time in government comes to an end. I know we all laugh at the odd poll that has the Tories on wipeout levels that put the SNP close to being the official opposition but when push comes to shove that's not happening.
Would be more interesting to see the dynamic within the Conservative MPs if the system was such that just a bad defeat, let alone an absolute hammering, would see them being neither government nor opposition.
If the majority doesn't get over it and want to make the best of it
We do want to make the best of it, by reversing as much as possible
Then why did Sir Keir lead Labour in choosing Boris's deal over May's?
The two were not on the table at the same time, so your question is bunk.
No, it really isn't. He certainly should have known in leading his party against May's deal that if he was successful in defeating it, something very much like Boris's deal was inevitable. Certainly the ERG realised that!
This is all hindsight chat.
May’s deal even unto itself was a “hard” Brexit, as that term was understood in the early post-vote period.
Remainer opponents of May’s deal hoped first and foremost to swing Brexit toward terms thought more favourable to Remainers (48% of the population, lest we forget).
Even if Labour (which was led by Corbyn at the time) HAD voted for May’s deal, she would just as likely have been deposed by her own party to prevent its execution and in retaliation at the disgrace of trying to pass a deal over the heads of the large rump of Tory backbenchers.
Far too great a chunk of *influential* (press, MPs etc) Remainer thinking was on reversal. They went max, and lost. Again.
They learned nothing from the actual campaign.
Sure the FBPE guys and the People's Vote guys, and the like were scum,
But I don't remember the clamour of offers from our side for a compromise Brexit.
Before the referendum, when it looked like a narrow Remain win was likely, Dominic Raab gave a little speech, where he said that a narrow win for one side should mean that we shouldn't discount the losers.
His point was that if Remain won narrowly, it shouldn't be taken as a sign that the British were gung ho for further integration, but rather that it was narrowly balanced, and we should make sure the tens of millions of people who voted Leave were not forgotten.
And he was right.
But that cuts both ways too. While there was no serious effort from the losers to find a compromise, nor was their any effort from May or Johnson to reach out to the muddy middle.
Something I advocated in a thread header on here the day after the vote. There was a golden opportunity for Cameron - or certainly May - to say that they wanted the widest possible support and acceptance of the new direction and the best way to achieve that, in light of how close the vote was, was to look at compromise. Apply to EFTA as a first step and then see how things developed from there. That wouldn't even have needed Freedom of Movement but it would have indicated a willingness to travel towards a new, realistic relationship with the EU based on cooperation.
But May had to be the hardest of Brexiteers because she fundamentally misunderstood the attitude of both Parliament and the country as a whole. Hence no compromise on anything.
May understood that Efta would have divided her party, perhaps blown it in half. That's why she couldn't contemplate it. Every step of the process - calling the referendum, May's red lines, the refusal to compromise in parliament, Johnson's signing up to a Brexit deal in bad faith - has been determined by the goal of Tory Party unity, over the interests of the country. And it has failed because the Eurosceptic right of the Tory party can never be satisfied, as they are at war with reality.
I think that's right.
And I also think that EFTA/EEA (while it would probably have won a narrow majority) would not have honoured the spirit of the referendum.
But @Richard_Tyndall is absolutely right that if someone other than May had been in charge - someone with vision and charisma and courage - then it might have been possible to build a Brexit that looked more like Switzerland's relationship with the EU.
And which would have satisfied 80% of Leavers and 40% of Remainers.
Switzerland has free movement. No shot. It would have satisfied the rich Leavers but there's be no GE votes for it in Bishop Auckland or Bolsover.
Free movement is a problem in proportion to the actions taken to protect the wages of those in low end jobs.
See the rioting in France etc.
Switzerland places high barriers to entering their job market - “You are entirely free to work here. Providing you speak the required languages and have a Swiss qualification.”
On your coffee is very very expensive - and served by a Swiss person
High end jobs do not require protection because of the world wide shortage in high end skills.
The English language (or rather our shitness at foreign languages) causes big distortions even in our high skilled labour market, but especially at the low skilled end.
Only a small number of Brits have the language skills to be able to work successfully overseas, unless they go long haul to the US or beyond which is less suitable for temporary working abroad and much harder to get a Visa for unskilled work.
If the promise of free movement were more truly reciprocal for unskilled or skilled manual workers in the UK perhaps the forces behind Brexit would have held less sway.
Considering that people think it's appalling that people should consider moving out of low-wage regions of the UK for better-paid jobs within the country itself, I don't think emigration options further afield would have helped perceptions of the EU much. It would still have benefitted mostly wealthier older people and intrinsically open-minded grads.
Which people?
Everyone who piled onto Tebbit. Everyone who voted for Teesside to be levelled up to Hertfordshire. More generally, the social policy approach that leads to low-wage areas of the UK growing, while low-wage areas of countries like Germany, Italy and Japan shrink.
If the majority doesn't get over it and want to make the best of it
We do want to make the best of it, by reversing as much as possible
Then why did Sir Keir lead Labour in choosing Boris's deal over May's?
The two were not on the table at the same time, so your question is bunk.
No, it really isn't. He certainly should have known in leading his party against May's deal that if he was successful in defeating it, something very much like Boris's deal was inevitable. Certainly the ERG realised that!
This is all hindsight chat.
May’s deal even unto itself was a “hard” Brexit, as that term was understood in the early post-vote period.
Remainer opponents of May’s deal hoped first and foremost to swing Brexit toward terms thought more favourable to Remainers (48% of the population, lest we forget).
Even if Labour (which was led by Corbyn at the time) HAD voted for May’s deal, she would just as likely have been deposed by her own party to prevent its execution and in retaliation at the disgrace of trying to pass a deal over the heads of the large rump of Tory backbenchers.
Far too great a chunk of *influential* (press, MPs etc) Remainer thinking was on reversal. They went max, and lost. Again.
They learned nothing from the actual campaign.
Sure the FBPE guys and the People's Vote guys, and the like were scum,
But I don't remember the clamour of offers from our side for a compromise Brexit.
Before the referendum, when it looked like a narrow Remain win was likely, Dominic Raab gave a little speech, where he said that a narrow win for one side should mean that we shouldn't discount the losers.
His point was that if Remain won narrowly, it shouldn't be taken as a sign that the British were gung ho for further integration, but rather that it was narrowly balanced, and we should make sure the tens of millions of people who voted Leave were not forgotten.
And he was right.
But that cuts both ways too. While there was no serious effort from the losers to find a compromise, nor was their any effort from May or Johnson to reach out to the muddy middle.
Something I advocated in a thread header on here the day after the vote. There was a golden opportunity for Cameron - or certainly May - to say that they wanted the widest possible support and acceptance of the new direction and the best way to achieve that, in light of how close the vote was, was to look at compromise. Apply to EFTA as a first step and then see how things developed from there. That wouldn't even have needed Freedom of Movement but it would have indicated a willingness to travel towards a new, realistic relationship with the EU based on cooperation.
But May had to be the hardest of Brexiteers because she fundamentally misunderstood the attitude of both Parliament and the country as a whole. Hence no compromise on anything.
May understood that Efta would have divided her party, perhaps blown it in half. That's why she couldn't contemplate it. Every step of the process - calling the referendum, May's red lines, the refusal to compromise in parliament, Johnson's signing up to a Brexit deal in bad faith - has been determined by the goal of Tory Party unity, over the interests of the country. And it has failed because the Eurosceptic right of the Tory party can never be satisfied, as they are at war with reality.
I think that's right.
And I also think that EFTA/EEA (while it would probably have won a narrow majority) would not have honoured the spirit of the referendum.
But @Richard_Tyndall is absolutely right that if someone other than May had been in charge - someone with vision and charisma and courage - then it might have been possible to build a Brexit that looked more like Switzerland's relationship with the EU.
And which would have satisfied 80% of Leavers and 40% of Remainers.
Switzerland has free movement. No shot. It would have satisfied the rich Leavers but there's be no GE votes for it in Bishop Auckland or Bolsover.
Free movement is a problem in proportion to the actions taken to protect the wages of those in low end jobs.
See the rioting in France etc.
Switzerland places high barriers to entering their job market - “You are entirely free to work here. Providing you speak the required languages and have a Swiss qualification.”
On your coffee is very very expensive - and served by a Swiss person
High end jobs do not require protection because of the world wide shortage in high end skills.
The English language (or rather our shitness at foreign languages) causes big distortions even in our high skilled labour market, but especially at the low skilled end.
Only a small number of Brits have the language skills to be able to work successfully overseas, unless they go long haul to the US or beyond which is less suitable for temporary working abroad and much harder to get a Visa for unskilled work.
If the promise of free movement were more truly reciprocal for unskilled or skilled manual workers in the UK perhaps the forces behind Brexit would have held less sway.
Considering that people think it's appalling that people should consider moving out of low-wage regions of the UK for better-paid jobs within the country itself, I don't think emigration options further afield would have helped perceptions of the EU much. It would still have benefitted mostly wealthier older people and intrinsically open-minded grads.
Which people?
Everyone who piled onto Tebbit. Everyone who voted for Teesside to be levelled up to Hertfordshire. More generally, the social policy approach that leads to low-wage areas of the UK growing, while low-wage areas of countries like Germany, Italy and Japan shrink.
Feels like the Telegraph is desperately seeking something to distract their readers from the woes of the Tory party.
(As an aside can someone explain to me how the bath photo is 'proves' anything? To my mind there's a lot that two people could get up to in that bath.)
If the majority doesn't get over it and want to make the best of it
We do want to make the best of it, by reversing as much as possible
Then why did Sir Keir lead Labour in choosing Boris's deal over May's?
The two were not on the table at the same time, so your question is bunk.
No, it really isn't. He certainly should have known in leading his party against May's deal that if he was successful in defeating it, something very much like Boris's deal was inevitable. Certainly the ERG realised that!
This is all hindsight chat.
May’s deal even unto itself was a “hard” Brexit, as that term was understood in the early post-vote period.
Remainer opponents of May’s deal hoped first and foremost to swing Brexit toward terms thought more favourable to Remainers (48% of the population, lest we forget).
Even if Labour (which was led by Corbyn at the time) HAD voted for May’s deal, she would just as likely have been deposed by her own party to prevent its execution and in retaliation at the disgrace of trying to pass a deal over the heads of the large rump of Tory backbenchers.
Far too great a chunk of *influential* (press, MPs etc) Remainer thinking was on reversal. They went max, and lost. Again.
They learned nothing from the actual campaign.
Sure the FBPE guys and the People's Vote guys, and the like were scum,
But I don't remember the clamour of offers from our side for a compromise Brexit.
Before the referendum, when it looked like a narrow Remain win was likely, Dominic Raab gave a little speech, where he said that a narrow win for one side should mean that we shouldn't discount the losers.
His point was that if Remain won narrowly, it shouldn't be taken as a sign that the British were gung ho for further integration, but rather that it was narrowly balanced, and we should make sure the tens of millions of people who voted Leave were not forgotten.
And he was right.
But that cuts both ways too. While there was no serious effort from the losers to find a compromise, nor was their any effort from May or Johnson to reach out to the muddy middle.
Something I advocated in a thread header on here the day after the vote. There was a golden opportunity for Cameron - or certainly May - to say that they wanted the widest possible support and acceptance of the new direction and the best way to achieve that, in light of how close the vote was, was to look at compromise. Apply to EFTA as a first step and then see how things developed from there. That wouldn't even have needed Freedom of Movement but it would have indicated a willingness to travel towards a new, realistic relationship with the EU based on cooperation.
But May had to be the hardest of Brexiteers because she fundamentally misunderstood the attitude of both Parliament and the country as a whole. Hence no compromise on anything.
May understood that Efta would have divided her party, perhaps blown it in half. That's why she couldn't contemplate it. Every step of the process - calling the referendum, May's red lines, the refusal to compromise in parliament, Johnson's signing up to a Brexit deal in bad faith - has been determined by the goal of Tory Party unity, over the interests of the country. And it has failed because the Eurosceptic right of the Tory party can never be satisfied, as they are at war with reality.
I think that's right.
And I also think that EFTA/EEA (while it would probably have won a narrow majority) would not have honoured the spirit of the referendum.
But @Richard_Tyndall is absolutely right that if someone other than May had been in charge - someone with vision and charisma and courage - then it might have been possible to build a Brexit that looked more like Switzerland's relationship with the EU.
And which would have satisfied 80% of Leavers and 40% of Remainers.
Switzerland has free movement. No shot. It would have satisfied the rich Leavers but there's be no GE votes for it in Bishop Auckland or Bolsover.
Free movement is a problem in proportion to the actions taken to protect the wages of those in low end jobs.
See the rioting in France etc.
Switzerland places high barriers to entering their job market - “You are entirely free to work here. Providing you speak the required languages and have a Swiss qualification.”
On your coffee is very very expensive - and served by a Swiss person
High end jobs do not require protection because of the world wide shortage in high end skills.
The English language (or rather our shitness at foreign languages) causes big distortions even in our high skilled labour market, but especially at the low skilled end.
Only a small number of Brits have the language skills to be able to work successfully overseas, unless they go long haul to the US or beyond which is less suitable for temporary working abroad and much harder to get a Visa for unskilled work.
If the promise of free movement were more truly reciprocal for unskilled or skilled manual workers in the UK perhaps the forces behind Brexit would have held less sway.
Considering that people think it's appalling that people should consider moving out of low-wage regions of the UK for better-paid jobs within the country itself, I don't think emigration options further afield would have helped perceptions of the EU much. It would still have benefitted mostly wealthier older people and intrinsically open-minded grads.
Which people?
Everyone who piled onto Tebbit. Everyone who voted for Teesside to be levelled up to Hertfordshire. More generally, the social policy approach that leads to low-wage areas of the UK growing, while low-wage areas of countries like Germany, Italy and Japan shrink.
So, nobody in particular then.
I'm glad we got that sorted.
Sure, not an accusation against any person in particular, but somehow the North East of England grows while the East German Laender shrink, so I don't think it's a complete fantasy to say that out-migration is less observable in the UK compared to other countries, nor that it explains a lot of the inequality story in the UK.
It's a ChatGPT detector I've run 5 non-AI generated bits through and 5 ChatGPT bits through and it's been 100% accurate in determining what's been created by the bot and what's not.
This is useful for three reasons:
1. At some point there will be a plugin that can filter out ChatGPT generated content, the same way Adblock Plus and other ad blockers work. So if you don't want to see content created by a robot, you won't.
2. The ability to detect AI written content will mean AI written content can be discarded from future training models
3. People paying good money for professional services, e.g. consultancy, copywriting etc can be reasonably sure they're paying for a human to give their best shot at it (even if they've used ChatGPT for background research or an early draft).
But the really big one, perhaps bigger than all three above. We can still tell the difference between humans and AI. There is something humans put into writing that a probabilistic word generator does not - so while ChatGPT may provide very convincing answers, and even sound convincingly human at times, it's still only at best an attempt at a close copy of what a human can do - not a substitute, not a replacement.
Moving target, though.
What I was surprised at was how successful the detector was at detecting outputs from prompts like "write in the style of" or "pretend to be" - so even when I fed it output that looked to me like it was being written by very human actors as opposed to the "ChatGPT house style" of beige, rote, wiki-style essay writing, it still managed to detect AI written prose.
This suggests to me there is something inherently "beige" about the probabilistic way ChatGPT generates words and that it just doesn't replicate real human writing very well.
Having seen some of the output, that doesn’t entirely surprise me. But it will be superseded by new models soon, as will those models in turn.
Feels like the Telegraph are desperately seeking something to distract their readers from the woes of the Tory party.
(As an aside can someone explain to me how the bath photo is 'proves' anything? To my mind there's a lot that two people could get up to in that bath.)
For the holy Lord of god knows what that is the most bizarre picture I have ever seen on the front page of a national paper. And I have been reading newspapers all my life. And I’m not young
Feels like the Telegraph are desperately seeking something to distract their readers from the woes of the Tory party.
(As an aside can someone explain to me how the bath photo is 'proves' anything? To my mind there's a lot that two people could get up to in that bath.)
For the holy Lord of god knows what that is the most bizarre picture I have ever seen on the front page of a national paper. And I have been reading newspapers all my life. And I’m not young
Feels like the Telegraph is desperately seeking something to distract their readers from the woes of the Tory party.
(As an aside can someone explain to me how the bath photo is 'proves' anything? To my mind there's a lot that two people could get up to in that bath.)
It's a ChatGPT detector I've run 5 non-AI generated bits through and 5 ChatGPT bits through and it's been 100% accurate in determining what's been created by the bot and what's not.
This is useful for three reasons:
1. At some point there will be a plugin that can filter out ChatGPT generated content, the same way Adblock Plus and other ad blockers work. So if you don't want to see content created by a robot, you won't.
2. The ability to detect AI written content will mean AI written content can be discarded from future training models
3. People paying good money for professional services, e.g. consultancy, copywriting etc can be reasonably sure they're paying for a human to give their best shot at it (even if they've used ChatGPT for background research or an early draft).
But the really big one, perhaps bigger than all three above. We can still tell the difference between humans and AI. There is something humans put into writing that a probabilistic word generator does not - so while ChatGPT may provide very convincing answers, and even sound convincingly human at times, it's still only at best an attempt at a close copy of what a human can do - not a substitute, not a replacement.
Moving target, though.
What I was surprised at was how successful the detector was at detecting outputs from prompts like "write in the style of" or "pretend to be" - so even when I fed it output that looked to me like it was being written by very human actors as opposed to the "ChatGPT house style" of beige, rote, wiki-style essay writing, it still managed to detect AI written prose.
This suggests to me there is something inherently "beige" about the probabilistic way ChatGPT generates words and that it just doesn't replicate real human writing very well.
Having seen some of the output, that doesn’t entirely surprise me. But it will be superseded by new models soon, as will those models in turn.
It's a ChatGPT detector I've run 5 non-AI generated bits through and 5 ChatGPT bits through and it's been 100% accurate in determining what's been created by the bot and what's not.
This is useful for three reasons:
1. At some point there will be a plugin that can filter out ChatGPT generated content, the same way Adblock Plus and other ad blockers work. So if you don't want to see content created by a robot, you won't.
2. The ability to detect AI written content will mean AI written content can be discarded from future training models
3. People paying good money for professional services, e.g. consultancy, copywriting etc can be reasonably sure they're paying for a human to give their best shot at it (even if they've used ChatGPT for background research or an early draft).
But the really big one, perhaps bigger than all three above. We can still tell the difference between humans and AI. There is something humans put into writing that a probabilistic word generator does not - so while ChatGPT may provide very convincing answers, and even sound convincingly human at times, it's still only at best an attempt at a close copy of what a human can do - not a substitute, not a replacement.
Moving target, though.
What I was surprised at was how successful the detector was at detecting outputs from prompts like "write in the style of" or "pretend to be" - so even when I fed it output that looked to me like it was being written by very human actors as opposed to the "ChatGPT house style" of beige, rote, wiki-style essay writing, it still managed to detect AI written prose.
This suggests to me there is something inherently "beige" about the probabilistic way ChatGPT generates words and that it just doesn't replicate real human writing very well.
Having seen some of the output, that doesn’t entirely surprise me. But it will be superseded by new models soon, as will those models in turn.
I’m not able to predict what comes next.
In a sense there are practical and cultural questions, and they are not the same. Can it produce words and ideas which solve problems, crack political futures, save the NHS, stop wars, abolish hunger, save the whale. That would be rather good.
Secondly, can it produce real first rate art in the form of words on a page. Not second rate or formulaic - that is a racing certainty; many people can be taught to do it, huge numbers make a living from it. But can it produce (one day) without particular human assistance a book as ground breaking as Origin of Species or The Critique of Pure Reason; or a work as compelling as Wuthering Heights, Lear or Emma.
My own view is that we will know it when we see it. When it happens the world will have changed for ever. Alongside SETI it is perhaps the most interesting answerable question around.
Feels like the Telegraph is desperately seeking something to distract their readers from the woes of the Tory party.
(As an aside can someone explain to me how the bath photo is 'proves' anything? To my mind there's a lot that two people could get up to in that bath.)
Also, those people have their clothes on.
You weren't supposed to notice that. Next thing you'll be telling me that those aren't their real faces.
Feels like the Telegraph is desperately seeking something to distract their readers from the woes of the Tory party.
(As an aside can someone explain to me how the bath photo is 'proves' anything? To my mind there's a lot that two people could get up to in that bath.)
Feels like the Telegraph is desperately seeking something to distract their readers from the woes of the Tory party.
(As an aside can someone explain to me how the bath photo is 'proves' anything? To my mind there's a lot that two people could get up to in that bath.)
Depends what's being alleged. If the allegation is being spanked with a yellow pages whilst wearing the garb of a Roman centurion, it's on the poky side.
Feels like the Telegraph is desperately seeking something to distract their readers from the woes of the Tory party.
(As an aside can someone explain to me how the bath photo is 'proves' anything? To my mind there's a lot that two people could get up to in that bath.)
You mean the bath is meant to be a distraction from the shower?
Feels like the Telegraph is desperately seeking something to distract their readers from the woes of the Tory party.
(As an aside can someone explain to me how the bath photo is 'proves' anything? To my mind there's a lot that two people could get up to in that bath.)
I find it hard to believe that no-one at the Telegraph has ever shared a bath that size with a lover.
It's a ChatGPT detector I've run 5 non-AI generated bits through and 5 ChatGPT bits through and it's been 100% accurate in determining what's been created by the bot and what's not.
This is useful for three reasons:
1. At some point there will be a plugin that can filter out ChatGPT generated content, the same way Adblock Plus and other ad blockers work. So if you don't want to see content created by a robot, you won't.
2. The ability to detect AI written content will mean AI written content can be discarded from future training models
3. People paying good money for professional services, e.g. consultancy, copywriting etc can be reasonably sure they're paying for a human to give their best shot at it (even if they've used ChatGPT for background research or an early draft).
But the really big one, perhaps bigger than all three above. We can still tell the difference between humans and AI. There is something humans put into writing that a probabilistic word generator does not - so while ChatGPT may provide very convincing answers, and even sound convincingly human at times, it's still only at best an attempt at a close copy of what a human can do - not a substitute, not a replacement.
Moving target, though.
What I was surprised at was how successful the detector was at detecting outputs from prompts like "write in the style of" or "pretend to be" - so even when I fed it output that looked to me like it was being written by very human actors as opposed to the "ChatGPT house style" of beige, rote, wiki-style essay writing, it still managed to detect AI written prose.
This suggests to me there is something inherently "beige" about the probabilistic way ChatGPT generates words and that it just doesn't replicate real human writing very well.
Having seen some of the output, that doesn’t entirely surprise me. But it will be superseded by new models soon, as will those models in turn.
I’m not able to predict what comes next.
In a sense there are practical and cultural questions, and they are not the same. Can it produce words and ideas which solve problems, crack political futures, save the NHS, stop wars, abolish hunger, save the whale. That would be rather good.
Secondly, can it produce real first rate art in the form of words on a page. Not second rate or formulaic - that is a racing certainty; many people can be taught to do it, huge numbers make a living from it. But can it produce (one day) without particular human assistance a book as ground breaking as Origin of Species or The Critique of Pure Reason; or a work as compelling as Wuthering Heights, Lear or Emma.
My own view is that we will know it when we see it. When it happens the world will have changed for ever. Alongside SETI it is perhaps the most interesting answerable question around.
To build on your first point, can AI invent or discover anything?
Will it achieve breakthroughs like those of Newton, Darwin , Einstein, or Volta, Watt, Bell, etc. etc.?
It's a ChatGPT detector I've run 5 non-AI generated bits through and 5 ChatGPT bits through and it's been 100% accurate in determining what's been created by the bot and what's not.
This is useful for three reasons:
1. At some point there will be a plugin that can filter out ChatGPT generated content, the same way Adblock Plus and other ad blockers work. So if you don't want to see content created by a robot, you won't.
2. The ability to detect AI written content will mean AI written content can be discarded from future training models
3. People paying good money for professional services, e.g. consultancy, copywriting etc can be reasonably sure they're paying for a human to give their best shot at it (even if they've used ChatGPT for background research or an early draft).
But the really big one, perhaps bigger than all three above. We can still tell the difference between humans and AI. There is something humans put into writing that a probabilistic word generator does not - so while ChatGPT may provide very convincing answers, and even sound convincingly human at times, it's still only at best an attempt at a close copy of what a human can do - not a substitute, not a replacement.
Moving target, though.
What I was surprised at was how successful the detector was at detecting outputs from prompts like "write in the style of" or "pretend to be" - so even when I fed it output that looked to me like it was being written by very human actors as opposed to the "ChatGPT house style" of beige, rote, wiki-style essay writing, it still managed to detect AI written prose.
This suggests to me there is something inherently "beige" about the probabilistic way ChatGPT generates words and that it just doesn't replicate real human writing very well.
Having seen some of the output, that doesn’t entirely surprise me. But it will be superseded by new models soon, as will those models in turn.
I’m not able to predict what comes next.
Have you considered asking ChatGPT?
No. It would just sound like a less certain HYUFD.
Feels like the Telegraph is desperately seeking something to distract their readers from the woes of the Tory party.
(As an aside can someone explain to me how the bath photo is 'proves' anything? To my mind there's a lot that two people could get up to in that bath.)
I find it hard to believe that no-one at the Telegraph has ever shared a bath that size with a lover.
Feels like the Telegraph are desperately seeking something to distract their readers from the woes of the Tory party.
(As an aside can someone explain to me how the bath photo is 'proves' anything? To my mind there's a lot that two people could get up to in that bath.)
For the holy Lord of god knows what that is the most bizarre picture I have ever seen on the front page of a national paper. And I have been reading newspapers all my life. And I’m not young
The Telegraph historical reenactment crew are clearly still novices at the whole thing. But brave effort.
Feels like the Telegraph is desperately seeking something to distract their readers from the woes of the Tory party.
(As an aside can someone explain to me how the bath photo is 'proves' anything? To my mind there's a lot that two people could get up to in that bath.)
I find it hard to believe that no-one at the Telegraph has ever shared a bath that size with a lover.
It looks an ample size for nookie.
Typical misogynist Telegraph though - who's got the tap end?
Feels like the Telegraph are desperately seeking something to distract their readers from the woes of the Tory party.
(As an aside can someone explain to me how the bath photo is 'proves' anything? To my mind there's a lot that two people could get up to in that bath.)
For the holy Lord of god knows what that is the most bizarre picture I have ever seen on the front page of a national paper. And I have been reading newspapers all my life. And I’m not young
The Telegraph historical reenactment crew are clearly still novices at the whole thing. But brave effort.
The first principle of historical reenactment is dress as the originals would have, shirley?
It's a ChatGPT detector I've run 5 non-AI generated bits through and 5 ChatGPT bits through and it's been 100% accurate in determining what's been created by the bot and what's not.
This is useful for three reasons:
1. At some point there will be a plugin that can filter out ChatGPT generated content, the same way Adblock Plus and other ad blockers work. So if you don't want to see content created by a robot, you won't.
2. The ability to detect AI written content will mean AI written content can be discarded from future training models
3. People paying good money for professional services, e.g. consultancy, copywriting etc can be reasonably sure they're paying for a human to give their best shot at it (even if they've used ChatGPT for background research or an early draft).
But the really big one, perhaps bigger than all three above. We can still tell the difference between humans and AI. There is something humans put into writing that a probabilistic word generator does not - so while ChatGPT may provide very convincing answers, and even sound convincingly human at times, it's still only at best an attempt at a close copy of what a human can do - not a substitute, not a replacement.
Not an expert, and TBF this is so early days we have no idea what will emerge. But comments thus far, from me and others:
1) Its quality is O Level 2) It is unsubtle on famously tricky questions 3) It can replicate what HR and middle management can produce of the sort that fills up space but doesn't help, but can't replicate real problem solving. It could do all the useless people out of a job. Good. 4) It still has lots of reading to do. On the problem of fact/value distinction (the naturalistic fallacy) it seemed oblivious to everything thought since the Victorians. 5) Not only bad at metaphysics but also sub standard on issues like who would win a fight between a baboon and a badger.
3) The Malmesbury Test -
"If your work output can be replicated by a travesty generator, you have a B Ark job."
What a bizarre headline from the Telegraph and with Camilla Tominey, Associate Editor, penning her column ' The Tories desperately need a Boris comeback' I think we can agree they have completely lost the plot
Feels like the Telegraph are desperately seeking something to distract their readers from the woes of the Tory party.
(As an aside can someone explain to me how the bath photo is 'proves' anything? To my mind there's a lot that two people could get up to in that bath.)
For the holy Lord of god knows what that is the most bizarre picture I have ever seen on the front page of a national paper. And I have been reading newspapers all my life. And I’m not young
The Telegraph historical reenactment crew are clearly still novices at the whole thing. But brave effort.
The first principle of historical reenactment is dress as the originals would have, shirley?
Like I say, novices.
And pace @GeneralBoles, not a lot of “actual loving f***” seems to have gone on.
Feels like the Telegraph is desperately seeking something to distract their readers from the woes of the Tory party.
(As an aside can someone explain to me how the bath photo is 'proves' anything? To my mind there's a lot that two people could get up to in that bath.)
Depends what's being alleged. If the allegation is being spanked with a yellow pages whilst wearing the garb of a Roman centurion, it's on the poky side.
It's a ChatGPT detector I've run 5 non-AI generated bits through and 5 ChatGPT bits through and it's been 100% accurate in determining what's been created by the bot and what's not.
This is useful for three reasons:
1. At some point there will be a plugin that can filter out ChatGPT generated content, the same way Adblock Plus and other ad blockers work. So if you don't want to see content created by a robot, you won't.
2. The ability to detect AI written content will mean AI written content can be discarded from future training models
3. People paying good money for professional services, e.g. consultancy, copywriting etc can be reasonably sure they're paying for a human to give their best shot at it (even if they've used ChatGPT for background research or an early draft).
But the really big one, perhaps bigger than all three above. We can still tell the difference between humans and AI. There is something humans put into writing that a probabilistic word generator does not - so while ChatGPT may provide very convincing answers, and even sound convincingly human at times, it's still only at best an attempt at a close copy of what a human can do - not a substitute, not a replacement.
Moving target, though.
What I was surprised at was how successful the detector was at detecting outputs from prompts like "write in the style of" or "pretend to be" - so even when I fed it output that looked to me like it was being written by very human actors as opposed to the "ChatGPT house style" of beige, rote, wiki-style essay writing, it still managed to detect AI written prose.
This suggests to me there is something inherently "beige" about the probabilistic way ChatGPT generates words and that it just doesn't replicate real human writing very well.
Having seen some of the output, that doesn’t entirely surprise me. But it will be superseded by new models soon, as will those models in turn.
I’m not able to predict what comes next.
In a sense there are practical and cultural questions, and they are not the same. Can it produce words and ideas which solve problems, crack political futures, save the NHS, stop wars, abolish hunger, save the whale. That would be rather good.
Secondly, can it produce real first rate art in the form of words on a page. Not second rate or formulaic - that is a racing certainty; many people can be taught to do it, huge numbers make a living from it. But can it produce (one day) without particular human assistance a book as ground breaking as Origin of Species or The Critique of Pure Reason; or a work as compelling as Wuthering Heights, Lear or Emma.
My own view is that we will know it when we see it. When it happens the world will have changed for ever. Alongside SETI it is perhaps the most interesting answerable question around.
To build on your first point, can AI invent or discover anything?
Will it achieve breakthroughs like those of Newton, Darwin , Einstein, or Volta, Watt, Bell, etc. etc.?
Presumably it will at some point, assuming a truly conscious AI can be created, which I would guess will be the case eventually. Right now AIs are able to parse human text and recognise patterns in the data but it is obvious that they don't actually "understand" it. The question is what a truly conscious AI will choose to do with its power. I would assume that it will treat us like we treat animals that we consider ourselves superior to if it gets the chance.
Feels like the Telegraph is desperately seeking something to distract their readers from the woes of the Tory party.
(As an aside can someone explain to me how the bath photo is 'proves' anything? To my mind there's a lot that two people could get up to in that bath.)
I find it hard to believe that no-one at the Telegraph has ever shared a bath that size with a lover.
It looks an ample size for nookie.
Typical misogynist Telegraph though - who's got the tap end?
Feels like the Telegraph is desperately seeking something to distract their readers from the woes of the Tory party.
(As an aside can someone explain to me how the bath photo is 'proves' anything? To my mind there's a lot that two people could get up to in that bath.)
You mean the bath is meant to be a distraction from the shower?
It's a ChatGPT detector I've run 5 non-AI generated bits through and 5 ChatGPT bits through and it's been 100% accurate in determining what's been created by the bot and what's not.
This is useful for three reasons:
1. At some point there will be a plugin that can filter out ChatGPT generated content, the same way Adblock Plus and other ad blockers work. So if you don't want to see content created by a robot, you won't.
2. The ability to detect AI written content will mean AI written content can be discarded from future training models
3. People paying good money for professional services, e.g. consultancy, copywriting etc can be reasonably sure they're paying for a human to give their best shot at it (even if they've used ChatGPT for background research or an early draft).
But the really big one, perhaps bigger than all three above. We can still tell the difference between humans and AI. There is something humans put into writing that a probabilistic word generator does not - so while ChatGPT may provide very convincing answers, and even sound convincingly human at times, it's still only at best an attempt at a close copy of what a human can do - not a substitute, not a replacement.
Moving target, though.
What I was surprised at was how successful the detector was at detecting outputs from prompts like "write in the style of" or "pretend to be" - so even when I fed it output that looked to me like it was being written by very human actors as opposed to the "ChatGPT house style" of beige, rote, wiki-style essay writing, it still managed to detect AI written prose.
This suggests to me there is something inherently "beige" about the probabilistic way ChatGPT generates words and that it just doesn't replicate real human writing very well.
Having seen some of the output, that doesn’t entirely surprise me. But it will be superseded by new models soon, as will those models in turn.
I’m not able to predict what comes next.
In a sense there are practical and cultural questions, and they are not the same. Can it produce words and ideas which solve problems, crack political futures, save the NHS, stop wars, abolish hunger, save the whale. That would be rather good.
Secondly, can it produce real first rate art in the form of words on a page. Not second rate or formulaic - that is a racing certainty; many people can be taught to do it, huge numbers make a living from it. But can it produce (one day) without particular human assistance a book as ground breaking as Origin of Species or The Critique of Pure Reason; or a work as compelling as Wuthering Heights, Lear or Emma.
My own view is that we will know it when we see it. When it happens the world will have changed for ever. Alongside SETI it is perhaps the most interesting answerable question around.
To build on your first point, can AI invent or discover anything?
Will it achieve breakthroughs like those of Newton, Darwin , Einstein, or Volta, Watt, Bell, etc. etc.?
Presumably it will at some point, assuming a truly conscious AI can be created, which I would guess will be the case eventually. Right now AIs are able to parse human text and recognise patterns in the data but it is obvious that they don't actually "understand" it. The question is what a truly conscious AI will choose to do with its power. I would assume that it will treat us like we treat animals that we consider ourselves superior to if it gets the chance.
Spend enormous amounts of money on our healthcare, or eat us ? The latter seems improbable.
What a bizarre headline from the Telegraph and with Camilla Tominey, Associate Editor, penning her column ' The Tories desperately need a Boris comeback' I think we can agree they have completely lost the plot
Add to which: "Focus, faith and optimism- Fraser Nelson on what makes the Prime Minister tick"
The Ukraine story on that front page is absurd too. Are we sure the whole thing hasn't been mocked up?
What should the Navy have given to Ukraine?
The Ukrainians are getting trained up on two minesweepers that are being transferred by the UK - these were sold pre-war, IIRC, but have turned out to be one of the things they really need.
The Ukraine story on that front page is absurd too. Are we sure the whole thing hasn't been mocked up?
What should the Navy have given to Ukraine?
The Ukrainians are getting trained up on two minesweepers that are being transferred by the UK - these were sold pre-war, IIRC, but have turned out to be one of the things they really need.
Yes. I heard about training the Ukrainians were receiving from the Navy on minesweeping drones.
But what more could the Navy do? Hand over a destroyer?
It's a ChatGPT detector I've run 5 non-AI generated bits through and 5 ChatGPT bits through and it's been 100% accurate in determining what's been created by the bot and what's not.
This is useful for three reasons:
1. At some point there will be a plugin that can filter out ChatGPT generated content, the same way Adblock Plus and other ad blockers work. So if you don't want to see content created by a robot, you won't.
2. The ability to detect AI written content will mean AI written content can be discarded from future training models
3. People paying good money for professional services, e.g. consultancy, copywriting etc can be reasonably sure they're paying for a human to give their best shot at it (even if they've used ChatGPT for background research or an early draft).
But the really big one, perhaps bigger than all three above. We can still tell the difference between humans and AI. There is something humans put into writing that a probabilistic word generator does not - so while ChatGPT may provide very convincing answers, and even sound convincingly human at times, it's still only at best an attempt at a close copy of what a human can do - not a substitute, not a replacement.
Moving target, though.
What I was surprised at was how successful the detector was at detecting outputs from prompts like "write in the style of" or "pretend to be" - so even when I fed it output that looked to me like it was being written by very human actors as opposed to the "ChatGPT house style" of beige, rote, wiki-style essay writing, it still managed to detect AI written prose.
This suggests to me there is something inherently "beige" about the probabilistic way ChatGPT generates words and that it just doesn't replicate real human writing very well.
Having seen some of the output, that doesn’t entirely surprise me. But it will be superseded by new models soon, as will those models in turn.
I’m not able to predict what comes next.
In a sense there are practical and cultural questions, and they are not the same. Can it produce words and ideas which solve problems, crack political futures, save the NHS, stop wars, abolish hunger, save the whale. That would be rather good.
Secondly, can it produce real first rate art in the form of words on a page. Not second rate or formulaic - that is a racing certainty; many people can be taught to do it, huge numbers make a living from it. But can it produce (one day) without particular human assistance a book as ground breaking as Origin of Species or The Critique of Pure Reason; or a work as compelling as Wuthering Heights, Lear or Emma.
My own view is that we will know it when we see it. When it happens the world will have changed for ever. Alongside SETI it is perhaps the most interesting answerable question around.
To build on your first point, can AI invent or discover anything?
Will it achieve breakthroughs like those of Newton, Darwin , Einstein, or Volta, Watt, Bell, etc. etc.?
Presumably it will at some point, assuming a truly conscious AI can be created, which I would guess will be the case eventually. Right now AIs are able to parse human text and recognise patterns in the data but it is obvious that they don't actually "understand" it. The question is what a truly conscious AI will choose to do with its power. I would assume that it will treat us like we treat animals that we consider ourselves superior to if it gets the chance.
Although if cats could just unplug us, I am not sure we'd feel that superior.
What this country needs is a patriotic strongman, right?
No not saying that either, as I said I believe in democracy I have just reached a point where I look at problems we have and most western countries have the same and realise fixing those problems can't be done in a democracy unless politicians lie about their intent or we dont go democratic for a few years. Personally I prefer politician do not tarnish their already low credibility further.
so two questions for you and second is only if you say no to the first
1) Do you see the problems in the western countries solvable by any politician being honest and still getting elected?
2) If no politician can get elected on what needs to be done what do you think should be done
1. Yes, certainly as much as in previous eras. The West has its issues but overall it’s in robust health. Politicians lied to us for years and are now about to get their comeuppance.
2. They can, and do in many countries. Democracy is a messy business but it always carries with it the hope and possibility of changing direction.
As an example I would give you the not always popular Emmanuel Macron. He spent his first term pissing off just about every interest group in France by telling them hard truths, and subsequently got re-elected.
And how many of those things he pissed them off about did he actually achieve wasnt the percentage 0? He didnt get his reforms to pensions through nor those on working practises. He achieved in fact bugger all of what he wanted
Reason he got reelected in fact is it was him or lepen....like choosing between walter the softy and hitler
Macron has achieved quite a bit. But not everything, though he is trying again on pensions. Rather like Blair, it’s too easy to simply say “he did nothing” when the evidence is he’s done rather a lot, particularly on labour law reform.
Reading the list yes he acheived little of consequence to sort the problems out.
Most western states and the uk in particular have 1 problem with 2 ways to deal with it
Tax income does not equal services cost even when services are underfunded.
so either 1) raise taxes and taxing the rich wont be enough you will need to tax everyone more
2) cut the services the state offers
Good luck getting elected on either premise
First world problems
UK median household income: $46.7k France median household income: $61k
Similar net debt to UK. Vastly better healthcare (I can testify as someone who’s experienced it), virtually free childcare from birth, high quality state education, actual high speed rail lines, nice food, brilliant wine, lovely scenery and climate, pretty towns, affordable houses, good looking people with clothes that fit, and free firewood from your local communal woodland if you can find someone to cut it for you. (But admittedly their plumbers merchants are a complete cartel). France is doing fine.
You think france is doing fine then all good I dont really care as I dont live there the argument is not about france its about the uk and we have underfunded services that dont deliver and cost more than tax.
Yes I believe most of the west has the same issue but will happily concede the point to you and focus on the uk because I do live there and its important to me therefore.
The point remains the same we have two options, tax a hell of a lot more on everyone or cut services.
I would estimate that if we full fund everything then the tax required would be about double what we currently pay though thats a guess admittedly
So which political party is going to stand on tax more or reduce services and win? answer none
Well that’s kind of the Tory policy position. And it’s wrong. In the short term we need to tax a bit more, focus tax reliefs and incentives on the areas of infrastructure investment where we’re most lacking, borrow as much as we can manage without pushing up gilt yields, and spend significantly more on the public infrastructure and services that will enable the economy to grow.
Tax rises plus spending cuts equal a steadily falling apart and clinically depressed country.
NO MORE BORROWING FROM OUR CHILDREN AND GRAND CHILDREN. THEY WAY THINGS ARE GOING THE WHOLE TAX TAKE THEY PAY WILL BE SETTLING THE DEBTS OF OUR GENERATION. IT IS NOT JUST A TORY POSITION ITS AN ALL POLITICIAN POSITION BORROW MORE SO WE GET ELECTED NOW AND WE WONT BE AROUND WHEN THE BILLS ARE DUE.
You are a selfish idiot.
If we cant raise tax to pay for everything in the here and now then the state does less.
If we can get more tax in the here and now to fully fund things fine
You’re talking the ideology of 2010. It was a cataclysmic failure then, it would be a cataclysmic failure now.
I’ve worked with companies take that kind of asset sweating approach to investment. They invariably end up failing.
Every pound we don’t spend on essential infrastructure now is two pounds we’ll have to spend on the same thing in a decade.
Investment is the definition of leaving something for our children. Look at the HS2 nonsense today. There were actual MPs suggesting we can the whole thing. They’re the selfish idiots.
When our total debt is more than twice gdp its time to stop digging. Sheer lunacy to do otherwise and yes I included in debt the public sector pension liabilities which takes us north of 4 trillion in debt. If we only borrowed for infrastructure yes I wouldn't be so bothered however no government will not labour not tories and certainly not the lib dems if we ever found enough people to vote for them.
And by infrastructure I don’t just mean roads and railways. Education, childcare, adult skills, healthcare, the effective functioning of the courts. These are all essential infrastructure for an investable economy.
Start by paying the fees of students studying subjects that we need - not least new doctors and nurses.
Medical students don't need their fees paying. There are way more applying for places than there are places available. The fees don't put them off.
Increase the number of places to increase the number of doctors.
Quite, although it’s not simple to do that. Foxy will tell you more but lots of training revolves around clinical placement and that needs clinicians giving up time or new ones being hired to do the training. Being difficult doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done though.
@Foxy was mentioning that quite a few would be doctors drop out in the later parts of clinical training.
Perhaps we need to look at that as well.
How about this for a Labour policy? - to reduce problems for the NHS and give back to the world, rather than snaffling all the doctors and nurse from poor countries, the UK commits to training 110% of estimated NHS requirement for medical staff.
The squealing in certain places would be hilarious.
The Ukraine story on that front page is absurd too. Are we sure the whole thing hasn't been mocked up?
What should the Navy have given to Ukraine?
The Ukrainians are getting trained up on two minesweepers that are being transferred by the UK - these were sold pre-war, IIRC, but have turned out to be one of the things they really need.
Yes. I heard about training the Ukrainians were receiving from the Navy on minesweeping drones.
But what more could the Navy do? Hand over a destroyer?
I don't think the Ukrainians want heavy warships - at the moment.
Was the agreement under which the minesweepers were provided - it includes building new fleet bases and other warships for the Ukrainians, over time. Probably a fair bit of this has been put on hold/modified by the war.
What this country needs is a patriotic strongman, right?
No not saying that either, as I said I believe in democracy I have just reached a point where I look at problems we have and most western countries have the same and realise fixing those problems can't be done in a democracy unless politicians lie about their intent or we dont go democratic for a few years. Personally I prefer politician do not tarnish their already low credibility further.
so two questions for you and second is only if you say no to the first
1) Do you see the problems in the western countries solvable by any politician being honest and still getting elected?
2) If no politician can get elected on what needs to be done what do you think should be done
1. Yes, certainly as much as in previous eras. The West has its issues but overall it’s in robust health. Politicians lied to us for years and are now about to get their comeuppance.
2. They can, and do in many countries. Democracy is a messy business but it always carries with it the hope and possibility of changing direction.
As an example I would give you the not always popular Emmanuel Macron. He spent his first term pissing off just about every interest group in France by telling them hard truths, and subsequently got re-elected.
And how many of those things he pissed them off about did he actually achieve wasnt the percentage 0? He didnt get his reforms to pensions through nor those on working practises. He achieved in fact bugger all of what he wanted
Reason he got reelected in fact is it was him or lepen....like choosing between walter the softy and hitler
Macron has achieved quite a bit. But not everything, though he is trying again on pensions. Rather like Blair, it’s too easy to simply say “he did nothing” when the evidence is he’s done rather a lot, particularly on labour law reform.
Reading the list yes he acheived little of consequence to sort the problems out.
Most western states and the uk in particular have 1 problem with 2 ways to deal with it
Tax income does not equal services cost even when services are underfunded.
so either 1) raise taxes and taxing the rich wont be enough you will need to tax everyone more
2) cut the services the state offers
Good luck getting elected on either premise
First world problems
UK median household income: $46.7k France median household income: $61k
Similar net debt to UK. Vastly better healthcare (I can testify as someone who’s experienced it), virtually free childcare from birth, high quality state education, actual high speed rail lines, nice food, brilliant wine, lovely scenery and climate, pretty towns, affordable houses, good looking people with clothes that fit, and free firewood from your local communal woodland if you can find someone to cut it for you. (But admittedly their plumbers merchants are a complete cartel). France is doing fine.
You think france is doing fine then all good I dont really care as I dont live there the argument is not about france its about the uk and we have underfunded services that dont deliver and cost more than tax.
Yes I believe most of the west has the same issue but will happily concede the point to you and focus on the uk because I do live there and its important to me therefore.
The point remains the same we have two options, tax a hell of a lot more on everyone or cut services.
I would estimate that if we full fund everything then the tax required would be about double what we currently pay though thats a guess admittedly
So which political party is going to stand on tax more or reduce services and win? answer none
Well that’s kind of the Tory policy position. And it’s wrong. In the short term we need to tax a bit more, focus tax reliefs and incentives on the areas of infrastructure investment where we’re most lacking, borrow as much as we can manage without pushing up gilt yields, and spend significantly more on the public infrastructure and services that will enable the economy to grow.
Tax rises plus spending cuts equal a steadily falling apart and clinically depressed country.
NO MORE BORROWING FROM OUR CHILDREN AND GRAND CHILDREN. THEY WAY THINGS ARE GOING THE WHOLE TAX TAKE THEY PAY WILL BE SETTLING THE DEBTS OF OUR GENERATION. IT IS NOT JUST A TORY POSITION ITS AN ALL POLITICIAN POSITION BORROW MORE SO WE GET ELECTED NOW AND WE WONT BE AROUND WHEN THE BILLS ARE DUE.
You are a selfish idiot.
If we cant raise tax to pay for everything in the here and now then the state does less.
If we can get more tax in the here and now to fully fund things fine
You’re talking the ideology of 2010. It was a cataclysmic failure then, it would be a cataclysmic failure now.
I’ve worked with companies take that kind of asset sweating approach to investment. They invariably end up failing.
Every pound we don’t spend on essential infrastructure now is two pounds we’ll have to spend on the same thing in a decade.
Investment is the definition of leaving something for our children. Look at the HS2 nonsense today. There were actual MPs suggesting we can the whole thing. They’re the selfish idiots.
When our total debt is more than twice gdp its time to stop digging. Sheer lunacy to do otherwise and yes I included in debt the public sector pension liabilities which takes us north of 4 trillion in debt. If we only borrowed for infrastructure yes I wouldn't be so bothered however no government will not labour not tories and certainly not the lib dems if we ever found enough people to vote for them.
And by infrastructure I don’t just mean roads and railways. Education, childcare, adult skills, healthcare, the effective functioning of the courts. These are all essential infrastructure for an investable economy.
Start by paying the fees of students studying subjects that we need - not least new doctors and nurses.
Medical students don't need their fees paying. There are way more applying for places than there are places available. The fees don't put them off.
Increase the number of places to increase the number of doctors.
Quite, although it’s not simple to do that. Foxy will tell you more but lots of training revolves around clinical placement and that needs clinicians giving up time or new ones being hired to do the training. Being difficult doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done though.
@Foxy was mentioning that quite a few would be doctors drop out in the later parts of clinical training.
Perhaps we need to look at that as well.
How about this for a Labour policy? - to reduce problems for the NHS and give back to the world, rather than snaffling all the doctors and nurse from poor countries, the UK commits to training 110% of estimated NHS requirement for medical staff.
The squealing in certain places would be hilarious.
Yes the voluntary drop out rate is quite high nowadays, as it is for most university courses.
The biggest problem is physical space, not just in lecture theatres, but also labs, dissection rooms etc. The capacity for clinical placements is limited too. All can be fixed, just needs loads of money and time being spent.
That is only half the job, there then needs to be enough Foundation and Specialist Training posts, and those are even more expensive to create and supervise. A surgeon teaching postgraduate doctors isn't doing a lot of long waiters.
I used to think the Matt cartoon was the funniest thing on the front page of the Telegraph.
Its practically the only thing worth reading in the paper thee days - actually the cricket coverage isn't bad and Neil McCormick is very good on music but when it comes to News and Current affairs they are dire.
Modern-day EFTA is a club for EU enclaves and peripheries, i.e. rules takers. If the UK were to join, it would immediately comprise 75% of the EFTA economy. So the EFTA-EU negotiations and relationship would be virtually equivalent to today's UK-EU negotiations and relationship.
The 'rule takers' claim is simply a myth perpetuated for many years by the the pro-EU supporters to undermine any possibility of it being considered an alternative. The EFTA members themselves certainly don't consider themselves simply rule takers.
In reality, the EU dominates EEA countries, not by intention, but by default. Because they have rejected membership in the EU, but seek access to the Single Market, the EEA members become acquiescent to the EU. Being dependent on the will, even the goodwill, of others is not freedom – it is dominance. By rejecting EU membership but not the Single Market, the associated non-members have become subject to the hegemonic dominance of the EU. These states have unintentionally turned the EU into a hegemon ruling over themselves.
Hahaha.
Erikson is a fanatical pro-EU advocate who has campaigned tirelessly for Norway to join the EU. That article is actually filled with what are, being generous, misleading claims and being less generous outright falsehoods. The most obvious that Norway pays roughly on a par with EU members - it doesn't, not even by a fraction. Nor is it simply a rule taker. It has full participation in the development of all EU rules and regulations affecting the EEA relationship with the exception of the final vote. And at that point if they don't agree they have a veto.
Quoting Erikson, who betrays his own bigotry by describing Norwegian attitudes to the EU as 'demonised', as a neutral or reliable authority is as bad as quoting Farage as a neutral observer of the UK relationship with the EU.
Now who's being misleading? No, Norway does not have a veto over the EU's trading framework.
he didnt say that so you are the one misleading what he said is Norway can veto any eu regulation and not implement it in Norway. Not that they can veto the EU implementing it
Of course Norway can refuse to implement EU rules, just like EU countries regularly refuse, but at scale it means an end to the relationship.
Nope. Again you are wrong. The mechanism for this is actually written into the EEA treaty. Moreover an EU country cannot legally refuse to implement an EU regulation. Of course some do but in doing so they are acting illegally. Are you advocating that as a viable alternative?
Sadly this level of wilful ignorance was displayed by the UK negotiators as well...
...during a POLITICO interview in Brussels Tuesday, Norwegian Prime Minister Erna Solberg pointed out that it [the Norway option] would mean Britain continuing to abide by the four EU freedoms, including freedom of movement, as well as having no decision-making power in Brussels. "Then I should just ask why … should you leave the EU if you’re accepting that?" she said.
Modern-day EFTA is a club for EU enclaves and peripheries, i.e. rules takers. If the UK were to join, it would immediately comprise 75% of the EFTA economy. So the EFTA-EU negotiations and relationship would be virtually equivalent to today's UK-EU negotiations and relationship.
The 'rule takers' claim is simply a myth perpetuated for many years by the the pro-EU supporters to undermine any possibility of it being considered an alternative. The EFTA members themselves certainly don't consider themselves simply rule takers.
In reality, the EU dominates EEA countries, not by intention, but by default. Because they have rejected membership in the EU, but seek access to the Single Market, the EEA members become acquiescent to the EU. Being dependent on the will, even the goodwill, of others is not freedom – it is dominance. By rejecting EU membership but not the Single Market, the associated non-members have become subject to the hegemonic dominance of the EU. These states have unintentionally turned the EU into a hegemon ruling over themselves.
Hahaha.
Erikson is a fanatical pro-EU advocate who has campaigned tirelessly for Norway to join the EU. That article is actually filled with what are, being generous, misleading claims and being less generous outright falsehoods. The most obvious that Norway pays roughly on a par with EU members - it doesn't, not even by a fraction. Nor is it simply a rule taker. It has full participation in the development of all EU rules and regulations affecting the EEA relationship with the exception of the final vote. And at that point if they don't agree they have a veto.
Quoting Erikson, who betrays his own bigotry by describing Norwegian attitudes to the EU as 'demonised', as a neutral or reliable authority is as bad as quoting Farage as a neutral observer of the UK relationship with the EU.
Now who's being misleading? No, Norway does not have a veto over the EU's trading framework.
he didnt say that so you are the one misleading what he said is Norway can veto any eu regulation and not implement it in Norway. Not that they can veto the EU implementing it
Of course Norway can refuse to implement EU rules, just like EU countries regularly refuse, but at scale it means an end to the relationship.
Nope. Again you are wrong. The mechanism for this is actually written into the EEA treaty. Moreover an EU country cannot legally refuse to implement an EU regulation. Of course some do but in doing so they are acting illegally. Are you advocating that as a viable alternative?
Sadly this level of wilful ignorance was displayed by the UK negotiators as well...
...during a POLITICO interview in Brussels Tuesday, Norwegian Prime Minister Erna Solberg pointed out that it [the Norway option] would mean Britain continuing to abide by the four EU freedoms, including freedom of movement, as well as having no decision-making power in Brussels. "Then I should just ask why … should you leave the EU if you’re accepting that?" she said.
Yes, the EEA is the logical compromise that pleases nearly no one.
I expect we will be in it, or something like it within the decade. Then wanting a seat at the top table.
The Ukraine story on that front page is absurd too. Are we sure the whole thing hasn't been mocked up?
What should the Navy have given to Ukraine?
The Ukrainians are getting trained up on two minesweepers that are being transferred by the UK - these were sold pre-war, IIRC, but have turned out to be one of the things they really need.
The ships (Cherkasy and Cherniv) are in Rosyth. They are trying to work what the response would be if the Russians torpedo them in international waters before they send them out of range of the smell of the chip shop on the harbour.
Modern-day EFTA is a club for EU enclaves and peripheries, i.e. rules takers. If the UK were to join, it would immediately comprise 75% of the EFTA economy. So the EFTA-EU negotiations and relationship would be virtually equivalent to today's UK-EU negotiations and relationship.
The 'rule takers' claim is simply a myth perpetuated for many years by the the pro-EU supporters to undermine any possibility of it being considered an alternative. The EFTA members themselves certainly don't consider themselves simply rule takers.
In reality, the EU dominates EEA countries, not by intention, but by default. Because they have rejected membership in the EU, but seek access to the Single Market, the EEA members become acquiescent to the EU. Being dependent on the will, even the goodwill, of others is not freedom – it is dominance. By rejecting EU membership but not the Single Market, the associated non-members have become subject to the hegemonic dominance of the EU. These states have unintentionally turned the EU into a hegemon ruling over themselves.
Hahaha.
Erikson is a fanatical pro-EU advocate who has campaigned tirelessly for Norway to join the EU. That article is actually filled with what are, being generous, misleading claims and being less generous outright falsehoods. The most obvious that Norway pays roughly on a par with EU members - it doesn't, not even by a fraction. Nor is it simply a rule taker. It has full participation in the development of all EU rules and regulations affecting the EEA relationship with the exception of the final vote. And at that point if they don't agree they have a veto.
Quoting Erikson, who betrays his own bigotry by describing Norwegian attitudes to the EU as 'demonised', as a neutral or reliable authority is as bad as quoting Farage as a neutral observer of the UK relationship with the EU.
Now who's being misleading? No, Norway does not have a veto over the EU's trading framework.
he didnt say that so you are the one misleading what he said is Norway can veto any eu regulation and not implement it in Norway. Not that they can veto the EU implementing it
Of course Norway can refuse to implement EU rules, just like EU countries regularly refuse, but at scale it means an end to the relationship.
Nope. Again you are wrong. The mechanism for this is actually written into the EEA treaty. Moreover an EU country cannot legally refuse to implement an EU regulation. Of course some do but in doing so they are acting illegally. Are you advocating that as a viable alternative?
Sadly this level of wilful ignorance was displayed by the UK negotiators as well...
...during a POLITICO interview in Brussels Tuesday, Norwegian Prime Minister Erna Solberg pointed out that it [the Norway option] would mean Britain continuing to abide by the four EU freedoms, including freedom of movement, as well as having no decision-making power in Brussels. "Then I should just ask why … should you leave the EU if you’re accepting that?" she said.
Yes, the EEA is the logical compromise that pleases nearly no one.
I expect we will be in it, or something like it within the decade. Then wanting a seat at the top table.
Meanwhile, rational political debate understands that ship sailed a long time ago...
I used to think the Matt cartoon was the funniest thing on the front page of the Telegraph.
Its practically the only thing worth reading in the paper thee days - actually the cricket coverage isn't bad and Neil McCormick is very good on music but when it comes to News and Current affairs they are dire.
I've been listening to their Ukraine podcast most days since the invasion last February and it's generally really good. Not sure why the newspaper is so bad.
Discovered an interesting small art gallery in London today. The Estorick Collection of Modern Italian Art, near Highbury and Islington station. It's been there since 1998.
Labour are ahead but I think Deltapoll with Labour just 14% ahead is more realistic. RefUK on just 4% with them too, much lower than other pollsters
The Tories are no better than 26/27% and currently slipping, the realistic lead based on that is 20%. Can this even move at all whilst Sunak is disliked and untrusted?
Labour are ahead but I think Deltapoll with Labour just 14% ahead is more realistic. RefUK on just 4% with them too, much lower than other pollsters
The Tories are no better than 26/27% and currently slipping, the realistic lead based on that is 20%. Can this even move at all whilst Sunak is disliked and untrusted?
HYUFD quoting Popbitch. the Telegraph's front page.
These are truly the end days for old style deferential Toryism.
Let’s be clear what has happened here, the Tory tree that stood for a hundred years, representing all the tick boxes which make up election victory’s, has been hauled down, chopped up and burnt on a fire.
Take The Rod Stewart “former Tory now urging give Labour a chance” example, that appeared at first glance to be about creaking health service. What if it’s not. What if he’s a life long Tory who thinks Tory Brexit is stupid? This site is full of posters just like that. Will they ever vote Tory again in their lives?
At Chequers, however, Levido was optimistic. Mid-term polls, he said, were not evidence of voting intention but a judgment about the present. He gave ministers the example of 2013, when the Tories were lagging in the polls but won an unexpected majority two years later.
Labour are ahead but I think Deltapoll with Labour just 14% ahead is more realistic. RefUK on just 4% with them too, much lower than other pollsters
The Tories are no better than 26/27% and currently slipping, the realistic lead based on that is 20%. Can this even move at all whilst Sunak is disliked and untrusted?
Hey Moon, how are you?
Glad you're being sensible today.
In the chilly wee small hours of this morning, in the hush from branch to hedgerow, from log and burrow, through the woods of the glen, will be whispered Brother Northwind’s secret: spring will come again.
Labour are ahead but I think Deltapoll with Labour just 14% ahead is more realistic. RefUK on just 4% with them too, much lower than other pollsters
The Tories are no better than 26/27% and currently slipping, the realistic lead based on that is 20%. Can this even move at all whilst Sunak is disliked and untrusted?
Hey Moon, how are you?
Glad you're being sensible today.
In the chilly wee small hours of this morning, in the hush from branch to hedgerow, from log and burrow, through the woods of the glen, will be whispered Brother Northwind’s secret: spring will come again.
Look after yourself Horse. Positive thinking.
Thanks Moon, you too friend.
January is always the hardest month for me, then the days are brightening and we're suddenly in the Summer again
He certainly can IMO. Support for Labour is pretty soft.
He needs to give people a positive reason to vote Conservative. "Get Brexit done" (together with "We're not Corbyn") was more than enough in 2019, but the only reason to vote Conservative now is that they're not Starmer, which won't be enough.
Unfortunately, he's about the last person able to articulate a persuasive vision. Amazing how you can rise to the top of politics in this country without any vision or charisma at all.
He certainly can IMO. Support for Labour is pretty soft.
He needs to give people a positive reason to vote Conservative. "Get Brexit done" (together with "We're not Corbyn") was more than enough in 2019, but the only reason to vote Conservative now is that they're not Starmer, which won't be enough.
Unfortunately, he's about the last person able to articulate a persuasive vision. Amazing how you can rise to the top of politics in this country without any vision or charisma at all.
He took his time too early, should have waited for opposition IMHO
John Major immediately enjoyed a polling lead over Labour when he took over as leader and, although he had a trickier time in mid-1991, was basically always within single figures of Labour and quite often had a slim lead. It's just not comparable with the current situation, where Sunak enjoyed no meaningful bounce and Labour have enjoyed decent leads for a year including enormous leads since the mini-budget fiasco.
There is a lot of mythology over 1992 which suggests Major came back from the dead to win it from nowhere. That's just not the case - what happened is it always looked like it was on a knife-edge, but the polls were generous to Labour and in fact Major won by a surprisingly decent margin. Major was never at any point (up to the 1992 election) facing anything even vaguely like the current polling situation.
I used to think the Matt cartoon was the funniest thing on the front page of the Telegraph.
Its practically the only thing worth reading in the paper thee days - actually the cricket coverage isn't bad and Neil McCormick is very good on music but when it comes to News and Current affairs they are dire.
John Major immediately enjoyed a polling lead over Labour when he took over as leader and, although he had a trickier time in mid-1991, was basically always within single figures of Labour and quite often had a slim lead. It's just not comparable with the current situation, where Sunak enjoyed no meaningful bounce and Labour have enjoyed decent leads for a year including enormous leads since the mini-budget fiasco.
There is a lot of mythology over 1992 which suggests Major came back from the dead to win it from nowhere. That's just not the case - what happened is it always looked like it was on a knife-edge, but the polls were generous to Labour and in fact Major won by a surprisingly decent margin. Major was never at any point (up to the 1992 election) facing anything even vaguely like the current polling situation.
I would add, under Lady Thatcher in the eighties, the conservatives were much more popular than Labour for a long time, and they enjoyed a good over all record for sound government, strong leadership and stewardship of the economy, and in 1992 still had a lot of that still fresh in the memory. Labour on the other hand had a 1980s record of extremism, militant infiltration, surrender of the nuclear deterrent, and a whole wish list of spending promises that suggested high taxes, high inflation, high interest rates, and broken economy, and memory’s were still fresh from their last time in office.
In fact lots of things I read says Labour were complacent safety first not aggressive in the election campaign, even boasted their policy was to increase taxes.
As you said, nothing even vaguely similar to the current situation. The Tories have had an abysmal 13 years, nothing positive to say for it at all, unlike 1992 they have no credit in the box at all.
It should also be raised, talking about poll defying upsets 30 years ago for comparisons with today - hasn’t the polling science moved on? Havn’t pollsters learned from bad results for them and made adjustments down the years?
Comments
I’ve worked with companies take that kind of asset sweating approach to investment. They invariably end up failing.
Every pound we don’t spend on essential infrastructure now is two pounds we’ll have to spend on the same thing in a decade.
Investment is the definition of leaving something for our children. Look at the HS2 nonsense today. There were actual MPs suggesting we can the whole thing. They’re the selfish idiots.
https://www.crookandblight.com/
You say you don't care about France but you should. It's the most comparable country to the UK in many ways but doing a lot better. Perhaps we should emulate France a bit more.
PS France's debt is 113% of GDP compared to our 95%. Japan's is 260% of GDP and they're not bust either.
Oh and households will get into unaffordable debt instead / too.
Seriously, I’ve seen enough businesses face this scenario - most of which of course have debt to earnings way higher than any country - and the ones that hide behind the sofa and sweat assets are the ones that eventually go bust.
We actually have decent headroom to borrow more when you compare our debt burden with those of other large economies. The issue we face is our currency and credit rating are shaky. But we decided to leave the EU so that’s a cross we must bear.
https://twitter.com/ReedAlbergotti/status/1619024497063100417
… @OpenAI has hired about 1K contractors over the past six months around the world, and about 400 of them are programmers who are teaching its models, in granular detail, how to code.
Take that same money and spend it on a whole host of regional infrastructure projects. Not just the East West train links in Northern England, but ultra fast broadband for every part of the country, improved rail links away from the main routes - not least connecting the docks and manufacturing centres to the network again. Tidal energy projects, tram and light rail systems. There are a whole host of things that can be done with that money that will give a far better return than just improving travel times and capacity on links into London. All the more so at a time when we are moving away from the commuting model for work and more towards distance working.
https://hivemoderation.com/ai-generated-content-detection
It's a ChatGPT detector I've run 5 non-AI generated bits through and 5 ChatGPT bits through and it's been 100% accurate in determining what's been created by the bot and what's not.
This is useful for three reasons:
1. At some point there will be a plugin that can filter out ChatGPT generated content, the same way Adblock Plus and other ad blockers work. So if you don't want to see content created by a robot, you won't.
2. The ability to detect AI written content will mean AI written content can be discarded from future training models
3. People paying good money for professional services, e.g. consultancy, copywriting etc can be reasonably sure they're paying for a human to give their best shot at it (even if they've used ChatGPT for background research or an early draft).
But the really big one, perhaps bigger than all three above. We can still tell the difference between humans and AI. There is something humans put into writing that a probabilistic word generator does not - so while ChatGPT may provide very convincing answers, and even sound convincingly human at times, it's still only at best an attempt at a close copy of what a human can do - not a substitute, not a replacement.
Increase the number of places to increase the number of doctors.
Being difficult doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done though.
I struggle to think of any country that invested money on the inner wiring of the economy and that regretted it decades later.
Other MPs have had enough and don't care or won't stand again.
The sane membership (are there some still?) will know their only hope is lose big and regroup. The mad members are intellectually just mini-Trumpians and there is little point in analysis.
Those who hold actual power - few - always tend to want it to continue. That's how they are made.
The overall collective impression is that they know they will, must and need to lose; and that it may be nice to be able to have the luxury of opposition. The next election will be tough for the winners.
@soniasodha: What the. https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1619091070662443009
@adamboultonTABB: RT @GeneralBoles: What in the name of actual loving f*** is going on at the Telegraph https://twitter.com/GeneralBoles/status/1619091503288303621/photo/1
@adamboultonTABB: RT @Samfr: This had to be a prank right? Someone's hacked the Telegraph? https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1619091070662443009
The English language is one of the main draws for foreign workers to come to the UK. Probably the single biggest one in fact. So it is probably responsible for Brexit, in that it helped to encourage such significant immigration. Of course Brexit hasn't stopped the immigration, because we still speak English and we still have an ageing workforce.
This suggests to me there is something inherently "beige" about the probabilistic way ChatGPT generates words and that it just doesn't replicate real human writing very well.
Unfortunately. Each group hasn't agreed amongst itself on the problem. Let alone the solution.
So hideously split.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/27/seven-israelis-killed-leaving-synagogue-in-east-jerusalem
1) Its quality is O Level
2) It is unsubtle on famously tricky questions
3) It can replicate what HR and middle management can produce of the sort that fills up space but doesn't help, but can't replicate real problem solving. It could do all the useless people out of a job. Good.
4) It still has lots of reading to do. On the problem of fact/value distinction (the naturalistic fallacy) it seemed oblivious to everything thought since the Victorians.
5) Not only bad at metaphysics but also sub standard on issues like who would win a fight between a baboon and a badger.
Would be more interesting to see the dynamic within the Conservative MPs if the system was such that just a bad defeat, let alone an absolute hammering, would see them being neither government nor opposition.
I'm glad we got that sorted.
(As an aside can someone explain to me how the bath photo is 'proves' anything? To my mind there's a lot that two people could get up to in that bath.)
But it will be superseded by new models soon, as will those models in turn.
I’m not able to predict what comes next.
Secondly, can it produce real first rate art in the form of words on a page. Not second rate or formulaic - that is a racing certainty; many people can be taught to do it, huge numbers make a living from it. But can it produce (one day) without particular human assistance a book as ground breaking as Origin of Species or The Critique of Pure Reason; or a work as compelling as Wuthering Heights, Lear or Emma.
My own view is that we will know it when we see it. When it happens the world will have changed for ever. Alongside SETI it is perhaps the most interesting answerable question around.
Will it achieve breakthroughs like those of Newton, Darwin , Einstein, or Volta, Watt, Bell, etc. etc.?
It would just sound like a less certain HYUFD.
I’m waiting for something more interesting.
But brave effort.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/64139029
Utterly bonkers, but rather inspiring.
"If your work output can be replicated by a travesty generator, you have a B Ark job."
What should the Navy have given to Ukraine?
And pace @GeneralBoles, not a lot of “actual loving f***” seems to have gone on.
The latter seems improbable.
But what more could the Navy do? Hand over a destroyer?
Perhaps we need to look at that as well.
How about this for a Labour policy? - to reduce problems for the NHS and give back to the world, rather than snaffling all the doctors and nurse from poor countries, the UK commits to training 110% of estimated NHS requirement for medical staff.
The squealing in certain places would be hilarious.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-signs-agreement-to-support-enhancement-of-ukrainian-naval-capabilities
Was the agreement under which the minesweepers were provided - it includes building new fleet bases and other warships for the Ukrainians, over time. Probably a fair bit of this has been put on hold/modified by the war.
The biggest problem is physical space, not just in lecture theatres, but also labs, dissection rooms etc. The capacity for clinical placements is limited too. All can be fixed, just needs loads of money and time being spent.
That is only half the job, there then needs to be enough Foundation and Specialist Training posts, and those are even more expensive to create and supervise. A surgeon teaching postgraduate doctors isn't doing a lot of long waiters.
...during a POLITICO interview in Brussels Tuesday, Norwegian Prime Minister Erna Solberg pointed out that it [the Norway option] would mean Britain continuing to abide by the four EU freedoms, including freedom of movement, as well as having no decision-making power in Brussels. "Then I should just ask why … should you leave the EU if you’re accepting that?" she said.
I expect we will be in it, or something like it within the decade. Then wanting a seat at the top table.
Discovered an interesting small art gallery in London today. The Estorick Collection of Modern Italian Art, near Highbury and Islington station. It's been there since 1998.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estorick_Collection_of_Modern_Italian_Art
Glad you're being sensible today.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/william-hague-thinks-sunak-can-win-like-major-some-ministers-arent-so-sure-n6nqk6lcb
These are truly the end days for old style deferential Toryism.
Take The Rod Stewart “former Tory now urging give Labour a chance” example, that appeared at first glance to be about creaking health service. What if it’s not. What if he’s a life long Tory who thinks Tory Brexit is stupid? This site is full of posters just like that. Will they ever vote Tory again in their lives?
https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/brexit-news-sir-rod-stewart-backs-a-peoples-vote-over-the-brexit-32810/
Look after yourself Horse. Positive thinking.
Johnson was never popular.
January is always the hardest month for me, then the days are brightening and we're suddenly in the Summer again
Unfortunately, he's about the last person able to articulate a persuasive vision. Amazing how you can rise to the top of politics in this country without any vision or charisma at all.
There is a lot of mythology over 1992 which suggests Major came back from the dead to win it from nowhere. That's just not the case - what happened is it always looked like it was on a knife-edge, but the polls were generous to Labour and in fact Major won by a surprisingly decent margin. Major was never at any point (up to the 1992 election) facing anything even vaguely like the current polling situation.
In fact lots of things I read says Labour were complacent safety first not aggressive in the election campaign, even boasted their policy was to increase taxes.
As you said, nothing even vaguely similar to the current situation. The Tories have had an abysmal 13 years, nothing positive to say for it at all, unlike 1992 they have no credit in the box at all.
It should also be raised, talking about poll defying upsets 30 years ago for comparisons with today - hasn’t the polling science moved on? Havn’t pollsters learned from bad results for them and made adjustments down the years?
The cops simply beat Tyre Nichols to death
https://twitter.com/its_the_dr/status/1619152526653128704?s=46&t=znlU1yqAO_cjP5b299SUVw