Very interesting piece, @Alanbrooke. Welcome back!
I suspect the Union won't end in a vote but will come to be seen as an increasing irrelevance. The Union in its current form has hardly been a huge success and as part of the EU Single Market and increasingly Irish and EU passport holders, people will be looking South more than East. Which would be a relatively benign result, if it happens.
“The Union in its current form has hardly been a huge success”
Since Irish independence this doddery old Union managed to defeat the Nazis (no thanks to the Irish) and helped to defeat communism. It has been democratic throughout, has yielded the world’s biggest empire with notable peacefulness (cf France, Spain, Portugal), it has delivered rising prosperity to its people and is now, through its culture, language, media, science, universities, one of the great soft powers of the world
What else should this rainy archipelago off north west Europe have done, for it to count as a success in your eyes? Conquer the moon? Invade the sun?
Now talk about the union from the perspective of the "and Northern Ireland" part. Decades of murder, torture and terrorism. Followed by a peace which was fragile enough to be seriously threatened by the next generation of bowler-hatted twats who are using Brexit as their big opportunity to impose a hard border with the south.
The Union in its current form - where NI is an unwanted appendage treated with disdain by Great Britain and as "Our Way or Death" by local nutters of various Christian sects - has hardly been a huge success. Well, maybe for undertakers.
hmmm
try looking at the numbers instead of the agitprop
which of these has killed more Irish Catholics since 1960 ?
1. The forces of the Crown 3. Republican Paramilitaries 4. A laundry in Tuam
The last two are what Conor Cruise O’Brien called “the wrong sort of dead.”
Strange isn't it? Not so long ago no one anywhere - certainly not in liberal, literary and educated circles - would have had a good word to say about Dr Bowdler.
Mr. Seal, you think the UK is 'marginally less benighted' than the Soviet Union, which had quotas for genocide and incarcerated to slave labour camps 20 million or so people?
Methinks thou art a sausage most silly.
You need to read up on things like the Bengal Famine or the South African concentration camps.
Look at how many times peace loving Gandhi was arrested for wanting to take back control from his unelected rulers.
Your hero Gandhi was a thoroughgoing racist
‘In 1903, when Gandhi was in South Africa, he wrote that white people there should be "the predominating race." He also said black people "are troublesome, very dirty and live like animals."’
Forced to share a cell with black people, Gandhi wrote: "Many of the native prisoners are only one degree removed from the animal and often created rows and fought among themselves."
Gandhi collected works, volume 1: “Ours is one continual struggle against a degradation sought to be inflicted upon us by the Europeans, who desire to degrade us to the level of the raw Kaffir whose occupation is hunting, and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with and, then, pass his life in indolence and nakedness.” ~ pp. 409-410
‘I observed with regret that some Indians were happy to sleep in the same room as the Kaffirs, the reason being that they hoped there for a secret supply of tobacco, etc. This is a matter of shame to us. We may entertain no aversion to Kaffirs, but we cannot ignore the fact that there is no common ground between them and us in the daily affairs of life.’
And many, many more
My eldest daughter is by-the-book-woke - Gandhi is cancelled, apparently.
The younger argues that he did good and bad.
I’m about as unwoke as it gets, and even I find Gandhi quite problematic. He was without question an avowed racist in his youth - but perhaps that can be forgiven, it was a different time, some say his views evolved, ok ok
But then you have the whole sleeping-with-his naked-teenage-nieces thing, when he was an old man.
This is what happens when you sanctify people. No one is a saint. It gets messy
Gandhi’s worst opinion was that the Jews should have gone willingly to the gas chambers.
Very interesting piece, @Alanbrooke. Welcome back!
I suspect the Union won't end in a vote but will come to be seen as an increasing irrelevance. The Union in its current form has hardly been a huge success and as part of the EU Single Market and increasingly Irish and EU passport holders, people will be looking South more than East. Which would be a relatively benign result, if it happens.
“The Union in its current form has hardly been a huge success”
Since Irish independence this doddery old Union managed to defeat the Nazis (no thanks to the Irish) and helped to defeat communism. It has been democratic throughout, has yielded the world’s biggest empire with notable peacefulness (cf France, Spain, Portugal), it has delivered rising prosperity to its people and is now, through its culture, language, media, science, universities, one of the great soft powers of the world
What else should this rainy archipelago off north west Europe have done, for it to count as a success in your eyes? Conquer the moon? Invade the sun?
A successful Union for Northern Ireland might include an economy that isn't a basketcase, a government that functions and where parliamentarians turn up for work and streets where people don't kill each other, as happened for much of the period and even now there is an everpresent threat of violence.
If having all those things is your definition of success we don't have a language in common, let alone a point of view.
The people of Northern Ireland voted for the above status. Repeatedly.
Why should some outsiders force economic success and politically amity on them, against their will?
A fair challenge. Purely anecdotally, the Northern Irish I know realise their setup is a basket case, but for various reasons, which differ amongst them, but in many cases relate to the threat of violence I alluded to, choose the status quo in preference to worse.
And edit, and in my view the most important thing. That status quo is changing.
As one poster said a couple of days ago, if you train leapords to eat faces, you end up with face-eating leapords.
That was me.
The various government have trained the political situation in Northern Ireland like a neural network.
If the response to something is political, it is generally ignored or talked away.
If the response to something is a threat of violence of the correctly third hand type, then action is taken. Brows are furrowed. Mitigations created.
At the start of this, the main Unionist party (UUP) was specifically and vehemently against the paramilitaries. We are now sliding to the point where Unionist voters will be stepping over the DUP to the parties that "listen" to the paramilitaries. Seems like a logical move - it worked for SF et al.
Mr. Seal, you think the UK is 'marginally less benighted' than the Soviet Union, which had quotas for genocide and incarcerated to slave labour camps 20 million or so people?
Methinks thou art a sausage most silly.
You need to read up on things like the Bengal Famine or the South African concentration camps.
Look at how many times peace loving Gandhi was arrested for wanting to take back control from his unelected rulers.
Your hero Gandhi was a thoroughgoing racist
‘In 1903, when Gandhi was in South Africa, he wrote that white people there should be "the predominating race." He also said black people "are troublesome, very dirty and live like animals."’
Forced to share a cell with black people, Gandhi wrote: "Many of the native prisoners are only one degree removed from the animal and often created rows and fought among themselves."
Gandhi collected works, volume 1: “Ours is one continual struggle against a degradation sought to be inflicted upon us by the Europeans, who desire to degrade us to the level of the raw Kaffir whose occupation is hunting, and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with and, then, pass his life in indolence and nakedness.” ~ pp. 409-410
‘I observed with regret that some Indians were happy to sleep in the same room as the Kaffirs, the reason being that they hoped there for a secret supply of tobacco, etc. This is a matter of shame to us. We may entertain no aversion to Kaffirs, but we cannot ignore the fact that there is no common ground between them and us in the daily affairs of life.’
And many, many more
My eldest daughter is by-the-book-woke - Gandhi is cancelled, apparently.
The younger argues that he did good and bad.
I’m about as unwoke as it gets, and even I find Gandhi quite problematic. He was without question an avowed racist in his youth - but perhaps that can be forgiven, it was a different time, some say his views evolved, ok ok
But then you have the whole sleeping-with-his naked-teenage-nieces thing, when he was an old man.
This is what happens when you sanctify people. No one is a saint. It gets messy
Gandhi’s worst opinion was that the Jews should have gone willingly to the gas chambers.
Very interesting piece, @Alanbrooke. Welcome back!
I suspect the Union won't end in a vote but will come to be seen as an increasing irrelevance. The Union in its current form has hardly been a huge success and as part of the EU Single Market and increasingly Irish and EU passport holders, people will be looking South more than East. Which would be a relatively benign result, if it happens.
“The Union in its current form has hardly been a huge success”
Since Irish independence this doddery old Union managed to defeat the Nazis (no thanks to the Irish) and helped to defeat communism. It has been democratic throughout, has yielded the world’s biggest empire with notable peacefulness (cf France, Spain, Portugal), it has delivered rising prosperity to its people and is now, through its culture, language, media, science, universities, one of the great soft powers of the world
What else should this rainy archipelago off north west Europe have done, for it to count as a success in your eyes? Conquer the moon? Invade the sun?
Now talk about the union from the perspective of the "and Northern Ireland" part. Decades of murder, torture and terrorism. Followed by a peace which was fragile enough to be seriously threatened by the next generation of bowler-hatted twats who are using Brexit as their big opportunity to impose a hard border with the south.
The Union in its current form - where NI is an unwanted appendage treated with disdain by Great Britain and as "Our Way or Death" by local nutters of various Christian sects - has hardly been a huge success. Well, maybe for undertakers.
hmmm
try looking at the numbers instead of the agitprop
which of these has killed more Irish Catholics since 1960 ?
1. The forces of the Crown 3. Republican Paramilitaries 4. A laundry in Tuam
The last two are what Conor Cruise O’Brien called “the wrong sort of dead.”
Only the first set of dead Catholics matters.
An Irish American turned up in the pub during the fun times in 90s. She was rather puzzled by the Lee Clegg thing - why were the IRA upset about joyriders being shot?
I explained it was demarcation and job preservation. There wasn't much employment in NI. If the British Army takes the lads jobs - that's hardly fair, is it?
Only a couple of days into the SNP leadership race but I think the campaigns already show us a bit about where the candidates think the party membership is; those seem to be quite different perspectives, so a brief thread, if you will indulge it:
At least we know she thinks being finance secretary isn’t high office.
In this case, that's a bit different.
Unless she plans to tax thingy, and gay thingy in particular, her theological views don't really impact on her work as Finance Minister. There isn't really a question to answer.
For the role of First Minister, especially when a big social question is part of why there's a vacancy, her social views do matter, and it's reasonable for her to be asked how she will balance personal conviction with public mandate. It's not an easy question to answer, but her answers so far haven't been that convincing.
Very interesting piece, @Alanbrooke. Welcome back!
I suspect the Union won't end in a vote but will come to be seen as an increasing irrelevance. The Union in its current form has hardly been a huge success and as part of the EU Single Market and increasingly Irish and EU passport holders, people will be looking South more than East. Which would be a relatively benign result, if it happens.
“The Union in its current form has hardly been a huge success”
Since Irish independence this doddery old Union managed to defeat the Nazis (no thanks to the Irish) and helped to defeat communism. It has been democratic throughout, has yielded the world’s biggest empire with notable peacefulness (cf France, Spain, Portugal), it has delivered rising prosperity to its people and is now, through its culture, language, media, science, universities, one of the great soft powers of the world
What else should this rainy archipelago off north west Europe have done, for it to count as a success in your eyes? Conquer the moon? Invade the sun?
The Soviets did far far more than us to defeat the Nazis,
No they didn’t. They may have lost more lives but were allies of the Nazis while Britain fought on “alone” (sic).
After their former allies attacked them Britain and the US armed them and it was British and American AirPower that ground German war production into the dust. The Luftwaffe barely bothered with the Eastern Front because the greatest threat to Germany was coming from the West.
After Germany lost the Battle of the Atlantic the war was over for them - only a matter of when, not if. I recommend Philips P. O’Brien’s “How the war was won”.
O'Brien's attempt was comprehensively deconstructed by Mark Harrison's paper in the JSS - I'm surprised it's still being referred to. 75-80 percent of the Wehrmacht was in the Eastern front during WW2 while 20-25 percent was serving in the Western front. Airpower alone could not have defeated the Nazis.
Thats an interesting claim. Certainly Harris believed it could - given enough bombers and airmen he wanted to destroy everything in Germany such that British and allied troops only needed to take possession. Arguably Bomber Command and the 8th Air Force were on their way to doing just that. Dresden occured mainly because they had run out of targets elsewhere.
At least we know she thinks being finance secretary isn’t high office.
In this case, that's a bit different.
Unless she plans to tax thingy, and gay thingy in particular, her theological views don't really impact on her work as Finance Minister. There isn't really a question to answer.
For the role of First Minister, especially when a big social question is part of why there's a vacancy, her social views do matter, and it's reasonable for her to be asked how she will balance personal conviction with public mandate. It's not an easy question to answer, but her answers so far haven't been that convincing.
It’s either deliberate career suicide, or phenomenal naivety
I wonder if her aims are to get it all out there quickly and get the selectorate comfortable with voting for her on that basis. I'm not convinced it's a winning strategy, though with views like hers it's probably all she has. That said, I would never vote for her.
At least we know she thinks being finance secretary isn’t high office.
In this case, that's a bit different.
Unless she plans to tax thingy, and gay thingy in particular, her theological views don't really impact on her work as Finance Minister. There isn't really a question to answer.
For the role of First Minister, especially when a big social question is part of why there's a vacancy, her social views do matter, and it's reasonable for her to be asked how she will balance personal conviction with public mandate. It's not an easy question to answer, but her answers so far haven't been that convincing.
True, but hyperbolic statements about being barred from high office ‘cos questions is part of the unconvincing stuff.
As I said the other day, she’s far too inexperienced politically. She ought to have bided her time. This early run for the top spot might end up being her only one. Poor judgment or poor advice?
I’d suggest being a faithful member of a congregation (regardless of which faith) hasn’t helped. To some extent it becomes your world and it may cause problems when having to imagine how the much wider world thinks...
It’s either deliberate career suicide, or phenomenal naivety
I wonder if her aims are to get it all out there quickly and get the selectorate comfortable with voting for her on that basis. I'm not convinced it's a winning strategy, though with views like hers it's probably all she has. That said, I would never vote for her.
I think that's right. Remember, we have till noon on Friday for candidates to appear. If it comes out in the wash OK, fine from her point of view. If it doesn't, she hasn't derailed the process completely and can hope for some further position.
Strange isn't it? Not so long ago no one anywhere - certainly not in liberal, literary and educated circles - would have had a good word to say about Dr Bowdler.
TBF not a lot of folk are having much good to say about his present-day corporate successor.
Mr. Battery, fair enough, that's a consistent position. Not sure I agree (although it's also strange that trains are 'privatised' yet also get a shovel load of taxpayers' cash).
Very interesting piece, @Alanbrooke. Welcome back!
I suspect the Union won't end in a vote but will come to be seen as an increasing irrelevance. The Union in its current form has hardly been a huge success and as part of the EU Single Market and increasingly Irish and EU passport holders, people will be looking South more than East. Which would be a relatively benign result, if it happens.
“The Union in its current form has hardly been a huge success”
Since Irish independence this doddery old Union managed to defeat the Nazis (no thanks to the Irish) and helped to defeat communism. It has been democratic throughout, has yielded the world’s biggest empire with notable peacefulness (cf France, Spain, Portugal), it has delivered rising prosperity to its people and is now, through its culture, language, media, science, universities, one of the great soft powers of the world
What else should this rainy archipelago off north west Europe have done, for it to count as a success in your eyes? Conquer the moon? Invade the sun?
"No thanks to the Irish" isn't quite right, as tens of thousands of Irish citizens volunteered to fight with the British in WW2 and the Irish government, despite its officially neutral position, provided help to the UK in a number of areas during the war.
Cheek of Putin, saying he didn't start the war. He invaded Ukraine! Did anyone ask him to do that? No.
The Kaiser suffered similar delusions.
As did the Confederacy.
Aggressors saying ‘it was all the victims’ fault’ is nothing new. Doesn’t just apply to war either.
Indeed. But this one is pretty clearcut as far as wars go imo. There's usually a bit more 'on the one hand but then again otoh' musing that one can respectably do.
Mr. Battery, fair enough, that's a consistent position. Not sure I agree (although it's also strange that trains are 'privatised' yet also get a shovel load of taxpayers' cash).
Angus Robertson must surely regret not standing now (unless there are some terrible secrets about him which he can’t risk shining a light on, as @malcolmg has hinted)
He’d be firm favorite now, surely? He’s better than the idiot Yousaf
Mr. Battery, fair enough, that's a consistent position. Not sure I agree (although it's also strange that trains are 'privatised' yet also get a shovel load of taxpayers' cash).
Very interesting piece, @Alanbrooke. Welcome back!
I suspect the Union won't end in a vote but will come to be seen as an increasing irrelevance. The Union in its current form has hardly been a huge success and as part of the EU Single Market and increasingly Irish and EU passport holders, people will be looking South more than East. Which would be a relatively benign result, if it happens.
“The Union in its current form has hardly been a huge success”
Since Irish independence this doddery old Union managed to defeat the Nazis (no thanks to the Irish) and helped to defeat communism. It has been democratic throughout, has yielded the world’s biggest empire with notable peacefulness (cf France, Spain, Portugal), it has delivered rising prosperity to its people and is now, through its culture, language, media, science, universities, one of the great soft powers of the world
What else should this rainy archipelago off north west Europe have done, for it to count as a success in your eyes? Conquer the moon? Invade the sun?
The Soviets did far far more than us to defeat the Nazis,
No they didn’t. They may have lost more lives but were allies of the Nazis while Britain fought on “alone” (sic).
After their former allies attacked them Britain and the US armed them and it was British and American AirPower that ground German war production into the dust. The Luftwaffe barely bothered with the Eastern Front because the greatest threat to Germany was coming from the West.
After Germany lost the Battle of the Atlantic the war was over for them - only a matter of when, not if. I recommend Philips P. O’Brien’s “How the war was won”.
O'Brien's attempt was comprehensively deconstructed by Mark Harrison's paper in the JSS - I'm surprised it's still being referred to. 75-80 percent of the Wehrmacht was in the Eastern front during WW2 while 20-25 percent was serving in the Western front. Airpower alone could not have defeated the Nazis.
Thats an interesting claim. Certainly Harris believed it could - given enough bombers and airmen he wanted to destroy everything in Germany such that British and allied troops only needed to take possession. Arguably Bomber Command and the 8th Air Force were on their way to doing just that. Dresden occured mainly because they had run out of targets elsewhere.
O’Brien‘a argument is that traditional “battle focussed” histories are missing the point - even in the most brutal the amount of equipment lost is fractions of what was being produced. Similarly the “bombers didn’t affect Nazi production much” ignores the enormous efforts the Nazis had to put in to repairing factories, dispersing production and loss of equipment on its way to the front. It’s an interesting theory and a shift from the traditional “set piece land battle” approach.
I also want to apologize for breaking our OTP (On Time Performance) yesterday. We had to delay some of our trains to give a way to #RailForceOne. It was painful for me and my team, but I had to do that. So only 90% of our trains arrived on time yesterday. I apologize
Ukraine manages better punctuality when they are literally in a war.
The UK's trains are terrible, time for nationalisation. Privatisation has failed.
Tell me you're too young to remember BR without saying you're too young to remember BR...
It was improving very fast till it got derailed by privatisation. Many of its problems were caused by the DfT. Which continued to cause problems during privatisation, only the problems were much worse because of fragmentation. Literally so in some cases. Like the track.
On topic, Alanbrook is of course a highly partial poster so I wouldn't take his interpretation too seriously. If it ever does come to a vote people in the Republic will be in favour. The cost is a concern but the EU will help there. Rejoining the Commonwealth won't be a problem. The flag, of course, already symbolises the two traditions on the island (and peace between them).
No, we aren’t. We are saying that if you publicly express an unpopular political opinion, the public won’t ignore that just because it’s a matter of faith.
Mr. Battery, fair enough, that's a consistent position. Not sure I agree (although it's also strange that trains are 'privatised' yet also get a shovel load of taxpayers' cash).
Have you been on a bus recently?
And compare your average bus with Lothian Buses. Efficient and profitmaking (covid era aside) for the LA. Badly needed to help pay for the trams.
There is no reason London buses cannot be run by TfL directly, only stupid Government rules. They have at least made the best of a bad situation and TfL's technology is very good.
At least we know she thinks being finance secretary isn’t high office.
In this case, that's a bit different.
Unless she plans to tax thingy, and gay thingy in particular, her theological views don't really impact on her work as Finance Minister. There isn't really a question to answer.
For the role of First Minister, especially when a big social question is part of why there's a vacancy, her social views do matter, and it's reasonable for her to be asked how she will balance personal conviction with public mandate. It's not an easy question to answer, but her answers so far haven't been that convincing.
True, but hyperbolic statements about being barred from high office ‘cos questions is part of the unconvincing stuff.
Yes, it's not about being banned for her beliefs, it's about whether it'll be a handicap to getting elected.
Very interesting piece, @Alanbrooke. Welcome back!
I suspect the Union won't end in a vote but will come to be seen as an increasing irrelevance. The Union in its current form has hardly been a huge success and as part of the EU Single Market and increasingly Irish and EU passport holders, people will be looking South more than East. Which would be a relatively benign result, if it happens.
“The Union in its current form has hardly been a huge success”
Since Irish independence this doddery old Union managed to defeat the Nazis (no thanks to the Irish) and helped to defeat communism. It has been democratic throughout, has yielded the world’s biggest empire with notable peacefulness (cf France, Spain, Portugal), it has delivered rising prosperity to its people and is now, through its culture, language, media, science, universities, one of the great soft powers of the world
What else should this rainy archipelago off north west Europe have done, for it to count as a success in your eyes? Conquer the moon? Invade the sun?
The Soviets did far far more than us to defeat the Nazis,
No they didn’t. They may have lost more lives but were allies of the Nazis while Britain fought on “alone” (sic).
After their former allies attacked them Britain and the US armed them and it was British and American AirPower that ground German war production into the dust. The Luftwaffe barely bothered with the Eastern Front because the greatest threat to Germany was coming from the West.
After Germany lost the Battle of the Atlantic the war was over for them - only a matter of when, not if. I recommend Philips P. O’Brien’s “How the war was won”.
O'Brien's attempt was comprehensively deconstructed by Mark Harrison's paper in the JSS - I'm surprised it's still being referred to. 75-80 percent of the Wehrmacht was in the Eastern front during WW2 while 20-25 percent was serving in the Western front. Airpower alone could not have defeated the Nazis.
Thats an interesting claim. Certainly Harris believed it could - given enough bombers and airmen he wanted to destroy everything in Germany such that British and allied troops only needed to take possession. Arguably Bomber Command and the 8th Air Force were on their way to doing just that. Dresden occured mainly because they had run out of targets elsewhere.
O’Brien‘a argument is that traditional “battle focussed” histories are missing the point - even in the most brutal the amount of equipment lost is fractions of what was being produced. Similarly the “bombers didn’t affect Nazi production much” ignores the enormous efforts the Nazis had to put in to repairing factories, dispersing production and loss of equipment on its way to the front. It’s an interesting theory and a shift from the traditional “set piece land battle” approach.
The other area which needs more research is that the bombing campaign wasn't just sprinkle Germany with bombs. Time and again in the histories of various German projects, a bombing raid destroyed a key factory.
By the end of the war, precision raids with OBOE had reached an accuracy level greater than the spread of the bombs.
Are they really going to make Humza ‘WHITE’ Yousaf the leader?! Really??
He is the Liz Truss option...
Keir Starmer is the most lucky leader in decades.
Two years too early to make that claim Horse. 1992 looms large in my memory.
Definitely too early, Murdoch hasn't even started on him yet
Fair point. I still think Keir is lucky though
No. You’re quite right
Starmer is consistently lucky. He was lucky the way all his Labour rivals dropped out or screwed up (in different ways). He was lucky the way the Tories exploded. It now looks likely the SNP will do him a similar favour
Starmer IS lucky, and, as Napoleon noted, that’s an important virtue
There is no reason London buses cannot be run by TfL directly, only stupid Government rules. They have at least made the best of a bad situation and TfL's technology is very good.
Too many people in politics obsess about ownership structures.
There is good management and bad management in the world, and you find both in the public and private sectors. There are also advantages from size (economies of scale, buying power) and disadvantages (bureaucracy, slowness).
The two main reasons to keep something in the public sector are control, and where public good is incompatible with the profit motive. You can replicate control to some extent through regulation of private providers though we all see the issues. You can fix the profit motive incompatibility issue by subsidising private companies - eg to run unprofitable bus routes - but that can create inefficiencies.
The main reasons to have something private are competition and innovation. Efforts to replicate these in the public sector have a chequered history. But privatisation doesn’t always lead to either real competition or innovation. That’s why I don’t think ownership per se is the most important factor.
Are they really going to make Humza ‘WHITE’ Yousaf the leader?! Really??
He is the Liz Truss option...
Keir Starmer is the most lucky leader in decades.
Two years too early to make that claim Horse. 1992 looms large in my memory.
Definitely too early, Murdoch hasn't even started on him yet
Fair point. I still think Keir is lucky though
No. You’re quite right
Starmer is consistently lucky. He was lucky the way all his Labour rivals dropped out or screwed up (in different ways). He was lucky the way the Tories exploded. It now looks likely the SNP will do him a similar favour
Starmer IS lucky, and, as Napoleon noted, that’s an important virtue
There is no reason London buses cannot be run by TfL directly, only stupid Government rules. They have at least made the best of a bad situation and TfL's technology is very good.
Too many people in politics obsess about ownership structures.
There is good management and bad management in the world, and you find both in the public and private sectors. There are also advantages from size (economies of scale, buying power) and disadvantages (bureaucracy, slowness).
The two main reasons to keep something in the public sector are control, and where public good is incompatible with the profit motive. You can replicate control to some extent through regulation of private providers though we all see the issues. You can fix the profit motive incompatibility issue by subsidising private companies - eg to run unprofitable bus routes - but that can create inefficiencies.
The main reasons to have something private are competition and innovation. Efforts to replicate these in the public sector have a chequered history. But privatisation doesn’t always lead to either real competition or innovation. That’s why I don’t think ownership per se is the most important factor.
Actually I am not advocating changing the way London buses are run, just that them being publicly owned wouldn't make them fall apart. The reason they are run well and efficiently is because TfL have invested in technology like live tracking, apps etc.
Mr. Seal, you think the UK is 'marginally less benighted' than the Soviet Union, which had quotas for genocide and incarcerated to slave labour camps 20 million or so people?
Methinks thou art a sausage most silly.
You need to read up on things like the Bengal Famine or the South African concentration camps.
Look at how many times peace loving Gandhi was arrested for wanting to take back control from his unelected rulers.
Your hero Gandhi was a thoroughgoing racist
‘In 1903, when Gandhi was in South Africa, he wrote that white people there should be "the predominating race." He also said black people "are troublesome, very dirty and live like animals."’
Forced to share a cell with black people, Gandhi wrote: "Many of the native prisoners are only one degree removed from the animal and often created rows and fought among themselves."
Gandhi collected works, volume 1: “Ours is one continual struggle against a degradation sought to be inflicted upon us by the Europeans, who desire to degrade us to the level of the raw Kaffir whose occupation is hunting, and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with and, then, pass his life in indolence and nakedness.” ~ pp. 409-410
‘I observed with regret that some Indians were happy to sleep in the same room as the Kaffirs, the reason being that they hoped there for a secret supply of tobacco, etc. This is a matter of shame to us. We may entertain no aversion to Kaffirs, but we cannot ignore the fact that there is no common ground between them and us in the daily affairs of life.’
And many, many more
My eldest daughter is by-the-book-woke - Gandhi is cancelled, apparently.
The younger argues that he did good and bad.
I’m about as unwoke as it gets, and even I find Gandhi quite problematic. He was without question an avowed racist in his youth - but perhaps that can be forgiven, it was a different time, some say his views evolved, ok ok
But then you have the whole sleeping-with-his naked-teenage-nieces thing, when he was an old man.
This is what happens when you sanctify people. No one is a saint. It gets messy
Gandhi’s worst opinion was that the Jews should have gone willingly to the gas chambers.
Did he actually say that?!
Ugh
It's very easy to argue that other people should sacrifice themselves in the cause of peace. Pro-Putin leftists in Germany like to quote Gandhi extensively.
There is no reason London buses cannot be run by TfL directly, only stupid Government rules. They have at least made the best of a bad situation and TfL's technology is very good.
Too many people in politics obsess about ownership structures.
There is good management and bad management in the world, and you find both in the public and private sectors. There are also advantages from size (economies of scale, buying power) and disadvantages (bureaucracy, slowness).
The two main reasons to keep something in the public sector are control, and where public good is incompatible with the profit motive. You can replicate control to some extent through regulation of private providers though we all see the issues. You can fix the profit motive incompatibility issue by subsidising private companies - eg to run unprofitable bus routes - but that can create inefficiencies.
The main reasons to have something private are competition and innovation. Efforts to replicate these in the public sector have a chequered history. But privatisation doesn’t always lead to either real competition or innovation. That’s why I don’t think ownership per se is the most important factor.
Actually I am not advocating changing the way London buses are run, just that them being publicly owned wouldn't make them fall apart. The reason they are run well and efficiently is because TfL have invested in technology like live tracking, apps etc.
No reason this could not be replicated elsewhere.
Integrated public transport across different modes is also helpful. Switzerland being the poster child for this.
Are they really going to make Humza ‘WHITE’ Yousaf the leader?! Really??
He is the Liz Truss option...
Keir Starmer is the most lucky leader in decades.
Two years too early to make that claim Horse. 1992 looms large in my memory.
Definitely too early, Murdoch hasn't even started on him yet
Fair point. I still think Keir is lucky though
No. You’re quite right
Starmer is consistently lucky. He was lucky the way all his Labour rivals dropped out or screwed up (in different ways). He was lucky the way the Tories exploded. It now looks likely the SNP will do him a similar favour
Starmer IS lucky, and, as Napoleon noted, that’s an important virtue
Lucky too that Corbyn was a stubborn old fool who refused a simple apology and basically suspended himself from the Party.
There is no reason London buses cannot be run by TfL directly, only stupid Government rules. They have at least made the best of a bad situation and TfL's technology is very good.
Too many people in politics obsess about ownership structures.
There is good management and bad management in the world, and you find both in the public and private sectors. There are also advantages from size (economies of scale, buying power) and disadvantages (bureaucracy, slowness).
The two main reasons to keep something in the public sector are control, and where public good is incompatible with the profit motive. You can replicate control to some extent through regulation of private providers though we all see the issues. You can fix the profit motive incompatibility issue by subsidising private companies - eg to run unprofitable bus routes - but that can create inefficiencies.
The main reasons to have something private are competition and innovation. Efforts to replicate these in the public sector have a chequered history. But privatisation doesn’t always lead to either real competition or innovation. That’s why I don’t think ownership per se is the most important factor.
Actually I am not advocating changing the way London buses are run, just that them being publicly owned wouldn't make them fall apart. The reason they are run well and efficiently is because TfL have invested in technology like live tracking, apps etc.
No reason this could not be replicated elsewhere.
Integrated public transport across different modes is also helpful. Switzerland being the poster child for this.
There is no reason London buses cannot be run by TfL directly, only stupid Government rules. They have at least made the best of a bad situation and TfL's technology is very good.
Too many people in politics obsess about ownership structures.
There is good management and bad management in the world, and you find both in the public and private sectors. There are also advantages from size (economies of scale, buying power) and disadvantages (bureaucracy, slowness).
The two main reasons to keep something in the public sector are control, and where public good is incompatible with the profit motive. You can replicate control to some extent through regulation of private providers though we all see the issues. You can fix the profit motive incompatibility issue by subsidising private companies - eg to run unprofitable bus routes - but that can create inefficiencies.
The main reasons to have something private are competition and innovation. Efforts to replicate these in the public sector have a chequered history. But privatisation doesn’t always lead to either real competition or innovation. That’s why I don’t think ownership per se is the most important factor.
Other factors are customer focus and investment.
There is a tendency in government organisations to see customers as the least in the priority queue.
One of the reasons that a number of the nationalised industries died was that all attempts at reform were stopped because they were politically and financially costly. A big fight with the unions, while spending billions vs a smaller bung to keep them going till the next election.
Bad as the private sector can be with investment, it actually occurs far more than in the public sector. A chap I met who supplied bits for water suppliers, said that immediately after privatisation, his phone didn't stop ringing. The regulator had said the water companies needed to get the water quality of tap water up, the Treasury was no longer vetoing it....
EDIT: it comes down to incentives. What you want is that the cheapest, easiest thing is to the thing you want to happen.
There is no reason London buses cannot be run by TfL directly, only stupid Government rules. They have at least made the best of a bad situation and TfL's technology is very good.
Too many people in politics obsess about ownership structures.
There is good management and bad management in the world, and you find both in the public and private sectors. There are also advantages from size (economies of scale, buying power) and disadvantages (bureaucracy, slowness).
The two main reasons to keep something in the public sector are control, and where public good is incompatible with the profit motive. You can replicate control to some extent through regulation of private providers though we all see the issues. You can fix the profit motive incompatibility issue by subsidising private companies - eg to run unprofitable bus routes - but that can create inefficiencies.
The main reasons to have something private are competition and innovation. Efforts to replicate these in the public sector have a chequered history. But privatisation doesn’t always lead to either real competition or innovation. That’s why I don’t think ownership per se is the most important factor.
I know you alluded to it but competition and innovation do seem to drift into rent seeking and financialisaton.
There is no reason London buses cannot be run by TfL directly, only stupid Government rules. They have at least made the best of a bad situation and TfL's technology is very good.
Too many people in politics obsess about ownership structures.
There is good management and bad management in the world, and you find both in the public and private sectors. There are also advantages from size (economies of scale, buying power) and disadvantages (bureaucracy, slowness).
The two main reasons to keep something in the public sector are control, and where public good is incompatible with the profit motive. You can replicate control to some extent through regulation of private providers though we all see the issues. You can fix the profit motive incompatibility issue by subsidising private companies - eg to run unprofitable bus routes - but that can create inefficiencies.
The main reasons to have something private are competition and innovation. Efforts to replicate these in the public sector have a chequered history. But privatisation doesn’t always lead to either real competition or innovation. That’s why I don’t think ownership per se is the most important factor.
Actually I am not advocating changing the way London buses are run, just that them being publicly owned wouldn't make them fall apart. The reason they are run well and efficiently is because TfL have invested in technology like live tracking, apps etc.
No reason this could not be replicated elsewhere.
Eh? We have live tracking and apps up here. So we know accurately quite how many of our ultra expensive buses are cancelled and ridiculously late.
Thanks Alan Brooke. No seem many comments by you recently.
Having unionists in government? This is tricky to be fair. Of course from an Irish point of view they are not unionists! Isn't it similar to having the SNP in a UK government? You could say that they are looking back to the historic Union of Britain and Ireland but that ship sailed a long time ago.
There is no reason London buses cannot be run by TfL directly, only stupid Government rules. They have at least made the best of a bad situation and TfL's technology is very good.
Too many people in politics obsess about ownership structures.
There is good management and bad management in the world, and you find both in the public and private sectors. There are also advantages from size (economies of scale, buying power) and disadvantages (bureaucracy, slowness).
The two main reasons to keep something in the public sector are control, and where public good is incompatible with the profit motive. You can replicate control to some extent through regulation of private providers though we all see the issues. You can fix the profit motive incompatibility issue by subsidising private companies - eg to run unprofitable bus routes - but that can create inefficiencies.
The main reasons to have something private are competition and innovation. Efforts to replicate these in the public sector have a chequered history. But privatisation doesn’t always lead to either real competition or innovation. That’s why I don’t think ownership per se is the most important factor.
I know you alluded to it but competition and innovation do seem to drift into rent seeking and financialisaton.
Which is why markets need regulating. Monopolies and all that.
The US space launch industry is a fascinating example of the varying models and why they cause problems.
If no further candidates are nominated before the deadline (this Friday), then I’m inclined to vote:
1. Regan 2. Forbes 3. Yousaf
The ladies might switch places, but Yousaf likely to remain third.
It is a long time ago, but the last time we voted for a leader, in 2003, I’m pretty certain I voted for Roseanna Cunningham.
Stuart, That is way it should be for sure, if I was stupid enough to be a member that is way I would vote though for Useless I would just draw a big knob.
There is no reason London buses cannot be run by TfL directly, only stupid Government rules. They have at least made the best of a bad situation and TfL's technology is very good.
Too many people in politics obsess about ownership structures.
There is good management and bad management in the world, and you find both in the public and private sectors. There are also advantages from size (economies of scale, buying power) and disadvantages (bureaucracy, slowness).
The two main reasons to keep something in the public sector are control, and where public good is incompatible with the profit motive. You can replicate control to some extent through regulation of private providers though we all see the issues. You can fix the profit motive incompatibility issue by subsidising private companies - eg to run unprofitable bus routes - but that can create inefficiencies.
The main reasons to have something private are competition and innovation. Efforts to replicate these in the public sector have a chequered history. But privatisation doesn’t always lead to either real competition or innovation. That’s why I don’t think ownership per se is the most important factor.
Actually I am not advocating changing the way London buses are run, just that them being publicly owned wouldn't make them fall apart. The reason they are run well and efficiently is because TfL have invested in technology like live tracking, apps etc.
No reason this could not be replicated elsewhere.
Integrated public transport across different modes is also helpful. Switzerland being the poster child for this.
The Socialist Republic of Switzerland?
Switzerland is a curiously successful model, and in some ways it is quite socialist (not least by having a wealth tax) - a relentless focus on making local communities work in close integration (transport is just one example), and a culture that promotes mutual support at the expense of carefree individualism. Coupled with referenda every 3 months on anything remotely controversial, there is a constant check on the state reflecting what people actually want. I can absolutely see why someone like Leon would find it stifling, since the push for consensus and even conformism is strong, but if you're OK with that then it's a remarkably happy place to live.
As I said the other day, she’s far too inexperienced politically. She ought to have bided her time. This early run for the top spot might end up being her only one. Poor judgment or poor advice?
Makes you think she really did not want to win it. Would have been better to either not throw her hat in the ring or not voice an opinion on something that was settled long ago and never going to rear it's head.
There is no reason London buses cannot be run by TfL directly, only stupid Government rules. They have at least made the best of a bad situation and TfL's technology is very good.
Too many people in politics obsess about ownership structures.
There is good management and bad management in the world, and you find both in the public and private sectors. There are also advantages from size (economies of scale, buying power) and disadvantages (bureaucracy, slowness).
The two main reasons to keep something in the public sector are control, and where public good is incompatible with the profit motive. You can replicate control to some extent through regulation of private providers though we all see the issues. You can fix the profit motive incompatibility issue by subsidising private companies - eg to run unprofitable bus routes - but that can create inefficiencies.
The main reasons to have something private are competition and innovation. Efforts to replicate these in the public sector have a chequered history. But privatisation doesn’t always lead to either real competition or innovation. That’s why I don’t think ownership per se is the most important factor.
Actually I am not advocating changing the way London buses are run, just that them being publicly owned wouldn't make them fall apart. The reason they are run well and efficiently is because TfL have invested in technology like live tracking, apps etc.
No reason this could not be replicated elsewhere.
I also want to apologize for breaking our OTP (On Time Performance) yesterday. We had to delay some of our trains to give a way to #RailForceOne. It was painful for me and my team, but I had to do that. So only 90% of our trains arrived on time yesterday. I apologize. https://twitter.com/AKamyshin/status/1627957257408286720
There is no reason London buses cannot be run by TfL directly, only stupid Government rules. They have at least made the best of a bad situation and TfL's technology is very good.
Too many people in politics obsess about ownership structures.
There is good management and bad management in the world, and you find both in the public and private sectors. There are also advantages from size (economies of scale, buying power) and disadvantages (bureaucracy, slowness).
The two main reasons to keep something in the public sector are control, and where public good is incompatible with the profit motive. You can replicate control to some extent through regulation of private providers though we all see the issues. You can fix the profit motive incompatibility issue by subsidising private companies - eg to run unprofitable bus routes - but that can create inefficiencies.
The main reasons to have something private are competition and innovation. Efforts to replicate these in the public sector have a chequered history. But privatisation doesn’t always lead to either real competition or innovation. That’s why I don’t think ownership per se is the most important factor.
Actually I am not advocating changing the way London buses are run, just that them being publicly owned wouldn't make them fall apart. The reason they are run well and efficiently is because TfL have invested in technology like live tracking, apps etc.
No reason this could not be replicated elsewhere.
Integrated public transport across different modes is also helpful. Switzerland being the poster child for this.
The Socialist Republic of Switzerland?
Switzerland is a curiously successful model, and in some ways it is quite socialist (not least by having a wealth tax) - a relentless focus on making local communities work in close integration (transport is just one example), and a culture that promotes mutual support at the expense of carefree individualism. Coupled with referenda every 3 months on anything remotely controversial, there is a constant check on the state reflecting what people actually want. I can absolutely see why someone like Leon would find it stifling, since the push for consensus and even conformism is strong, but if you're OK with that then it's a remarkably happy place to live.
Switzerland - the place where the Italians, French and Germans live together. With a huge pile of guns. In quiet harmony.
If no further candidates are nominated before the deadline (this Friday), then I’m inclined to vote:
1. Regan 2. Forbes 3. Yousaf
The ladies might switch places, but Yousaf likely to remain third.
It is a long time ago, but the last time we voted for a leader, in 2003, I’m pretty certain I voted for Roseanna Cunningham.
Stuart, That is way it should be for sure, if I was stupid enough to be a member that is way I would vote though for Useless I would just draw a big knob.
So do you feel that Yousaf's position in the betting as strong favourite is incorrect?
There is no reason London buses cannot be run by TfL directly, only stupid Government rules. They have at least made the best of a bad situation and TfL's technology is very good.
Too many people in politics obsess about ownership structures.
There is good management and bad management in the world, and you find both in the public and private sectors. There are also advantages from size (economies of scale, buying power) and disadvantages (bureaucracy, slowness).
The two main reasons to keep something in the public sector are control, and where public good is incompatible with the profit motive. You can replicate control to some extent through regulation of private providers though we all see the issues. You can fix the profit motive incompatibility issue by subsidising private companies - eg to run unprofitable bus routes - but that can create inefficiencies.
The main reasons to have something private are competition and innovation. Efforts to replicate these in the public sector have a chequered history. But privatisation doesn’t always lead to either real competition or innovation. That’s why I don’t think ownership per se is the most important factor.
I know you alluded to it but competition and innovation do seem to drift into rent seeking and financialisaton.
One major differential between public and private is the ability to borrow.
In the public sector borrowing is rationed by HM Treasury. For example Further Education Colleges were brought into the public sector by the office of national statistics last year. They now cannot borrow commercial as all borrowing is now determined centrally by HMT which has other demands on government borrowing.
There is no reason London buses cannot be run by TfL directly, only stupid Government rules. They have at least made the best of a bad situation and TfL's technology is very good.
Too many people in politics obsess about ownership structures.
There is good management and bad management in the world, and you find both in the public and private sectors. There are also advantages from size (economies of scale, buying power) and disadvantages (bureaucracy, slowness).
The two main reasons to keep something in the public sector are control, and where public good is incompatible with the profit motive. You can replicate control to some extent through regulation of private providers though we all see the issues. You can fix the profit motive incompatibility issue by subsidising private companies - eg to run unprofitable bus routes - but that can create inefficiencies.
The main reasons to have something private are competition and innovation. Efforts to replicate these in the public sector have a chequered history. But privatisation doesn’t always lead to either real competition or innovation. That’s why I don’t think ownership per se is the most important factor.
Actually I am not advocating changing the way London buses are run, just that them being publicly owned wouldn't make them fall apart. The reason they are run well and efficiently is because TfL have invested in technology like live tracking, apps etc.
No reason this could not be replicated elsewhere.
Integrated public transport across different modes is also helpful. Switzerland being the poster child for this.
The Socialist Republic of Switzerland?
Switzerland is a curiously successful model, and in some ways it is quite socialist (not least by having a wealth tax) - a relentless focus on making local communities work in close integration (transport is just one example), and a culture that promotes mutual support at the expense of carefree individualism. Coupled with referenda every 3 months on anything remotely controversial, there is a constant check on the state reflecting what people actually want. I can absolutely see why someone like Leon would find it stifling, since the push for consensus and even conformism is strong, but if you're OK with that then it's a remarkably happy place to live.
Had a Swiss gf once. She didn't like stuffy Swiss men, she liked quirky Brits.
This does seem like a strange way for her to frame this. She could have said, simply enough, that for people of her faith and of many others, marriage is restricted in certain ways. Plenty of religions restrict the actions of their followers, such as not working on the Sabbath, not consuming certain kinds of foods either on certain days or at all, and in some cases not participating in wars or other socially mandated or encouraged activities. Her faith says that she can't marry a woman, and so she won't do so.
When asked how she would vote, it is tricky: her constituents know her views, and they elected her, presumably to vote according to the views she expressed. So she ought to vote against gay marriage if that's what her constituents expected of her. But, as First Minister, she would have broader responsibilities. She would be a representative of the Scottish state, and the state is not meant to impose religious dogma on its citizens, even for what a religious person could imagine is their own good. She could simply have said "my faith governs my private life, as First Minister I would upload the civic norms of Scotland". She could even have made a robust defence of the rights of religious groups to diverge from those norms. But instead she turned it into a question of her personal conduct as (she hopes) First Minister. It seems like an avoidable error to me.
Are they really going to make Humza ‘WHITE’ Yousaf the leader?! Really??
He is the Liz Truss option...
Keir Starmer is the most lucky leader in decades.
Two years too early to make that claim Horse. 1992 looms large in my memory.
Definitely too early, Murdoch hasn't even started on him yet
Fair point. I still think Keir is lucky though
No. You’re quite right
Starmer is consistently lucky. He was lucky the way all his Labour rivals dropped out or screwed up (in different ways). He was lucky the way the Tories exploded. It now looks likely the SNP will do him a similar favour
Starmer IS lucky, and, as Napoleon noted, that’s an important virtue
Lucky too that Corbyn was a stubborn old fool who refused a simple apology and basically suspended himself from the Party.
Corbyn is basically a Tankie. No Tankie has ever passed up the opportunity to shoot themselves in the foot. To be fair, some put it off (for a minute or two) until they can get a belt fed weapon off the shelf to do a proper job.
As I said the other day, she’s far too inexperienced politically. She ought to have bided her time. This early run for the top spot might end up being her only one. Poor judgment or poor advice?
Makes you think she really did not want to win it. Would have been better to either not throw her hat in the ring or not voice an opinion on something that was settled long ago and never going to rear it's head.
It was going to come up the moment she became leader, if it wasn’t raised now.
There is no reason London buses cannot be run by TfL directly, only stupid Government rules. They have at least made the best of a bad situation and TfL's technology is very good.
Too many people in politics obsess about ownership structures.
There is good management and bad management in the world, and you find both in the public and private sectors. There are also advantages from size (economies of scale, buying power) and disadvantages (bureaucracy, slowness).
The two main reasons to keep something in the public sector are control, and where public good is incompatible with the profit motive. You can replicate control to some extent through regulation of private providers though we all see the issues. You can fix the profit motive incompatibility issue by subsidising private companies - eg to run unprofitable bus routes - but that can create inefficiencies.
The main reasons to have something private are competition and innovation. Efforts to replicate these in the public sector have a chequered history. But privatisation doesn’t always lead to either real competition or innovation. That’s why I don’t think ownership per se is the most important factor.
Actually I am not advocating changing the way London buses are run, just that them being publicly owned wouldn't make them fall apart. The reason they are run well and efficiently is because TfL have invested in technology like live tracking, apps etc.
No reason this could not be replicated elsewhere.
Eh? We have live tracking and apps up here. So we know accurately quite how many of our ultra expensive buses are cancelled and ridiculously late.
There's a big chicken and egg situation with buses - people don't use them because they're expensive and infrequent, and they are expensive and infrequent because people don't use them. There is a strong case for subsidising them as they reduce the congestion externality created by car traffic, and they reduce poverty traps so save money on the welfare budget - better to subsidise someone's trip to work than subsidising them to sit at home. The way that places like Stoke are cutting their bus services is tragic. The government should be providing subsidies to expand significantly local bus networks at affordable prices. They might find that over time the subdidy can be cut as usage increases in response to the better service.
We (My employer) has had to register for VAT in the Netherlands in order to have VAT free shipments between our for instance French & German suppliers & Polish/ Hungarian customers. Prior to Brexit this could be done with a GB VAT registration.
I *think* if we were based in Belfast we wouldn't need to bother with Dutch accountants.
Noone seems to have noticed or mentioned this intra-EU triangulation export benefit for Northern Ireland though ?
This does seem like a strange way for her to frame this. She could have said, simply enough, that for people of her faith and of many others, marriage is restricted in certain ways. Plenty of religions restrict the actions of their followers, such as not working on the Sabbath, not consuming certain kinds of foods either on certain days or at all, and in some cases not participating in wars or other socially mandated or encouraged activities. Her faith says that she can't marry a woman, and so she won't do so.
When asked how she would vote, it is tricky: her constituents know her views, and they elected her, presumably to vote according to the views she expressed. So she ought to vote against gay marriage if that's what her constituents expected of her. But, as First Minister, she would have broader responsibilities. She would be a representative of the Scottish state, and the state is not meant to impose religious dogma on its citizens, even for what a religious person could imagine is their own good. She could simply have said "my faith governs my private life, as First Minister I would upload the civic norms of Scotland". She could even have made a robust defence of the rights of religious groups to diverge from those norms. But instead she turned it into a question of her personal conduct as (she hopes) First Minister. It seems like an avoidable error to me.
Agreed. And for someone wishing to be open about her faith, her question could be seen as a dishonest framing, as I noted upthread. No one is actually saying people of faith are barred from high office - just that their publicly expressed opinions, if they’re unpopular, aren’t neutralised just because they are faith based.
If she’d employed you as a spin doctor and accepted your above suggestion, she might well still be favourite.
We must be full throated in our support of equal marriage. No if or buts. I won’t be supporting Kate’s campaign on that basis. I wish her well- she’s extremely talented. But I have red lines. And this is one.
This I find difficult to understand. There was a free vote on the subject, which passed and is now enacted. The candidate isn’t saying she will try and repeal this law, she’s merely saying that she would have voted with her conscience.
Private belief isn’t private anymore.
You must be loyal to the faith, to the bone.
Surprised at the attempts here by people twisting themselves into mental pretzels to try and defend homophobia.
She literally said she would vote against equal rights for people based on their sexual orientation. How is that a matter of "private belief" that should be beyond criticism?
Because as long as she accepted the result, whatever her views, that's democracy.
Just as I was uncomfortable with Rocco Butiglione being vetoed from an EU commission post because of his Catholicism.
They would have been much stronger ground to have vetoed him on the grounds he was an out and out crook.
She’s a heretic - she has denounced Articles Of The Faith in public.
You are being silly. She has said she would vote against equal rights, others have said they will vote against her as SNP leader. Is it unacceptable to attack homophobia now?
No. Just that I find the transference of religion methodology interesting.
Not sure what you mean. This is the tweet we are discussing quoted above:
"We must be full throated in our support of equal marriage. No if or buts. I won’t be supporting Kate’s campaign on that basis. I wish her well- she’s extremely talented. But I have red lines. And this is one."
Seems a perfectly reasonable statement that doesn't mention religion, and I don't see any "religion methodology" in it either. What do you find wrong with it?
Forbes is a member of the Free Church of Scotland which is firmly anti homosexual marriage so her religious denomination is relevant given her personal opposition to homosexual marriage
Not really. It's a red herring. Most of the religious people I know do not follow all the dogma of their religions. Plenty of muslims who enjoy a drink, and the ones who are teetotal aren't bothered by other people not being teetotal. Plenty of catholics who are appalled by the sexism and homophobia of the Catholic Church, for example. She is no different to someone who belongs to no religion saying they would vote against same sex marriage. Why should it make any difference what religion she belongs to?
Angus Robertson must surely regret not standing now (unless there are some terrible secrets about him which he can’t risk shining a light on, as @malcolmg has hinted)
He’d be firm favorite now, surely? He’s better than the idiot Yousaf
And who the hell is ‘Ash Regan’?
She was the community minister after Useless and had to clear up the mess he left. She resigned due to not being allowed to vote as she wanted on the GRR bill.
We (My employer) has had to register for VAT in the Netherlands in order to have VAT free shipments between our for instance French & German suppliers & Polish/ Hungarian customers. Prior to Brexit this could be done with a GB VAT registration.
I *think* if we were based in Belfast we wouldn't need to bother with Dutch accountants.
Noone seems to have noticed or mentioned this intra-EU triangulation export benefit for Northern Ireland though ?
I've never really understood the issue with B2B customers - can't they just reclaim the VAT their end?
Are they really going to make Humza ‘WHITE’ Yousaf the leader?! Really??
He is the Liz Truss option...
Keir Starmer is the most lucky leader in decades.
Two years too early to make that claim Horse. 1992 looms large in my memory.
Definitely too early, Murdoch hasn't even started on him yet
Fair point. I still think Keir is lucky though
No. You’re quite right
Starmer is consistently lucky. He was lucky the way all his Labour rivals dropped out or screwed up (in different ways). He was lucky the way the Tories exploded. It now looks likely the SNP will do him a similar favour
Starmer IS lucky, and, as Napoleon noted, that’s an important virtue
Lucky too that Corbyn was a stubborn old fool who refused a simple apology and basically suspended himself from the Party.
Corbyn is basically a Tankie. No Tankie has ever passed up the opportunity to shoot themselves in the foot. To be fair, some put it off (for a minute or two) until they can get a belt fed weapon off the shelf to do a proper job.
No way was Corbyn a tankie. He was a wannabe trot - he couldn't even manage that. Trots are the mortal enemies of tankies. To be a real tankie you have to be on the CPSU side of the Communist Party of Great Britain / Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist) split.
There is no reason London buses cannot be run by TfL directly, only stupid Government rules. They have at least made the best of a bad situation and TfL's technology is very good.
Too many people in politics obsess about ownership structures.
There is good management and bad management in the world, and you find both in the public and private sectors. There are also advantages from size (economies of scale, buying power) and disadvantages (bureaucracy, slowness).
The two main reasons to keep something in the public sector are control, and where public good is incompatible with the profit motive. You can replicate control to some extent through regulation of private providers though we all see the issues. You can fix the profit motive incompatibility issue by subsidising private companies - eg to run unprofitable bus routes - but that can create inefficiencies.
The main reasons to have something private are competition and innovation. Efforts to replicate these in the public sector have a chequered history. But privatisation doesn’t always lead to either real competition or innovation. That’s why I don’t think ownership per se is the most important factor.
Actually I am not advocating changing the way London buses are run, just that them being publicly owned wouldn't make them fall apart. The reason they are run well and efficiently is because TfL have invested in technology like live tracking, apps etc.
No reason this could not be replicated elsewhere.
Eh? We have live tracking and apps up here. So we know accurately quite how many of our ultra expensive buses are cancelled and ridiculously late.
I got the bus daily in Hampshire for many years and we didn't have anything of the sort. If the bus turned up at all, it was lucky.
In London by contrast I have live tracking on every bus, many bus stops have live countdowns to the next bus and the buses come every few minutes. It is fantastic.
Agreed, I admire her for sticking to her principles. The answer to her question is probably yes however: If the tenets of your faith put you out of step with the mainstream of UK opinion on social issues & you’re public about it, you’re going to have problems politically. There’s a reason Alasdair Campbell cut off questions about Blair’s faith with “We don’t do God”.
The UK is very socially liberal these days on many questions that in the past would have been much more controversial & that holds true across the political spectrum. It’s one of the reasons I’m still proud to be British.
Mr. Battery, fair enough, that's a consistent position. Not sure I agree (although it's also strange that trains are 'privatised' yet also get a shovel load of taxpayers' cash).
Have you been on a bus recently?
And compare your average bus with Lothian Buses. Efficient and profitmaking (covid era aside) for the LA. Badly needed to help pay for the trams.
But they've messed up by not integrating the ticketing across the buses/trams.
There is no reason London buses cannot be run by TfL directly, only stupid Government rules. They have at least made the best of a bad situation and TfL's technology is very good.
Too many people in politics obsess about ownership structures.
There is good management and bad management in the world, and you find both in the public and private sectors. There are also advantages from size (economies of scale, buying power) and disadvantages (bureaucracy, slowness).
The two main reasons to keep something in the public sector are control, and where public good is incompatible with the profit motive. You can replicate control to some extent through regulation of private providers though we all see the issues. You can fix the profit motive incompatibility issue by subsidising private companies - eg to run unprofitable bus routes - but that can create inefficiencies.
The main reasons to have something private are competition and innovation. Efforts to replicate these in the public sector have a chequered history. But privatisation doesn’t always lead to either real competition or innovation. That’s why I don’t think ownership per se is the most important factor.
Actually I am not advocating changing the way London buses are run, just that them being publicly owned wouldn't make them fall apart. The reason they are run well and efficiently is because TfL have invested in technology like live tracking, apps etc.
No reason this could not be replicated elsewhere.
Integrated public transport across different modes is also helpful. Switzerland being the poster child for this.
The Socialist Republic of Switzerland?
Switzerland is a curiously successful model, and in some ways it is quite socialist (not least by having a wealth tax) - a relentless focus on making local communities work in close integration (transport is just one example), and a culture that promotes mutual support at the expense of carefree individualism. Coupled with referenda every 3 months on anything remotely controversial, there is a constant check on the state reflecting what people actually want. I can absolutely see why someone like Leon would find it stifling, since the push for consensus and even conformism is strong, but if you're OK with that then it's a remarkably happy place to live.
Rather like Japan it’s somewhere I can admire from afar and enjoy visiting, but wouldn’t want to live in. The conformism is too much.
But integrated transportation is possible without social conformism.
Mr. Battery, fair enough, that's a consistent position. Not sure I agree (although it's also strange that trains are 'privatised' yet also get a shovel load of taxpayers' cash).
Have you been on a bus recently?
And compare your average bus with Lothian Buses. Efficient and profitmaking (covid era aside) for the LA. Badly needed to help pay for the trams.
But they've messed up by not integrating the ticketing across the buses/trams.
They are partly integrated at the least - the Ridacards and day tickets are, I believe. I think the main difference is you have to pay separately for the tram out to the air port specifically.
We (My employer) has had to register for VAT in the Netherlands in order to have VAT free shipments between our for instance French & German suppliers & Polish/ Hungarian customers. Prior to Brexit this could be done with a GB VAT registration.
I *think* if we were based in Belfast we wouldn't need to bother with Dutch accountants.
Noone seems to have noticed or mentioned this intra-EU triangulation export benefit for Northern Ireland though ?
I've never really understood the issue with B2B customers - can't they just reclaim the VAT their end?
Not if the triangulating party is ex EU, I can assure you our supplier's understanding of EU VAT rules led us to some potentially whacking great VAT bills which meant we had to get an EU VAT presence sorted pdq. There's also the risk that a claim won't be accepted - since Brexit the ability to reclaim VAT from intra-country supply is gone (Through the HMRC portal) and you need to go direct through the particular countries' VAT methods to get back VAT. With an EU VAT presence that at least limits you to where the EU customer and supplier are in the same country. We'll be trying to do a reclaim where that's the case in the next few months.
There is no reason London buses cannot be run by TfL directly, only stupid Government rules. They have at least made the best of a bad situation and TfL's technology is very good.
Too many people in politics obsess about ownership structures.
There is good management and bad management in the world, and you find both in the public and private sectors. There are also advantages from size (economies of scale, buying power) and disadvantages (bureaucracy, slowness).
The two main reasons to keep something in the public sector are control, and where public good is incompatible with the profit motive. You can replicate control to some extent through regulation of private providers though we all see the issues. You can fix the profit motive incompatibility issue by subsidising private companies - eg to run unprofitable bus routes - but that can create inefficiencies.
The main reasons to have something private are competition and innovation. Efforts to replicate these in the public sector have a chequered history. But privatisation doesn’t always lead to either real competition or innovation. That’s why I don’t think ownership per se is the most important factor.
Actually I am not advocating changing the way London buses are run, just that them being publicly owned wouldn't make them fall apart. The reason they are run well and efficiently is because TfL have invested in technology like live tracking, apps etc.
No reason this could not be replicated elsewhere.
Eh? We have live tracking and apps up here. So we know accurately quite how many of our ultra expensive buses are cancelled and ridiculously late.
There's a big chicken and egg situation with buses - people don't use them because they're expensive and infrequent, and they are expensive and infrequent because people don't use them. There is a strong case for subsidising them as they reduce the congestion externality created by car traffic, and they reduce poverty traps so save money on the welfare budget - better to subsidise someone's trip to work than subsidising them to sit at home. The way that places like Stoke are cutting their bus services is tragic. The government should be providing subsidies to expand significantly local bus networks at affordable prices. They might find that over time the subdidy can be cut as usage increases in response to the better service.
Many poorer countries with lower H&S standards have a very effective solution which is the shared minibus: regular route, standard pricing but flexible timetable (ie leave when you’re full) and decidedly cosy seating or standing arrangements. One of those modes that have completely disappeared from the West.
Are they really going to make Humza ‘WHITE’ Yousaf the leader?! Really??
He is the Liz Truss option...
Keir Starmer is the most lucky leader in decades.
Two years too early to make that claim Horse. 1992 looms large in my memory.
Definitely too early, Murdoch hasn't even started on him yet
Fair point. I still think Keir is lucky though
No. You’re quite right
Starmer is consistently lucky. He was lucky the way all his Labour rivals dropped out or screwed up (in different ways). He was lucky the way the Tories exploded. It now looks likely the SNP will do him a similar favour
Starmer IS lucky, and, as Napoleon noted, that’s an important virtue
Lucky too that Corbyn was a stubborn old fool who refused a simple apology and basically suspended himself from the Party.
Corbyn is basically a Tankie. No Tankie has ever passed up the opportunity to shoot themselves in the foot. To be fair, some put it off (for a minute or two) until they can get a belt fed weapon off the shelf to do a proper job.
No way was Corbyn a tankie. He was a wannabe trot - he couldn't even manage that. Trots are the mortal enemies of tankies. To be a real tankie you have to be on the CPSU side of the Communist Party of Great Britain / Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist) split.
I love these tiny distinctions - it makes Monty Python's SPLITTERS! scene even funnier.
Someone I used to know online wrote a long spreadsheet detailing the way the UK's anarchists groups had developed over time - it was a mass of spaghetti, with people arguing and forming new groups.
Comments
Only the first set of dead Catholics matters.
Two Doors Down moves to BBC One!
Series seven of @BBCStudios Comedy Productions’ hit sitcom starring @ArabellaWeir, @MrJamieQuinn, @KieranCHodgson, @JohnnieWatson23 and @GradoWrestling will introduce @BBCOne audiences to life in Latimer Crescent.
https://twitter.com/BBCStudiosPress/status/1627956298003238912?s=20
I actually feel quite angry about it, Forbes is in favour of restricting people from loving people they love.
The various government have trained the political situation in Northern Ireland like a neural network.
If the response to something is political, it is generally ignored or talked away.
If the response to something is a threat of violence of the correctly third hand type, then action is taken. Brows are furrowed. Mitigations created.
At the start of this, the main Unionist party (UUP) was specifically and vehemently against the paramilitaries. We are now sliding to the point where Unionist voters will be stepping over the DUP to the parties that "listen" to the paramilitaries. Seems like a logical move - it worked for SF et al.
Ugh
Forbes doesn't plan to return to the Scottish Parliament/Scot Gov from maternity leave during the campaign... what happens afterwards?
https://twitter.com/ChrisMusson/status/1627967416876646401?s=20
I always felt Tony Blair was walking a fine line between religion and "progressiveness"...
I explained it was demarcation and job preservation. There wasn't much employment in NI. If the British Army takes the lads jobs - that's hardly fair, is it?
The Tories must be pleased.
Only a couple of days into the SNP leadership race but I think the campaigns already show us a bit about where the candidates think the party membership is; those seem to be quite different perspectives, so a brief thread, if you will indulge it:
https://twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/1627957285250125827?s=20
Unless she plans to tax thingy, and gay thingy in particular, her theological views don't really impact on her work as Finance Minister. There isn't really a question to answer.
For the role of First Minister, especially when a big social question is part of why there's a vacancy, her social views do matter, and it's reasonable for her to be asked how she will balance personal conviction with public mandate. It's not an easy question to answer, but her answers so far haven't been that convincing.
Devolution Will Kill Nationalism Stone Dead II, This Time We’re Serious.
He Was Once an Illiterate Teen Running the Streets. Now He’s Running for a Seat on Wisconsin’s Supreme Court.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/02/20/activist-pastor-running-wisconsin-supreme-court-00083521
He’d be firm favorite now, surely? He’s better than the idiot Yousaf
And who the hell is ‘Ash Regan’?
We are saying that if you publicly express an unpopular political opinion, the public won’t ignore that just because it’s a matter of faith.
Expecting otherwise is just stupid.
Bernard Jenkin has a solution. Land borders on the island of Ireland.
Also: remember what happened with Mr Blair.
By the end of the war, precision raids with OBOE had reached an accuracy level greater than the spread of the bombs.
Starmer is consistently lucky. He was lucky the way all his Labour rivals dropped out or screwed up (in different ways). He was lucky the way the Tories exploded. It now looks likely the SNP will do him a similar favour
Starmer IS lucky, and, as Napoleon noted, that’s an important virtue
There is good management and bad management in the world, and you find both in the public and private sectors. There are also advantages from size (economies of scale, buying power) and disadvantages (bureaucracy, slowness).
The two main reasons to keep something in the public sector are control, and where public good is incompatible with the profit motive. You can replicate control to some extent through regulation of private providers though we all see the issues. You can fix the profit motive incompatibility issue by subsidising private companies - eg to run unprofitable bus routes - but that can create inefficiencies.
The main reasons to have something private are competition and innovation. Efforts to replicate these in the public sector have a chequered history. But privatisation doesn’t always lead to either real competition or innovation. That’s why I don’t think ownership per se is the most important factor.
No reason this could not be replicated elsewhere.
There is a tendency in government organisations to see customers as the least in the priority queue.
One of the reasons that a number of the nationalised industries died was that all attempts at reform were stopped because they were politically and financially costly. A big fight with the unions, while spending billions vs a smaller bung to keep them going till the next election.
Bad as the private sector can be with investment, it actually occurs far more than in the public sector. A chap I met who supplied bits for water suppliers, said that immediately after privatisation, his phone didn't stop ringing. The regulator had said the water companies needed to get the water quality of tap water up, the Treasury was no longer vetoing it....
EDIT: it comes down to incentives. What you want is that the cheapest, easiest thing is to the thing you want to happen.
We have live tracking and apps up here.
So we know accurately quite how many of our ultra expensive buses are cancelled and ridiculously late.
Having unionists in government? This is tricky to be fair. Of course from an Irish point of view they are not unionists! Isn't it similar to having the SNP in a UK government? You could say that they are looking back to the historic Union of Britain and Ireland but that ship sailed a long time ago.
The US space launch industry is a fascinating example of the varying models and why they cause problems.
https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1627985476547223552
Though they do look there marginally more animated than during his speech.
https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1627968675172040705
https://twitter.com/AKamyshin/status/1627957257408286720
In the public sector borrowing is rationed by HM Treasury. For example Further Education Colleges were brought into the public sector by the office of national statistics last year. They now cannot borrow commercial as all borrowing is now determined centrally by HMT which has other demands on government borrowing.
Chacun and all that.
When asked how she would vote, it is tricky: her constituents know her views, and they elected her, presumably to vote according to the views she expressed. So she ought to vote against gay marriage if that's what her constituents expected of her. But, as First Minister, she would have broader responsibilities. She would be a representative of the Scottish state, and the state is not meant to impose religious dogma on its citizens, even for what a religious person could imagine is their own good. She could simply have said "my faith governs my private life, as First Minister I would upload the civic norms of Scotland". She could even have made a robust defence of the rights of religious groups to diverge from those norms. But instead she turned it into a question of her personal conduct as (she hopes) First Minister. It seems like an avoidable error to me.
Greens - “About the GRR….”
The way that places like Stoke are cutting their bus services is tragic. The government should be providing subsidies to expand significantly local bus networks at affordable prices. They might find that over time the subdidy can be cut as usage increases in response to the better service.
I *think* if we were based in Belfast we wouldn't need to bother with Dutch accountants.
Noone seems to have noticed or mentioned this intra-EU triangulation export benefit for Northern Ireland though ?
Viritually no liquidity there and Ash Regan not even listed, so I guess I'm missing something (or somehow stuck with an outdated page?)
(Edited to put the link in)
And for someone wishing to be open about her faith, her question could be seen as a dishonest framing, as I noted upthread.
No one is actually saying people of faith are barred from high office - just that their publicly expressed opinions, if they’re unpopular, aren’t neutralised just because they are faith based.
If she’d employed you as a spin doctor and accepted your above suggestion, she might well still be favourite.
She is no different to someone who belongs to no religion saying they would vote against same sex marriage. Why should it make any difference what religion she belongs to?
In London by contrast I have live tracking on every bus, many bus stops have live countdowns to the next bus and the buses come every few minutes. It is fantastic.
The UK is very socially liberal these days on many questions that in the past would have been much more controversial & that holds true across the political spectrum. It’s one of the reasons I’m still proud to be British.
But integrated transportation is possible without social conformism.
Hunt faces calls for bigger public sector pay rises after surprise budget surplus
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/feb/21/uk-budget-surplus-income-tax-jeremy-hunt-budget
There's also the risk that a claim won't be accepted - since Brexit the ability to reclaim VAT from intra-country supply is gone (Through the HMRC portal) and you need to go direct through the particular countries' VAT methods to get back VAT. With an EU VAT presence that at least limits you to where the EU customer and supplier are in the same country. We'll be trying to do a reclaim where that's the case in the next few months.
standing arrangements. One of those modes that have completely disappeared from the West.
Someone I used to know online wrote a long spreadsheet detailing the way the UK's anarchists groups had developed over time - it was a mass of spaghetti, with people arguing and forming new groups.