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.
It does involve some impingement on freedom though. It is illegal to run an intercity coach service in Switzerland, because they don't like it competing with the trains (due to EU laws, coach services which start or end in a another country are allowed).
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.
Did they merge? You need them to merge to make it really complicated. The Presbyterian kirks of Scotland - now, that really is a flow chart.
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).
Lol
Partial to what ? Im on my third Irish passport, have rellies all over the island, my daughter's boyfirend is a hurler from Waterford. That the RoI data doesnt conform to your presumably english perspective simply shows how little attention you pay to the subject.
Public sector pay needs to be upped, alongside moving pensions to a DC model rather than paying out on the Gov't never never.
Some/all of the public sector schemes already have DC pensions as an option. But what's the point pf changing the model? It's still coming out of future income, like state pensions.
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.
Did they merge? You need them to merge to make it really complicated. The Presbyterian kirks of Scotland - now, that really is a flow chart.
From memory, they did. I might even have a copy on floppy disc somewhere. If I can find it, if I can find a floppy drive - and if I can find an Acorn-compatible ADFS reader...
The guy was quite an amazing encyclopedia of knowledge about anarchists and anarchism. And as mad as a box of frogs, in a loveable way.
Public sector pay needs to be upped, alongside moving pensions to a DC model rather than paying out on the Gov't never never.
Some/all of the public sector schemes already have DC pensions as an option. But what's the point pf changing the model? It's still coming out of future income, like state pensions.
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.
Fabulous. That is a fascinating post that I understand not one word of. Can I start by asking what a tankie is and why neither of the parties either side of the split have the initials CPSU?
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:
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.
Fabulous. That is a fascinating post that I understand not one word of. Can I start by asking what a tankie is and why neither of the parties either side of the split have the initials CPSU?
CPSU = Communist Party of the Soviet Union, perhaps?
Public sector pay needs to be upped, alongside moving pensions to a DC model rather than paying out on the Gov't never never.
Some/all of the public sector schemes already have DC pensions as an option. But what's the point pf changing the model? It's still coming out of future income, like state pensions.
DC doesn't come out of future income.
But it comes out of government funds, unless it's privatised. HMG doesn't hypothecate funds. The current DC optiosn are IIRC privatised with commercial firms, but that is a further step from changing to a DC model.
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.
They don't even believe their own shit. I've met plenty of Trots who have a weird love for Stalinism - go weak at the knees at the thought of all that vicious Killing Of The Enemies Of The People.
Corbyn would have found a way to be "neutral" on the USSR driving tanks into Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Which makes him a literal tankie.
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.
The Splitters scene was written as a mockery of the UK hard left political scene, explicitly, IIRC.
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.
As an aside - We were told by multiple sources that the chance of a successful claim with a GB VAT reg from the German VAT authorities (Where we have some big suppliers) were basically nil. So yes in theory it could be done but you've got the expense of dealing with every countries' individual VAT authority, & the chance your claim might be rejected. With EU VAT reg you're just down to countries where the supplier and customer are in the same country.
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.
I broadly agree. The ambiguous question, for me (and for the analysts and strategists, western politicians and, probably ultimately the Ukrainians) is Crimea.
I posted this in the early hours. I’d strongly recommend that the more thoughtful PBers/lurkers give it 45 minutes, or so, of their time;
—
Interview with Robert Papp (former senior CIA bod) on Russia/Ukraine;
He makes some excellent points, including a couple that I’ve raised, cf; The absurd (and totally counterproductive) media / popular backlash against anything Russian / culture / literature etc etc, here in the West.
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?
I am absolutely gobsmacked that he could be favourite other than fact that he is Sturgeon stooge and Murrell will be counting the votes/running the show and we may never see the voting record. If he was to win I would believe totally that it must have been rigged , he is so useless there could be no other explanation. Every post he has had has resulted in that department going to ratshit and becoming a basket case.
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.
When I was living in Wiltshire, a local chap proposed this to the council. Run a taxi cab/bus service hybrid, and gradually expand as people started using the routes.
This was shot down, because it wasn't proper buses.
I was reminded of this when I came across a school bus scheme in Cornwall - the local taxi company realised it was cheaper and easier to amalgamate the taxi rides for children to school that various parents had as a regular thing into single minibus (driver availability being the thing). So they were running a private school bus service.
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.
I broadly agree. The ambiguous question, for me (and for the analysts and strategists, western politicians and, probably ultimately the Ukrainians) is Crimea.
I posted this in the early hours. I’d strongly recommend that the more thoughtful PBers/lurkers give it 45 minutes, or so, of their time;
—
Interview with Robert Papp (former senior CIA bod) on Russia/Ukraine;
He makes some excellent points, including a couple that I’ve raised, cf; The absurd (and totally counterproductive) media / popular backlash against anything Russian / culture / literature etc etc, here in the th West.
Thanks. Saw that in the early hours, meant to save it and then fell asleep 😴
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.
Whatever one thinks of Tankies, at least none of them are in the HoL, writing for Spiked Online or were policy advisors to the FLSOJ. As far as I know.
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.
I have many happy memories of riding the ZR vans in Barbados, but I'm not sure they would prove very popular here. Also, I'm not sure they have disappeared from the West rather than never existing in the first place, and even in those poorer countries they can be a recent innovation. In Barbados for instance they didn't exist before bus transport was deregulated under the IMF programme in the early 1990s, IIRC. And their existence is controversial there, since the van operators have been accused of a range of crimes including tax avoidance, dangerous driving, undermining the viability of the regular bus service and corrupting the island's youth.
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.
Are the relative merits of the different large bus companies relevant here, or is it all down to finding local subsidy cash. A number of local routes have swapped from an Arriva subsidiary to Transdev and the investment in, primarily, shorter wheelbase, lower capacity, single deckers and what seems like decent service frequency to a non-user observer, has seemed good and made sense on the routes.
I'm imagining that First Bus struggle because First group as a whole is in a bad way, but again viewing them out on the road they seem OK in this metro.
The irony with buses and trains is that it seems to be the domestic, Scottish, franchisees that are struggling the most - foreign ownership, qualitatively, almost seems desirable at a practical level.
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?
I am absolutely gobsmacked that he could be favourite other than fact that he is Sturgeon stooge and Murrell will be counting the votes/running the show and we may never see the voting record. If he was to win I would believe totally that it must have been rigged , he is so useless there could be no other explanation. Every post he has had has resulted in that department going to ratshit and becoming a basket case.
All Kate Forbes had to say was;
“The lives of our nations trans people, particularly children, are too important to be used as a political football in a culture war.
I will be calling a detente.”
Or something along those lines. Wading in on the extreme other side of the culture war… what was she thinking?
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.
Whatever one thinks of Tankies, at least none of them are in the HoL, writing for Spiked Online or were policy advisors to the FLSOJ. As far as I know.
The Spiked tories are all ex Revolutionary Communist Party who had split from the Revolutionary Communist Group/International Socialists and are therefore trots.
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.
We should just be honest then and say "if you hold strong religious views, you cannot be Prime Minister / FM as your views disqualify you from being a possible appointment."
Instead, we have this hypocritical standpoint where we pretend to be all tolerant and accepting but once someone comes along with such views, we then say why they are not acceptable.
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.
Whatever one thinks of Tankies, at least none of them are in the HoL, writing for Spiked Online or were policy advisors to the FLSOJ. As far as I know.
Perhaps there are some deep cover Stalinists advising the Tory party. If so, I can only admire their successful efforts at undermining British capitalism.
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.
You mean that spending $20bn on turning a dozen re-usable rocket motors, into disposable rocket motors, isn’t good value for the American taxpayer?
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.
I think it's wrong to portray Switzerland as conformist in the typical sense - the internal structure of the country is federalism redux. Moreover the strong religious influence on the country's structure - going back to the 16th C and the conflict between Catholic / Lutheran / Calvinist cantons - means that there is a range of different traditions.
However, Swiss History and Society is strongly influenced by the defence aspect and that's where the Swiss type of conformism comes into action. You can squabble all you like internally like a family does but, when it comes to an outside threat, you all need to come together.
There is also the fact the single most important factor in ties for the Swiss elite is their military service (as officers). In that way, it's similar to Israel. And breeds a similar attitude.
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.
When I was living in Wiltshire, a local chap proposed this to the council. Run a taxi cab/bus service hybrid, and gradually expand as people started using the routes.
This was shot down, because it wasn't proper buses.
I was reminded of this when I came across a school bus scheme in Cornwall - the local taxi company realised it was cheaper and easier to amalgamate the taxi rides for children to school that various parents had as a regular thing into single minibus (driver availability being the thing). So they were running a private school bus service.
The minibus is arguably one of the greatest transport innovations of the past few decades, and probably the most underrated.
Think of the way it’s transformed life for sports teams, school trips, youth clubs, OAP days out, and local and regional transport across the developing world. But completely lacking respect. The black sheep of transport modes.
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.
Whatever one thinks of Tankies, at least none of them are in the HoL, writing for Spiked Online or were policy advisors to the FLSOJ. As far as I know.
Perhaps there are some deep cover Stalinists advising the Tory party. If so, I can only admire their successful efforts at undermining British capitalism.
Comrades Liz and Kwazi rumbled before mission completely accomplished. Leeds is only a cancelled bus service away from Manchester so I'm going to crowbar in the Mancunian Candidate for Truss.
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.
We should just be honest then and say "if you hold strong religious views, you cannot be Prime Minister / FM as your views disqualify you from being a possible appointment."
Instead, we have this hypocritical standpoint where we pretend to be all tolerant and accepting but once someone comes along with such views, we then say why they are not acceptable.
But why should 'strong religious views' be any less of a bar to office than 'strong views' of any other kind?
I would argue it's the view that is the problem, rather than the religious inspiration for that view.
And in a democracy, where leaders are elected, is it hypocrisy if the electorate doesn't want to elect a leader because they take a view that the majority of the electorate finds repugnant?
If I was seeking election, but believed that dogs made healthy nutritious meals and that we should serve dogs in school dinners is it fair that my view would disqualify me from office, given that most people think eating dogs is not a very nice thing to do?
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.
We should just be honest then and say "if you hold strong religious views, you cannot be Prime Minister / FM as your views disqualify you from being a possible appointment."
Instead, we have this hypocritical standpoint where we pretend to be all tolerant and accepting but once someone comes along with such views, we then say why they are not acceptable.
Agreed, and I think we should say that. We are either a Christian country happy not to compromise on things like gay marriage, or we’re a messy compromise where very little is sacred except democracy itself. If we’re the latter, religious convictions that trump the mess of compromise have no place at the top of politics.
Can someone please open a book on whether Ireland will rejoin the Commonwealth. Lump on No at almost any price. A united Ireland won't ever be pink on the map.
As for the notion that unionist parties shouldn't be allowed to join a united Ireland government, it seems time flows differently west of the Irish Sea. If the DUP took seats in the Dail, they'd need to have "recognised" it first. They wouldn't be unionist any more, except perhaps in name. They wouldn't bother running on a manifesto promise of getting into government in Dublin and then splitting the 6C off again to rejoin GB. That could never be achieved, and GB probably wouldn't want them anyway. But if they weren't allowed in the government there'd be little point in them standing for election. The older and crazier would reach for the Book of Revelations and then their balaclavas.
Politically the drumbashers are nuts, ranting about "No border in the Irish Sea", whereas anybody who has crossed into or out of NI across both the Irish Sea and the land border knows which one has the most checks.
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.
Whatever one thinks of Tankies, at least none of them are in the HoL, writing for Spiked Online or were policy advisors to the FLSOJ. As far as I know.
The Spiked tories are all ex Revolutionary Communist Party who had split from the Revolutionary Communist Group/International Socialists and are therefore trots.
Ah the RCP. The only group to oppose my University divesting funds out of Apartheid S Africa (including the FCS). Sharply dressed. Stood out from assorted other Lefties. Degsy Hatton rather than Corbyn tailoring.
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.
Whatever one thinks of Tankies, at least none of them are in the HoL, writing for Spiked Online or were policy advisors to the FLSOJ. As far as I know.
Perhaps there are some deep cover Stalinists advising the Tory party. If so, I can only admire their successful efforts at undermining British capitalism.
Robert Conquest was a superb historian and a genius limerick writer; he also came up with some immortal political laws. This is one:
“The behavior of any bureaucratic organization can best be understood by assuming that it is controlled by a secret cabal of its enemies.”
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.
When I was living in Wiltshire, a local chap proposed this to the council. Run a taxi cab/bus service hybrid, and gradually expand as people started using the routes.
This was shot down, because it wasn't proper buses.
I was reminded of this when I came across a school bus scheme in Cornwall - the local taxi company realised it was cheaper and easier to amalgamate the taxi rides for children to school that various parents had as a regular thing into single minibus (driver availability being the thing). So they were running a private school bus service.
The minibus is arguably one of the greatest transport innovations of the past few decades, and probably the most underrated.
Think of the way it’s transformed life for sports teams, school trips, youth clubs, OAP days out, and local and regional transport across the developing world. But completely lacking respect. The black sheep of transport modes.
Not to be too much of a pedant, but. There were 12 seater Fords operating as buses a hundred years ago.
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.
Corbyn is obviously not a tankie. But it's not the Sino-Soviet split that gives the differentia specifica. The CPB(M-L) Maoists were as tankie as hell looking back at Hungary, and at Uncle Joe. The other side to the tankies weren't the Maoists. They were the Eurocommunists, a decade or so after Prague.
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.
Whatever one thinks of Tankies, at least none of them are in the HoL, writing for Spiked Online or were policy advisors to the FLSOJ. As far as I know.
Perhaps there are some deep cover Stalinists advising the Tory party. If so, I can only admire their successful efforts at undermining British capitalism.
Comrades Liz and Kwazi rumbled before mission completely accomplished. Leeds is only a cancelled bus service away from Manchester so I'm going to crowbar in the Mancunian Candidate for Truss.
Goodness no. Liz and Kwasi advanced the cause of the corporate takeover of our once cherished democracy no end - we can’t afford anything any more, or so we’re told.
On which note, I wonder if the solution to education funding is simply to have a compulsory ad break in the middle of each lesson, YouTube style.
Teachers pay could even be determined by the number of widgets little Johnny pesters his parents to buy after seeing an ad in his maths class. I reckon I’m onto something.
(True story, just came out of hospital after my wife gave birth to our second child. In the recovery ward we were handed a packet that contained a bunch of flyers advertising criminally overpriced bamboo nappies and suchlike. What does it say about us that we think it’s okay to corporatise the process of giving birth to the extent that we prey on sleep-deprived wide-eyes new parents with junk mail delivered to the bedside? Sheesh.)
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.
You mean that spending $20bn on turning a dozen re-usable rocket motors, into disposable rocket motors, isn’t good value for the American taxpayer?
Rocket engines. Motors are solids, by convention.
SLS is the totally state controlled mode. Then you have ULA who are supposed to be the tame contractors. Then you have SpaceX - the pirates who are tearing the market place up Then you have Blue Origin - who are turning a lot of money into.... not a lot.
It is costing SpaceX $20 million and falling to get 16 tons (and growing) to LEO. None of the other come close to matching that. Why?
Why don't they want to do that? Yes, they don't want to do that.
Very briefly regarding buses, our current set-up is stupid. We are happy for the Paris city authorities to run buses in London, but ban London city authorities from running buses because the public sector can't do so successfully.
In essence we should encourage all of the local authorities to incorporate their own bus operations. Take the profit margin out of the picture and lets see how many buses we can afford to run. Will piss off the likes of Arriva but they're ultimately the German public sector so screw them.
Jeez, she just can't stop talking about this stuff. Is it time for an intervention, from above or otherwise?
She has surely fucked her campaign, as her very own campaign aide says (never a good sign in a campaign). However in the interests of diversity and equality I REALLY hope some journalist is going to ask the same questions of Humza Yousaf. He may well have some interesting answers, and it would never do to encourage the perception that Muslims are given an easier ride than Wee Free white Hebrideans
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.
When I was living in Wiltshire, a local chap proposed this to the council. Run a taxi cab/bus service hybrid, and gradually expand as people started using the routes.
This was shot down, because it wasn't proper buses.
I was reminded of this when I came across a school bus scheme in Cornwall - the local taxi company realised it was cheaper and easier to amalgamate the taxi rides for children to school that various parents had as a regular thing into single minibus (driver availability being the thing). So they were running a private school bus service.
The minibus is arguably one of the greatest transport innovations of the past few decades, and probably the most underrated.
Think of the way it’s transformed life for sports teams, school trips, youth clubs, OAP days out, and local and regional transport across the developing world. But completely lacking respect. The black sheep of transport modes.
Not to be too much of a pedant, but. There were 12 seater Fords operating as buses a hundred years 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.
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.
I remember when the buses were in the process of privatisation - watching the Tory minister being interviewed and frothing at the mouth about how wasteful the current system was. Specifically pointing at like 3 buses backed up outside parliament.
And yet London was about the only place that wasn't horrifically screwed over by the policy.
If I was of a cynical persuasion I might think there was some sort of bias in the decision making...
More evidence that any UK #recession (even if there is one) should be shallow and short-lived: flash estimate suggests composite #PMI rebounded to 53.0 in February... 👇
ps. also good to see '#BrexitBritain' outperforming the euro area again 😉
Jeez, she just can't stop talking about this stuff. Is it time for an intervention, from above or otherwise?
She has put her finger on the issue though. There isn't really any conversion therapy that isn't "religious based". And. What about those who sincerely want to be converted, and believe they can be, based on their Faith? Don't they have freedom of choice? The issue is the coercive, forced "therapy", often instigated by parents. Which is where the rights of the under 16's to medical autonomy comes in. And we are back where we started.
Excellent. As we all predicted, the claret is spilling
The SNP has been hegemonic for a decade, the internal feuds and corruption will be profound (this always happens when parties dominate for too long, it is not a dig at the Nits). All this shit will now go public
Jeez, she just can't stop talking about this stuff. Is it time for an intervention, from above or otherwise?
She has put her finger on the issue though. There isn't really any conversion therapy that isn't "religious based". And. What about those who sincerely want to be converted, and believe they can be, based on their Faith? Don't they have freedom of choice? The issue is the coercive behaviour, often instigated by parents. Which is where the rights of the under 16's to medical autonomy comes in. And we are back where we started.
She's standing for leadership of the SNP, not "most interesting comment on PB thread".
Jeez, she just can't stop talking about this stuff. Is it time for an intervention, from above or otherwise?
She has surely fucked her campaign, as he very own campaign aide says (never a good sign in a campaign). However in the interests of diversity and equality I REALLY hope some journalist is going to ask the same questions of Humza Yousaf. He may well have some interesting answers, and it would never do to encourage the perception that Muslims are given an easier ride than Wee Free white Hebrideans
Not that it makes any difference, but Kate is not a Hebridean.
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 was once persuaded by a friend to go to a meeting discussing a specific racism issue in Exeter. All of the regulars in that group introduced themselves saying "I'm a Marxist/Trotskyite/..." and I knew instantly that I was in the wrong place.
That’s really not a controversial view, is it? A huge number of people wait until they’re married to have children, and the statistics say that outcomes for the children (in general) are much better when living in a stable household with both parents.
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.
When I was living in Wiltshire, a local chap proposed this to the council. Run a taxi cab/bus service hybrid, and gradually expand as people started using the routes.
This was shot down, because it wasn't proper buses.
I was reminded of this when I came across a school bus scheme in Cornwall - the local taxi company realised it was cheaper and easier to amalgamate the taxi rides for children to school that various parents had as a regular thing into single minibus (driver availability being the thing). So they were running a private school bus service.
The minibus is arguably one of the greatest transport innovations of the past few decades, and probably the most underrated.
Think of the way it’s transformed life for sports teams, school trips, youth clubs, OAP days out, and local and regional transport across the developing world. But completely lacking respect. The black sheep of transport modes.
Not to be too much of a pedant, but. There were 12 seater Fords operating as buses a hundred years ago.
Jeez, she just can't stop talking about this stuff. Is it time for an intervention, from above or otherwise?
She has put her finger on the issue though. There isn't really any conversion therapy that isn't "religious based". And. What about those who sincerely want to be converted, and believe they can be, based on their Faith? Don't they have freedom of choice? The issue is the coercive, forced "therapy", often instigated by parents. Which is where the rights of the under 16's to medical autonomy comes in. And we are back where we started.
Though there is an issue with "What is conversion therapy?"
Some psychiatrists have been attacked for questioning whether someone is trans or not - to some even saying "I don't think you are trans" is unacceptable.
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.
We should just be honest then and say "if you hold strong religious views, you cannot be Prime Minister / FM as your views disqualify you from being a possible appointment."
Instead, we have this hypocritical standpoint where we pretend to be all tolerant and accepting but once someone comes along with such views, we then say why they are not acceptable.
I think I view it more as: people are free to hold whatever views they want. However, I’m allowed as a citizen of a democracy to decide whether or not I want someone in power who holds those views. Similarly members of political parties who practice internal democracy are perfectly within their rights to decide if they want someone in a leadership position who holds certain views. That person always has a right to go and organise with other people and try to argue their views.
That it’s not en vogue to be anti gay marriage in high office is a reflection of the attitudes of the electorate rather than a disqualification per se.
That’s really not a controversial view, is it? A huge number of people wait until they’re married to have children, and the statistics say that outcomes for the children (in general) are much better when living in a stable household with both parents.
That's different from saying it's morally wrong to have children outside marriage, which she clearly is.
And it can't help but filter into policy. For example married couples allowance etc etc.
That’s really not a controversial view, is it? A huge number of people wait until they’re married to have children, and the statistics say that outcomes for the children (in general) are much better when living in a stable household with both parents.
It is a controversial view.
I certainly waited until marriage before having children, but many of my friends and peers did not. They did nothing wrong in my eyes.
What Forbes doesn't seem to understand is that there's nothing wrong having a faith, but keeping that faith private. Its when you, especially in the political sphere, start trying to foist your faith onto others that we have a problem.
Jeez, she just can't stop talking about this stuff. Is it time for an intervention, from above or otherwise?
She has surely fucked her campaign, as he very own campaign aide says (never a good sign in a campaign). However in the interests of diversity and equality I REALLY hope some journalist is going to ask the same questions of Humza Yousaf. He may well have some interesting answers, and it would never do to encourage the perception that Muslims are given an easier ride than Wee Free white Hebrideans
Not that it makes any difference, but Kate is not a Hebridean.
Indeed. Born in Dingwall/Inbhir Pheofharain. Which is on the east coast (a mile or two of canal more or less), just NW of Inverness.
That’s really not a controversial view, is it? A huge number of people wait until they’re married to have children, and the statistics say that outcomes for the children (in general) are much better when living in a stable household with both parents.
Again, this is leadership of the SNP Forbes is going for.
So far:
- sex before marriage - conversion therapy - GRR - gay marriage
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.
When I was living in Wiltshire, a local chap proposed this to the council. Run a taxi cab/bus service hybrid, and gradually expand as people started using the routes.
This was shot down, because it wasn't proper buses.
I was reminded of this when I came across a school bus scheme in Cornwall - the local taxi company realised it was cheaper and easier to amalgamate the taxi rides for children to school that various parents had as a regular thing into single minibus (driver availability being the thing). So they were running a private school bus service.
The minibus is arguably one of the greatest transport innovations of the past few decades, and probably the most underrated.
Think of the way it’s transformed life for sports teams, school trips, youth clubs, OAP days out, and local and regional transport across the developing world. But completely lacking respect. The black sheep of transport modes.
Not to be too much of a pedant, but. There were 12 seater Fords operating as buses a hundred years ago.
Easy. 100 years ago is the last few decades. 10 can be a few.
She also says that 'sex is for marriage' clearly there was well. So not only children, but everyone which has sex outside out wedlock is morally wrong in her eyes.
That’s really not a controversial view, is it? A huge number of people wait until they’re married to have children, and the statistics say that outcomes for the children (in general) are much better when living in a stable household with both parents.
Again, this is leadership of the SNP Forbes is going for.
So far:
- sex before marriage - conversion therapy - GRR - gay marriage
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.
We should just be honest then and say "if you hold strong religious views, you cannot be Prime Minister / FM as your views disqualify you from being a possible appointment."
Instead, we have this hypocritical standpoint where we pretend to be all tolerant and accepting but once someone comes along with such views, we then say why they are not acceptable.
Maybe we should stop looking at this through a particular moral lens. It is not true (as KF suggests) that having any religious conviction whatever bars you from office in a democracy.
To be in office involves winning contests, ones which have a hierarchy that anyone can join from the moment they are 18. Committees, party members, voters and fellow elected people do all the deciding. All can stand, all can join, all can vote. That's democracy. And that is what bars anyone from office.
I think it's sad and mistaken if in fact X won't be voted in because of a moral or religious principle which is in no way eccentric - as may happen with KF. But what I think doesn't matter. Democracy is what it is. If, on the whole, it likes Boris or Salmond, Orban or Putin, Trump or Berlusconi better than Kate Forbes let it be. Though I think there is a price to pay.
Jeez, she just can't stop talking about this stuff. Is it time for an intervention, from above or otherwise?
She has surely fucked her campaign, as he very own campaign aide says (never a good sign in a campaign). However in the interests of diversity and equality I REALLY hope some journalist is going to ask the same questions of Humza Yousaf. He may well have some interesting answers, and it would never do to encourage the perception that Muslims are given an easier ride than Wee Free white Hebrideans
Not that it makes any difference, but Kate is not a Hebridean.
Indeed. Born in Dingwall/Inbhir Pheofharain. Which is on the east coast (a mile or two of canal more or less), just NW of Inverness.
One could drop by on the way to Wick, not that I ever have.
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.
I think it's worth remembering that the victors of a war will always seek to write the history to show that the losing side started the war.
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.
We should just be honest then and say "if you hold strong religious views, you cannot be Prime Minister / FM as your views disqualify you from being a possible appointment."
Instead, we have this hypocritical standpoint where we pretend to be all tolerant and accepting but once someone comes along with such views, we then say why they are not acceptable.
Maybe we should stop looking at this through a particular moral lens. It is not true (as KF suggests) that having any religious conviction whatever bars you from office in a democracy.
To be in office involves winning contests, ones which have a hierarchy that anyone can join from the moment they are 18. Committees, party members, voters and fellow elected people do all the deciding. All can stand, all can join, all can vote. That's democracy.
I think it's sad and mistaken if in fact X won't be voted in because of a moral or religious principle which is in no way eccentric - as may happen with KF. But what I think doesn't matter. Democracy is what it is. If, on the whole, it likes Boris or Salmond, Orban or Putin, Trump or Berlusconi better than Kate Forbes let it be. Though I think there is a price to pay.
You can have religious conviction but keep it to yourself and that is not controversial. I'm sure many do.
Where there's a problem is when you expect the law of the land to be shaped by your convictions. That is a serious problem when it comes to politics, for anyone who doesn't share your convictions, which given that all religions are minorities is going to be a majority of people not sharing your faith.
As it happens here, her views are very, very eccentric.
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.
The Splitters scene was written as a mockery of the UK hard left political scene, explicitly, IIRC.
Though nowadays it could equally apply to UKIP/Brexit/RefUK/Reclaim/Britain First/Heritage etc.
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.
We should just be honest then and say "if you hold strong religious views, you cannot be Prime Minister / FM as your views disqualify you from being a possible appointment."
Instead, we have this hypocritical standpoint where we pretend to be all tolerant and accepting but once someone comes along with such views, we then say why they are not acceptable.
Maybe we should stop looking at this through a particular moral lens. It is not true (as KF suggests) that having any religious conviction whatever bars you from office in a democracy.
To be in office involves winning contests, ones which have a hierarchy that anyone can join from the moment they are 18. Committees, party members, voters and fellow elected people do all the deciding. All can stand, all can join, all can vote. That's democracy.
I think it's sad and mistaken if in fact X won't be voted in because of a moral or religious principle which is in no way eccentric - as may happen with KF. But what I think doesn't matter. Democracy is what it is. If, on the whole, it likes Boris or Salmond, Orban or Putin, Trump or Berlusconi better than Kate Forbes let it be. Though I think there is a price to pay.
Consider Corbyn.
He is essentially, religious. His believes in a number of things through faith that they are The Good.
Should he have his faith set aside (somehow) - or is it OK for the voters/party to give him the boot over them?
Jeez, she just can't stop talking about this stuff. Is it time for an intervention, from above or otherwise?
She has surely fucked her campaign, as he very own campaign aide says (never a good sign in a campaign). However in the interests of diversity and equality I REALLY hope some journalist is going to ask the same questions of Humza Yousaf. He may well have some interesting answers, and it would never do to encourage the perception that Muslims are given an easier ride than Wee Free white Hebrideans
Not that it makes any difference, but Kate is not a Hebridean.
Indeed. Born in Dingwall/Inbhir Pheofharain. Which is on the east coast (a mile or two of canal more or less), just NW of Inverness.
One could drop by on the way to Wick, not that I ever have.
Why would you even consider delaying your arrival in Wick.
Can someone explain what trans conversion therapy is. I have never come across it.
As for Forbes it is an interesting chance for us to have a debate on issues of tolerance/intolerance, the protection of minorities and so forth. A debate I fear that in our modern media environment is likely to generate more heat than light. But anyway.....
I'm not sure where the protected characteristic stuff would come in, choosing not to vote for someone can't be deemed discriminatory. Whilst people should have right to practice their faith it seems implausible to protect all possible religious views. There's all kinds of crazy stuff in the Bible and the Quran. More credibly the gay conversion therapy ban, much as I find the practice ridiculous, seems a possible area of debate as it is after all something people freely enter into.
Jeez, she just can't stop talking about this stuff. Is it time for an intervention, from above or otherwise?
She has put her finger on the issue though. There isn't really any conversion therapy that isn't "religious based". And. What about those who sincerely want to be converted, and believe they can be, based on their Faith? Don't they have freedom of choice? The issue is the coercive, forced "therapy", often instigated by parents. Which is where the rights of the under 16's to medical autonomy comes in. And we are back where we started.
Though there is an issue with "What is conversion therapy?"
Some psychiatrists have been attacked for questioning whether someone is trans or not - to some even saying "I don't think you are trans" is unacceptable.
See. There's also the issue with "What is therapy?" I would categorise psychiatrists as doctors not therapists. Trained therapists (and there's a difference here, cos unlike a doctor you don't need any qualifications whatsoever to set up as one), have to have Unconditional Positive Regard. And deal with only the issues the client brings to the room. Not what they think the issue ought to be. So what do they do if a client pitches up and says "I am having feelings for someone of the same sex and believe it is sinful. Please help me not to have these thoughts."?
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.
You mean that spending $20bn on turning a dozen re-usable rocket motors, into disposable rocket motors, isn’t good value for the American taxpayer?
Rocket engines. Motors are solids, by convention.
SLS is the totally state controlled mode. Then you have ULA who are supposed to be the tame contractors. Then you have SpaceX - the pirates who are tearing the market place up Then you have Blue Origin - who are turning a lot of money into.... not a lot.
It is costing SpaceX $20 million and falling to get 16 tons (and growing) to LEO. None of the other come close to matching that. Why?
Why don't they want to do that? Yes, they don't want to do that.
Yes yes, engines and motors.
It does indeed appear that no-one wants to challenge SX in the commercial and government LEO space, preferring instead to do their own thing on a different basis, that sees them take no business risk.
The mad one is Blue Origin. The whole business of which, with hindsight, seemed to be about Bezos getting his personal joyride - and now it happened, no-one there cares about the bigger project any more.
You then end up with another danger, of an effective private monopoly in launch services which needs regulating at some point. Thankfully, so far SX have been behaving themselves in this regard, including stepping in to launch OneWeb hardware when the Russians got boycotted.
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.
We should just be honest then and say "if you hold strong religious views, you cannot be Prime Minister / FM as your views disqualify you from being a possible appointment."
Instead, we have this hypocritical standpoint where we pretend to be all tolerant and accepting but once someone comes along with such views, we then say why they are not acceptable.
Maybe we should stop looking at this through a particular moral lens. It is not true (as KF suggests) that having any religious conviction whatever bars you from office in a democracy.
To be in office involves winning contests, ones which have a hierarchy that anyone can join from the moment they are 18. Committees, party members, voters and fellow elected people do all the deciding. All can stand, all can join, all can vote. That's democracy.
I think it's sad and mistaken if in fact X won't be voted in because of a moral or religious principle which is in no way eccentric - as may happen with KF. But what I think doesn't matter. Democracy is what it is. If, on the whole, it likes Boris or Salmond, Orban or Putin, Trump or Berlusconi better than Kate Forbes let it be. Though I think there is a price to pay.
Consider Corbyn.
He is essentially, religious. His believes in a number of things through faith that they are The Good.
Should he have his faith set aside (somehow) - or is it OK for the voters/party to give him the boot over them?
Nice example, though a bit sideways. He has done fine out of democracy, which has consistently elected him, made him leader, held on to him for two whole elections. He has never been barred from high office except by the voters. That's democracy. I got up early two elections in a row to do my bit to make sure he didn't get high office!
OMG. She also condemns any sex outside marriage. But still, it’s good she doesn’t want to impose these views on Scots…. YET
Is she making a secret bid for the hitherto unsuspected Taliban voters in and around Dundee?
The Tayside Taliban has a certain ring to it.
I was thinking this is like the Tim Farron debacle, but I’m wondering if the Lib Dem analogy better suited is Clegg and the coalition. It seems the SNP have attracted a lot of generally left wing voters in recent years who if they were relatively low engagement might even have seen it as more properly left of centre than Labour (better on Brexit for a start, and less socially authoritarian). Now suddenly we have more than one person running for leader with right of centre views and it could come as a shock. Good news for the Greens?
I know an obvious riposte is that nobody who’s lived through the last few years of SNP government would be surprised there’s a range of political views there but people were bizarrely surprised when Nick Clegg actually turned out to be the Orange booker he’d always said he was. I think some voters were even surprised when Johnson turned out not to be the metropolitan liberal that he’d never even pretended to be.
That’s really not a controversial view, is it? A huge number of people wait until they’re married to have children, and the statistics say that outcomes for the children (in general) are much better when living in a stable household with both parents.
Forbes, like so many it seems, seeks to blame her bigotry on her superstitions.
Jeez, she just can't stop talking about this stuff. Is it time for an intervention, from above or otherwise?
She has surely fucked her campaign, as her very own campaign aide says (never a good sign in a campaign). However in the interests of diversity and equality I REALLY hope some journalist is going to ask the same questions of Humza Yousaf. He may well have some interesting answers, and it would never do to encourage the perception that Muslims are given an easier ride than Wee Free white Hebrideans
Yousaf said at his own launch that "I don't legislate on the basis of my faith", arguing that as a member of a minority group he knows his rights "don't exist in some kind of vacuum... My rights are interdependent on other people's rights... I'll always fight for the equal rights of others regardless of who they are." This seems to me exactly the right answer to the question that Forbes was asked, and I'm not sure that Yousaf really needs to say anything else on the subject.
Jeez, she just can't stop talking about this stuff. Is it time for an intervention, from above or otherwise?
She has put her finger on the issue though. There isn't really any conversion therapy that isn't "religious based". And. What about those who sincerely want to be converted, and believe they can be, based on their Faith? Don't they have freedom of choice? The issue is the coercive, forced "therapy", often instigated by parents. Which is where the rights of the under 16's to medical autonomy comes in. And we are back where we started.
Though there is an issue with "What is conversion therapy?"
Some psychiatrists have been attacked for questioning whether someone is trans or not - to some even saying "I don't think you are trans" is unacceptable.
See. There's also the issue with "What is therapy?" I would categorise psychiatrists as doctors not therapists. Trained therapists (and there's a difference here, cos unlike a doctor you don't need any qualifications whatsoever to set up as one), have to have Unconditional Positive Regard. And deal with only the issues the client brings to the room. Not what they think the issue ought to be. So what do they do if a client pitches up and says "I am having feelings for someone of the same sex and believe it is sinful. Please help me not to have these thoughts."?
Simpler - what if the head shrinker thinks on the evidence presented by the patient that the the patient isn't trans but has a different issue? I've heard it said that there is a great deal of self diagnosis as trans out there, which is actually other things.
Comments
https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1627995248755372033
Partial to what ? Im on my third Irish passport, have rellies all over the island, my daughter's boyfirend is a hurler from Waterford. That the RoI data doesnt conform to your presumably english perspective simply shows how little attention you pay to the subject.
The guy was quite an amazing encyclopedia of knowledge about anarchists and anarchism. And as mad as a box of frogs, in a loveable way.
ETA: okay I googled tankie, got that one.
Corbyn would have found a way to be "neutral" on the USSR driving tanks into Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Which makes him a literal tankie.
So yes in theory it could be done but you've got the expense of dealing with every countries' individual VAT authority, & the chance your claim might be rejected.
With EU VAT reg you're just down to countries where the supplier and customer are in the same country.
I posted this in the early hours. I’d strongly recommend that the more thoughtful PBers/lurkers give it 45 minutes, or so, of their time;
—
Interview with Robert Papp (former senior CIA bod) on Russia/Ukraine;
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/odd-lots/id1056200096
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-02-20/one-year-of-war-in-ukraine-former-cia-official-on-russia-s-invasion?srnd=oddlots-podcast
He knows his shit, that guy.
Well worth 45 mins of your time.
He makes some excellent points, including a couple that I’ve raised, cf; The absurd (and totally counterproductive) media / popular backlash against anything Russian / culture / literature etc etc, here in the West.
If he was to win I would believe totally that it must have been rigged , he is so useless there could be no other explanation. Every post he has had has resulted in that department going to ratshit and becoming a basket case.
This was shot down, because it wasn't proper buses.
I was reminded of this when I came across a school bus scheme in Cornwall - the local taxi company realised it was cheaper and easier to amalgamate the taxi rides for children to school that various parents had as a regular thing into single minibus (driver availability being the thing). So they were running a private school bus service.
As far as I know.
I'm imagining that First Bus struggle because First group as a whole is in a bad way, but again viewing them out on the road they seem OK in this metro.
The irony with buses and trains is that it seems to be the domestic, Scottish, franchisees that are struggling the most - foreign ownership, qualitatively, almost seems desirable at a practical level.
“The lives of our nations trans people, particularly children, are too important to be used as a political football in a culture war.
I will be calling a detente.”
Or something along those lines. Wading in on the extreme other side of the culture war… what was she thinking?
The job was hers. Idiot.
Instead, we have this hypocritical standpoint where we pretend to be all tolerant and accepting but once someone comes along with such views, we then say why they are not acceptable.
However, Swiss History and Society is strongly influenced by the defence aspect and that's where the Swiss type of conformism comes into action. You can squabble all you like internally like a family does but, when it comes to an outside threat, you all need to come together.
There is also the fact the single most important factor in ties for the Swiss elite is their military service (as officers). In that way, it's similar to Israel. And breeds a similar attitude.
Think of the way it’s transformed life for sports teams, school trips, youth clubs, OAP days out, and local and regional transport across the developing world. But completely lacking respect. The black sheep of transport modes.
Leeds is only a cancelled bus service away from Manchester so I'm going to crowbar in the Mancunian Candidate for Truss.
I would argue it's the view that is the problem, rather than the religious inspiration for that view.
And in a democracy, where leaders are elected, is it hypocrisy if the electorate doesn't want to elect a leader because they take a view that the majority of the electorate finds repugnant?
If I was seeking election, but believed that dogs made healthy nutritious meals and that we should serve dogs in school dinners is it fair that my view would disqualify me from office, given that most people think eating dogs is not a very nice thing to do?
Sounds like he has multiple penises
As for the notion that unionist parties shouldn't be allowed to join a united Ireland government, it seems time flows differently west of the Irish Sea. If the DUP took seats in the Dail, they'd need to have "recognised" it first. They wouldn't be unionist any more, except perhaps in name. They wouldn't bother running on a manifesto promise of getting into government in Dublin and then splitting the 6C off again to rejoin GB. That could never be achieved, and GB probably wouldn't want them anyway. But if they weren't allowed in the government there'd be little point in them standing for election. The older and crazier would reach for the Book of Revelations and then their balaclavas.
Politically the drumbashers are nuts, ranting about "No border in the Irish Sea", whereas anybody who has crossed into or out of NI across both the Irish Sea and the land border knows which one has the most checks.
The only group to oppose my University divesting funds out of Apartheid S Africa (including the FCS).
Sharply dressed. Stood out from assorted other Lefties.
Degsy Hatton rather than Corbyn tailoring.
Is it time for an intervention, from above or otherwise?
“The behavior of any bureaucratic organization can best be understood by assuming that it is controlled by a secret cabal of its enemies.”
There were 12 seater Fords operating as buses a hundred years ago.
https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1628009155708571649?s=20
On which note, I wonder if the solution to education funding is simply to have a
compulsory ad break in the middle of each
lesson, YouTube style.
Teachers pay could even be determined by
the number of widgets little Johnny pesters his parents to buy after seeing an ad in his maths class. I reckon I’m onto something.
(True story, just came out of hospital after my wife gave birth to our second child. In the recovery ward we were handed a packet that contained a bunch of flyers advertising criminally overpriced bamboo nappies and suchlike. What does it say about us that we think it’s okay to corporatise the process of giving birth to the extent that we prey on sleep-deprived wide-eyes new parents with junk mail delivered to the bedside? Sheesh.)
SLS is the totally state controlled mode.
Then you have ULA who are supposed to be the tame contractors.
Then you have SpaceX - the pirates who are tearing the market place up
Then you have Blue Origin - who are turning a lot of money into.... not a lot.
It is costing SpaceX $20 million and falling to get 16 tons (and growing) to LEO. None of the other come close to matching that. Why?
Why don't they want to do that? Yes, they don't want to do that.
https://twitter.com/Mike_Blackley/status/1627955441077751808?s=20
* Joanna Cherry
There was room for a non-GRR supporter to get the leadership but this is all way too far in the other direction.
In essence we should encourage all of the local authorities to incorporate their own bus operations. Take the profit margin out of the picture and lets see how many buses we can afford to run. Will piss off the likes of Arriva but they're ultimately the German public sector so screw them.
And yet London was about the only place that wasn't horrifically screwed over by the policy.
If I was of a cynical persuasion I might think there was some sort of bias in the decision making...
ps. also good to see '#BrexitBritain' outperforming the euro area again 😉
https://twitter.com/julianHjessop/status/1627982750006366208?s=20
There isn't really any conversion therapy that isn't "religious based".
And. What about those who sincerely want to be converted, and believe they can be, based on their Faith?
Don't they have freedom of choice?
The issue is the coercive, forced "therapy", often instigated by parents.
Which is where the rights of the under 16's to medical autonomy comes in.
And we are back where we started.
She's even more toasty than she was before.
The SNP has been hegemonic for a decade, the internal feuds and corruption will be profound (this always happens when parties dominate for too long, it is not a dig at the Nits). All this shit will now go public
Haggis and Popcorn for all
All very strange.
It's almost as if there is a sensible middle ground to be found for Self ID with some safeguards.
Some psychiatrists have been attacked for questioning whether someone is trans or not - to some even saying "I don't think you are trans" is unacceptable.
That it’s not en vogue to be anti gay marriage in high office is a reflection of the attitudes of the electorate rather than a disqualification per se.
Is she making a secret bid for the hitherto unsuspected Taliban voters in and around Dundee?
And it can't help but filter into policy. For example married couples allowance etc etc.
I certainly waited until marriage before having children, but many of my friends and peers did not. They did nothing wrong in my eyes.
What Forbes doesn't seem to understand is that there's nothing wrong having a faith, but keeping that faith private. Its when you, especially in the political sphere, start trying to foist your faith onto others that we have a problem.
So far:
- sex before marriage
- conversion therapy
- GRR
- gay marriage
https://ig.ft.com/russias-war-in-ukraine/
To be in office involves winning contests, ones which have a hierarchy that anyone can join from the moment they are 18. Committees, party members, voters and fellow elected people do all the deciding. All can stand, all can join, all can vote. That's democracy. And that is what bars anyone from office.
I think it's sad and mistaken if in fact X won't be voted in because of a moral or religious principle which is in no way eccentric - as may happen with KF. But what I think doesn't matter. Democracy is what it is. If, on the whole, it likes Boris or Salmond, Orban or Putin, Trump or Berlusconi better than Kate Forbes let it be. Though I think there is a price to pay.
Where there's a problem is when you expect the law of the land to be shaped by your convictions. That is a serious problem when it comes to politics, for anyone who doesn't share your convictions, which given that all religions are minorities is going to be a majority of people not sharing your faith.
As it happens here, her views are very, very eccentric.
He is essentially, religious. His believes in a number of things through faith that they are The Good.
Should he have his faith set aside (somehow) - or is it OK for the voters/party to give him the boot over them?
The Tayside Turnip Tailban - The T3
I humbly return my Scotspertise badge to Scotch guru Stuart Dickson.
Also sodomy, voyeurism, throuples, furries, consensual non consent, edgeplay, CMNF, juicing, sprinkling, lolicom, DDLG, shIbari, kumquats and rigging
As for Forbes it is an interesting chance for us to have a debate on issues of tolerance/intolerance, the protection of minorities and so forth. A debate I fear that in our modern media environment is likely to generate more heat than light. But anyway.....
I'm not sure where the protected characteristic stuff would come in, choosing not to vote for someone can't be deemed discriminatory. Whilst people should have right to practice their faith it seems implausible to protect all possible religious views. There's all kinds of crazy stuff in the Bible and the Quran. More credibly the gay conversion therapy ban, much as I find the practice ridiculous, seems a possible area of debate as it is after all something people freely enter into.
There's also the issue with "What is therapy?"
I would categorise psychiatrists as doctors not therapists.
Trained therapists (and there's a difference here, cos unlike a doctor you don't need any qualifications whatsoever to set up as one), have to have Unconditional Positive Regard. And deal with only the issues the client brings to the room. Not what they think the issue ought to be.
So what do they do if a client pitches up and says "I am having feelings for someone of the same sex and believe it is sinful. Please help me not to have these thoughts."?
It does indeed appear that no-one wants to challenge SX in the commercial and government LEO space, preferring instead to do their own thing on a different basis, that sees them take no business risk.
The mad one is Blue Origin. The whole business of which, with hindsight, seemed to be about Bezos getting his personal joyride - and now it happened, no-one there cares about the bigger project any more.
You then end up with another danger, of an effective private monopoly in launch services which needs regulating at some point. Thankfully, so far SX have been behaving themselves in this regard, including stepping in to launch OneWeb hardware when the Russians got boycotted.
I know an obvious riposte is that nobody who’s lived through the last few years of SNP government would be surprised there’s a range of political views there but people were bizarrely surprised when Nick Clegg actually turned out to be the Orange booker he’d always said he was. I think some voters were even surprised when Johnson turned out not to be the metropolitan liberal that he’d never even pretended to be.
This seems to me exactly the right answer to the question that Forbes was asked, and I'm not sure that Yousaf really needs to say anything else on the subject.