The Labour leader’s motion says the “Labour Party’s standing with the electorate in the country, and its electoral prospects in seats it is required to win in order to secure a parliamentary majority and/or win the next general election, are both significantly diminished should Mr Corbyn be endorsed by the Labour Party as one of its candidates for the next general election”.
It goes on to say Labour’s hopes of victory “are not well served by Mr Corbyn running as a Labour Party candidate”.
Corbyn was understandably furious about previous mention of barring him, and plenty of people who are not fans of his might well agree this is unfair, but in these situations they still cannot seem to avoid hyperbole. See the bit in bold - I am pretty confident that it is ultimately up to the NEC if it chooses to exercise such authority.
Keir Starmer’s statement about my future is a flagrant attack on the democratic rights of Islington North Labour Party members. It is up to them – not party leaders – to decide who their candidate should be. Any attempt to block my candidacy is a denial of due process, and should be opposed by anybody who believes in the value of democracy
The rule book of the party even says 'where the NEC so determines' there shall be a constituency Labour Party, which implies they don't have to even have such a unit. Furthermore, it explicitly can withhold or withdraw endorsement of a candidate in the event of disciplinary proceedings et al - so while Corbyn no doubt can argue the toss about whether the specific rules have been followed, and may even be right, it is not the case that local parties have an unfettered right to decide who their candidate will be.
Why does the government think that its attempt to criminalise possession of nitrous oxide is going to be any more successful than existing bans on possession of cocaine, heroin, ecstasy, cannabis, etc?
What a waste of fecking time.
What about people who drag race cars, and use nitrous oxide as fuel?
Automotive grade N2O has sulfur dioxide and other shit added to it so nobody is huffing that to get high.
I would bet that there is a trade in that - the stupid shit that people will put in their bodies….
A bit complex on the nationality/religion bit, because the star of david is a symbol of a religion as a well as a state. So for some they might be stars of david, and others simultaneously an Israeli flag.
Through my wife's family I've met several Jews who don't identify at all with Israel, and several that do. My wife, for instance, is an ex-Corbynite with very mixed feelings, to put it mildly, about the state, and certainly no big love or identification with it. An older relative is an outspoken supporter, and her brother never even wants to hear about it and is an outspoken critic of the place.
The point about Israel is it is the only majority Jewish nation in the world. For Jews around the world it therefore offers an escape route if anti Semitism grows in their nation of residence which they didn't have during the Holocaust.
That applies to secular liberal Jews as much as Orthodox religious Jews, even when the 2 are at loggerheads over the direction of Israel like now
This is true, and how my wife sees it. She can't stand Netanyahu or the settlers, though, and certainly would never choose it over the UK, unless in the unlikely event there was some Hitler-style takeover. An older relative and his wife love everything about it, and her brother, as mentioned, is at the other extreme. There is a latent sense with even moderate and very liberal Jews that Israel provides a potential refuge, but many of them, that I've met, can't stand the direction it's taken, and don't want to be that publicly closely associated with it.
I was watching a program about the British vegetable growing - the problems caused by energy bills for heating greenhouse.
Has anyone tried using waste heat from power stations for this? Literally half the energy in such stations lost as heat anyway….
I used to know a Polish girl who said their heating was free as it was just some sort of district heat system using the waste heat from the nearby power station. Remember thinking at the time "wait? what? what do we do with ours? ..... oh."
Given all the drug taking around and about I'd have thought that laughing gas is just a deckchair move by the govt.
In Israel I've not been following save to see that there are demonstrations in London about it. What has Netanyahu done? Is he saying that the courts can't strike down government legislation? In which case is this something we have touched on previously whereby a democratically-elected government is trying to abolish elections?
As for the demonstrations in London about it it's interesting that these are presumably British Jews vociferously protesting about Israel and hence it is easy to see the complications of trying to separate out Israel and the Jews.
The laughing gas move is a joke, appropriately. Yet again the government overrules the scientists in a populist authoritarian knee-jerk response. For a government that is supposedly so anti cancel culture, they certainly seem to like banning things and telling people what they can and can't do.
The politicians absolutely should be able to "overrule" scientists. We've just seen what happens when they give into the Cult of the Expert.
No one's arguing they shouldn't be able to.
OLB seems to be.
As, indeed, did most of the country in 2020-1.
Not really. You've simply extrapolated what I have said with respect to one issue, applied it to a different issue, and in addition made out that I've said something I haven't. I didn't say government shouldn't be able to overrule scientific advice, and indeed this isn't my position. I said that in this case they've gone against the advice of their scientists in order to chase tabloid headlines. It's stupid policymaking and will cost the taxpayer more money, further waste police time and gum up the legal system, strengthen criminal gangs and quite possibly kill people. I've offered no opinion on lockdown policy but I would say that while scientific advice should be absolutely front and centre during a global pandemic ultimately it is for our political leaders to decide how to proceed. So I don't think I hold the views you're trying to ascribe to me.
Essentially you're criticising them for weighing up expert advice against what they think will be popular and pluimping for the latter option.
Of course they've done that - they're politicians!
Good politicians get out in front of public opinion, do what they think will be best for the whole country and try to shape opinion through action and argument. The fact that this government operates as you suggest is why this country is becoming more of a shithole every day.
Hmm. They why did SKS amend his position on GRR following the "public backlash".
Hardly "get[ting] out in front of public opinion", now, is it.
Move along, nothing to see here. I'm sure all the examples without an appropriate adult present involved serious risk.
Children as young as eight are being strip-searched by the police, according to a report showing "deeply concerning" and "widespread" failures...
More than half (52%) of the searches took place without an appropriate adult confirmed to be present - a legal requirement, except when there is serious risk to a child's life or welfare.
8 year olds are in the headline, but no figures for 8 year olds. On the data the figure may actually be exactly 1.
In a world where extremes of human behaviour are so bizarre it is entirely possible that one or more searches of 8 year olds are going to happen per year, with good reason, in a population of 60 million. But the job of the BBC (unlike Mail, Guardian etc) is to actually give the poor old licence payer the hard data even if it spoils the story. That is (should be) what makes the BBC unique.
Why does the government think that its attempt to criminalise possession of nitrous oxide is going to be any more successful than existing bans on possession of cocaine, heroin, ecstasy, cannabis, etc?
What a waste of fecking time.
What about people who drag race cars, and use nitrous oxide as fuel? What about hospitals, who use nitrous oxide for pain relief? I’m pretty sure there’s a number of other industrial uses of the stuff too.
Governments should have learned about prohibition from 1920s America.
The hospitals and pharmacies are already stacked with “illegal drugs”
The bloke beating TissuePrice at the next election has been selected apparently (correction, one of several candidates)
NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYME: Adam Jogee, 31, has 5/8ths ethnic ancestry - African, Asian & Caribbean ancestors; also Staffordshire family roots. Cllr in Haringey, London, since 2014; cabinet member for economic devt since 2022. Works for shadow environment minister Ruth Jones.
NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYME: Sue Moffat, 61, local cllr since 2018; writer/director, documentary dramas, social & political issues, New Vic Borderlines Theatre, Stoke; visiting lect Nottingham Univ; res'ch fellow Keele Uni. Grew up as musician; studied Chetham’s Music School & RNCM
NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYME: Andrew Hammond, 48, consultant, p/t academic, focussing on foreign affairs & climate change; visiting fellow, Warwick Univ; fmr associate, LSE IDEAS. Stood Daventry 2005; Tamworth 2017; fmr spad, Home Sec Charles Clarke, & advised John Reid & John Prescott
I genuinely never thought Starmer would hold the line on Corbyn this much. If Corbyn were not so stubborn Starmer would never have had the opportunity.
Corbyn seems to want to martyr himself. He really does only have himself to blame. I bet SKS cannot believe his luck.
Move along, nothing to see here. I'm sure all the examples without an appropriate adult present involved serious risk.
Children as young as eight are being strip-searched by the police, according to a report showing "deeply concerning" and "widespread" failures...
More than half (52%) of the searches took place without an appropriate adult confirmed to be present - a legal requirement, except when there is serious risk to a child's life or welfare.
8 year olds are in the headline, but no figures for 8 year olds. On the data the figure may actually be exactly 1.
In a world where extremes of human behaviour are so bizarre it is entirely possible that one or more searches of 8 year olds are going to happen per year, with good reason, in a population of 60 million. But the job of the BBC (unlike Mail, Guardian etc) is to actually give the poor old licence payer the hard data even if it spoils the story. That is (should be) what makes the BBC unique.
My principle concern was not that the searches were definitely unjustified - children can be used by criminals after all - but that however old the children are by the admission of the police responses the legal requirements were not met for the searches but they took place anyway - I find it hard to believe that every single one of those was when there was serious risk to life or welfare.
I was watching a program about the British vegetable growing - the problems caused by energy bills for heating greenhouse.
Has anyone tried using waste heat from power stations for this? Literally half the energy in such stations lost as heat anyway….
I used to know a Polish girl who said their heating was free as it was just some sort of district heat system using the waste heat from the nearby power station. Remember thinking at the time "wait? what? what do we do with ours? ..... oh."
A possible attraction of mini nukes (assuming they're made sufficiently safe). Small enough to build within urban centres, unlike the average power station.
Given all the drug taking around and about I'd have thought that laughing gas is just a deckchair move by the govt.
In Israel I've not been following save to see that there are demonstrations in London about it. What has Netanyahu done? Is he saying that the courts can't strike down government legislation? In which case is this something we have touched on previously whereby a democratically-elected government is trying to abolish elections?
As for the demonstrations in London about it it's interesting that these are presumably British Jews vociferously protesting about Israel and hence it is easy to see the complications of trying to separate out Israel and the Jews.
The laughing gas move is a joke, appropriately. Yet again the government overrules the scientists in a populist authoritarian knee-jerk response. For a government that is supposedly so anti cancel culture, they certainly seem to like banning things and telling people what they can and can't do.
The politicians absolutely should be able to "overrule" scientists. We've just seen what happens when they give into the Cult of the Expert.
Drugs policy is a mess. Scientists can help us come up with a more rational policy by providing evidence on the relative harm of various substances - which is surely the appropriate metric against which to judge how and when government regulation in this area should be employed. Instead we have a government that seems to operate solely on the basis of banning
anything that it's elderly client voters don't like.
The big problem with laughing gas is the litter associated with it. A better policy would have been to fine the manufacturers for the clean up (polluter pays principle) - with revenues going directly to local authority street cleaning departments. The manufacturers would soon design a more sustainable (recycle?) model.
If the issue is litter then a ban on dogs, cigarettes and fast food would be a better place to start.
Ban bloody cats. At least most dog owners pick up Fido’s shit. Cats just go out and take a dump wherever they feel like. Usually someone else’s lawn.
Given all the drug taking around and about I'd have thought that laughing gas is just a deckchair move by the govt.
In Israel I've not been following save to see that there are demonstrations in London about it. What has Netanyahu done? Is he saying that the courts can't strike down government legislation? In which case is this something we have touched on previously whereby a democratically-elected government is trying to abolish elections?
As for the demonstrations in London about it it's interesting that these are presumably British Jews vociferously protesting about Israel and hence it is easy to see the complications of trying to separate out Israel and the Jews.
The laughing gas move is a joke, appropriately. Yet again the government overrules the scientists in a populist authoritarian knee-jerk response. For a government that is supposedly so anti cancel culture, they certainly seem to like banning things and telling people what they can and can't do.
The politicians absolutely should be able to "overrule" scientists. We've just seen what happens when they give into the Cult of the Expert.
No one's arguing they shouldn't be able to.
OLB seems to be.
As, indeed, did most of the country in 2020-1.
Not really. You've simply extrapolated what I have said with respect to one issue, applied it to a different issue, and in addition made out that I've said something I haven't. I didn't say government shouldn't be able to overrule scientific advice, and indeed this isn't my position. I said that in this case they've gone against the advice of their scientists in order to chase tabloid headlines. It's stupid policymaking and will cost the taxpayer more money, further waste police time and gum up the legal system, strengthen criminal gangs and quite possibly kill people. I've offered no opinion on lockdown policy but I would say that while scientific advice should be absolutely front and centre during a global pandemic ultimately it is for our political leaders to decide how to proceed. So I don't think I hold the views you're trying to ascribe to me.
Essentially you're criticising them for weighing up expert advice against what they think will be popular and pluimping for the latter option.
Of course they've done that - they're politicians!
Good politicians get out in front of public opinion, do what they think will be best for the whole country and try to shape opinion through action and argument. The fact that this government operates as you suggest is why this country is becoming more of a shithole every day.
Well, never let it be said that you're not an optimist.
By your standards, we have no good politicians. Sir Keir has had, for at least the last year, the perfect opportunity to act as you say a good politician does. Instead, cheered on by his party's supporters, he has deliberately done and said as little as possible, focusing on trying to win the next election by default.
That's fair. He is overly cautious. I didn't vote for him as leader. The Tories need to go but I don't hold out great hopes for the next Labour government, or indeed for the long term future of this country. We seem to be permanently in thrall to ill-informed voters and their worst prejudices, with our politicians never missing an opportunity to make a stupid, short-sighted decision. As you might gather, I don't think I am an optimist.
Given all the drug taking around and about I'd have thought that laughing gas is just a deckchair move by the govt.
In Israel I've not been following save to see that there are demonstrations in London about it. What has Netanyahu done? Is he saying that the courts can't strike down government legislation? In which case is this something we have touched on previously whereby a democratically-elected government is trying to abolish elections?
As for the demonstrations in London about it it's interesting that these are presumably British Jews vociferously protesting about Israel and hence it is easy to see the complications of trying to separate out Israel and the Jews.
The laughing gas move is a joke, appropriately. Yet again the government overrules the scientists in a populist authoritarian knee-jerk response. For a government that is supposedly so anti cancel culture, they certainly seem to like banning things and telling people what they can and can't do.
The politicians absolutely should be able to "overrule" scientists. We've just seen what happens when they give into the Cult of the Expert.
No one's arguing they shouldn't be able to.
OLB seems to be.
As, indeed, did most of the country in 2020-1.
Not really. You've simply extrapolated what I have said with respect to one issue, applied it to a different issue, and in addition made out that I've said something I haven't. I didn't say government shouldn't be able to overrule scientific advice, and indeed this isn't my position. I said that in this case they've gone against the advice of their scientists in order to chase tabloid headlines. It's stupid policymaking and will cost the taxpayer more money, further waste police time and gum up the legal system, strengthen criminal gangs and quite possibly kill people. I've offered no opinion on lockdown policy but I would say that while scientific advice should be absolutely front and centre during a global pandemic ultimately it is for our political leaders to decide how to proceed. So I don't think I hold the views you're trying to ascribe to me.
Essentially you're criticising them for weighing up expert advice against what they think will be popular and pluimping for the latter option.
Of course they've done that - they're politicians!
Good politicians get out in front of public opinion, do what they think will be best for the whole country and try to shape opinion through action and argument. The fact that this government operates as you suggest is why this country is becoming more of a shithole every day.
Hmm. They why did SKS amend his position on GRR following the "public backlash".
Hardly "get[ting] out in front of public opinion", now, is it.
They won't manage it ever time, but they could try more often.
I was watching a program about the British vegetable growing - the problems caused by energy bills for heating greenhouse.
Has anyone tried using waste heat from power stations for this? Literally half the energy in such stations lost as heat anyway….
I used to know a Polish girl who said their heating was free as it was just some sort of district heat system using the waste heat from the nearby power station. Remember thinking at the time "wait? what? what do we do with ours? ..... oh."
A possible attraction of mini nukes (assuming they're made sufficiently safe). Small enough to build within urban centres, unlike the average power station.
Greenhouses would work very well in the huge empty spaces around nuclear power stations.
I genuinely never thought Starmer would hold the line on Corbyn this much. If Corbyn were not so stubborn Starmer would never have had the opportunity.
Corbyn seems to want to martyr himself. He really does only have himself to blame. I bet SKS cannot believe his luck.
Is it worth a fiver on the Tories and Lib Dems to win Islington North, if Corbyn stands as an independent against the official Labour candidate?
The Labour leader’s motion says the “Labour Party’s standing with the electorate in the country, and its electoral prospects in seats it is required to win in order to secure a parliamentary majority and/or win the next general election, are both significantly diminished should Mr Corbyn be endorsed by the Labour Party as one of its candidates for the next general election”.
It goes on to say Labour’s hopes of victory “are not well served by Mr Corbyn running as a Labour Party candidate”.
Corbyn was understandably furious about previous mention of barring him, and plenty of people who are not fans of his might well agree this is unfair, but in these situations they still cannot seem to avoid hyperbole. See the bit in bold - I am pretty confident that it is ultimately up to the NEC if it chooses to exercise such authority.
Keir Starmer’s statement about my future is a flagrant attack on the democratic rights of Islington North Labour Party members. It is up to them – not party leaders – to decide who their candidate should be. Any attempt to block my candidacy is a denial of due process, and should be opposed by anybody who believes in the value of democracy
The rule book of the party even says 'where the NEC so determines' there shall be a constituency Labour Party, which implies they don't have to even have such a unit. Furthermore, it explicitly can withhold or withdraw endorsement of a candidate in the event of disciplinary proceedings et al - so while Corbyn no doubt can argue the toss about whether the specific rules have been followed, and may even be right, it is not the case that local parties have an unfettered right to decide who their candidate will be.
Yep - the rules are very clear on the subject and Jezbollah or indeed any other prospective candidate can only be selected with the approval of the NEC.
The hard left understood this very well, and control of the NEC was something they battled very hard to obtain...
I genuinely never thought Starmer would hold the line on Corbyn this much. If Corbyn were not so stubborn Starmer would never have had the opportunity.
Corbyn seems to want to martyr himself. He really does only have himself to blame. I bet SKS cannot believe his luck.
Is it worth a fiver on the Tories and Lib Dems to win Islington North, if Corbyn stands as an independent against the official Labour candidate?
I would expect Corbyn to be re elected as an Independent in his constituency if Starmer and the NEC do prevent him standing as the Labour Party candidate there again.
Livingstone of course won the London Mayoralty in 2000 as an Independent v Frank Dobson as official Labour candidate and Blair had to let him back into Labour in the end
I was watching a program about the British vegetable growing - the problems caused by energy bills for heating greenhouse.
Has anyone tried using waste heat from power stations for this? Literally half the energy in such stations lost as heat anyway….
Well... thirty or so years ago, I was involved (in a minor way (*)) with a scheme at a factory that had its own power station on site. AFAICR there was no, or minimal, low-pressure turbines, and the steam was sent around the factory for other processes to use (it was said they either got their steam, or electricity, for free).
What came out the other end was a lot of warm water that had to be sent to some cooling tower (cubes, actually). Someone had the idea to set up a fish farm on part of the site, using the warm water to grow fish. There were these very large bladders that were filled with water, inside of which were the fish at varying stages of development. The fish were then piped between the bladders.
It was an interesting scheme, but my involvement ended before I got to know if it was much of a success.
(*) At the connecting pipes and burying them level.
I genuinely never thought Starmer would hold the line on Corbyn this much. If Corbyn were not so stubborn Starmer would never have had the opportunity.
Corbyn seems to want to martyr himself. He really does only have himself to blame. I bet SKS cannot believe his luck.
Is it worth a fiver on the Tories and Lib Dems to win Islington North, if Corbyn stands as an independent against the official Labour candidate?
In 2005 the LDs got as high as 30% it seems, but you could now split the Labour vote nearly in half and still have them win. I'd think Corbyn winning as as Independent would be more likely.
I hope he does stand - by pretty much all accounts he has been a good constituency MP (I should hope so after 30+ years on the backbenches), and a true test of personal vote would be interesting.
Given all the drug taking around and about I'd have thought that laughing gas is just a deckchair move by the govt.
In Israel I've not been following save to see that there are demonstrations in London about it. What has Netanyahu done? Is he saying that the courts can't strike down government legislation? In which case is this something we have touched on previously whereby a democratically-elected government is trying to abolish elections?
As for the demonstrations in London about it it's interesting that these are presumably British Jews vociferously protesting about Israel and hence it is easy to see the complications of trying to separate out Israel and the Jews.
The laughing gas move is a joke, appropriately. Yet again the government overrules the scientists in a populist authoritarian knee-jerk response. For a government that is supposedly so anti cancel culture, they certainly seem to like banning things and telling people what they can and can't do.
The politicians absolutely should be able to "overrule" scientists. We've just seen what happens when they give into the Cult of the Expert.
No one's arguing they shouldn't be able to.
OLB seems to be.
As, indeed, did most of the country in 2020-1.
Not really. You've simply extrapolated what I have said with respect to one issue, applied it to a different issue, and in addition made out that I've said something I haven't. I didn't say government shouldn't be able to overrule scientific advice, and indeed this isn't my position. I said that in this case they've gone against the advice of their scientists in order to chase tabloid headlines. It's stupid policymaking and will cost the taxpayer more money, further waste police time and gum up the legal system, strengthen criminal gangs and quite possibly kill people. I've offered no opinion on lockdown policy but I would say that while scientific advice should be absolutely front and centre during a global pandemic ultimately it is for our political leaders to decide how to proceed. So I don't think I hold the views you're trying to ascribe to me.
Essentially you're criticising them for weighing up expert advice against what they think will be popular and pluimping for the latter option.
Of course they've done that - they're politicians!
Good politicians get out in front of public opinion, do what they think will be best for the whole country and try to shape opinion through action and argument. The fact that this government operates as you suggest is why this country is becoming more of a shithole every day.
Well, never let it be said that you're not an optimist.
By your standards, we have no good politicians. Sir Keir has had, for at least the last year, the perfect opportunity to act as you say a good politician does. Instead, cheered on by his party's supporters, he has deliberately done and said as little as possible, focusing on trying to win the next election by default.
That's fair. He is overly cautious. I didn't vote for him as leader. The Tories need to go but I don't hold out great hopes for the next Labour government, or indeed for the long term future of this country. We seem to be permanently in thrall to ill-informed voters and their worst prejudices, with our politicians never missing an opportunity to make a stupid, short-sighted decision. As you might gather, I don't think I am an optimist.
That's the problem with democracy - ill-informed voters.
There is merit in the Shell, Unilever and other multinationals method. The top management emerge, promoted by their peers. Employees and customers can't vote for them. Though shareholders in theory could remove them, in practice they don't. China has a similar system. It competes with democracy. There are pros and cons.
Given all the drug taking around and about I'd have thought that laughing gas is just a deckchair move by the govt.
In Israel I've not been following save to see that there are demonstrations in London about it. What has Netanyahu done? Is he saying that the courts can't strike down government legislation? In which case is this something we have touched on previously whereby a democratically-elected government is trying to abolish elections?
As for the demonstrations in London about it it's interesting that these are presumably British Jews vociferously protesting about Israel and hence it is easy to see the complications of trying to separate out Israel and the Jews.
The laughing gas move is a joke, appropriately. Yet again the government overrules the scientists in a populist authoritarian knee-jerk response. For a government that is supposedly so anti cancel culture, they certainly seem to like banning things and telling people what they can and can't do.
The politicians absolutely should be able to "overrule" scientists. We've just seen what happens when they give into the Cult of the Expert.
Drugs policy is a mess. Scientists can help us come up with a more rational policy by providing evidence on the relative harm of various substances - which is surely the appropriate metric against which to judge how and when government regulation in this area should be employed. Instead we have a government that seems to operate solely on the basis of banning
anything that it's elderly client voters don't like.
The big problem with laughing gas is the litter associated with it. A better policy would have been to fine the manufacturers for the clean up (polluter pays principle) - with revenues going directly to local authority street cleaning departments. The manufacturers would soon design a more sustainable (recycle?) model.
If the issue is litter then a ban on dogs, cigarettes and fast food would be a better place to start.
Ban bloody cats. At least most dog owners pick up Fido’s shit. Cats just go out and take a dump wherever they feel like. Usually someone else’s lawn.
There is one guaranteed way to avoid having cats shit in your garden. Get a cat.
I genuinely never thought Starmer would hold the line on Corbyn this much. If Corbyn were not so stubborn Starmer would never have had the opportunity.
Corbyn seems to want to martyr himself. He really does only have himself to blame. I bet SKS cannot believe his luck.
Is it worth a fiver on the Tories and Lib Dems to win Islington North, if Corbyn stands as an independent against the official Labour candidate?
I would expect Corbyn to be re elected as an Independent in his constituency if Starmer and the NEC do prevent him standing as the Labour Party candidate there again.
Livingstone of course won the London Mayoralty in 2000 as an Independent v Frank Dobson as official Labour candidate and Blair had to let him back into Labour in the end
Its possible! He could pull in support from various hard left groups - though I don't envisage any Campaign Group MPs to defect in solidarity.
Corbyn as an independent is what we already have, and I expect he will carry on voting with the Tories as he has done for decades.
I was watching a program about the British vegetable growing - the problems caused by energy bills for heating greenhouse.
Has anyone tried using waste heat from power stations for this? Literally half the energy in such stations lost as heat anyway….
Well... thirty or so years ago, I was involved (in a minor way (*)) with a scheme at a factory that had its own power station on site. AFAICR there was no, or minimal, low-pressure turbines, and the steam was sent around the factory for other processes to use (it was said they either got their steam, or electricity, for free).
What came out the other end was a lot of warm water that had to be sent to some cooling tower (cubes, actually). Someone had the idea to set up a fish farm on part of the site, using the warm water to grow fish. There were these very large bladders that were filled with water, inside of which were the fish at varying stages of development. The fish were then piped between the bladders.
It was an interesting scheme, but my involvement ended before I got to know if it was much of a success.
(*) At the connecting pipes and burying them level.
Is there not still a piped steam system in large parts of Manhattan, that’s used for space heating and hot water?
I genuinely never thought Starmer would hold the line on Corbyn this much. If Corbyn were not so stubborn Starmer would never have had the opportunity.
Corbyn seems to want to martyr himself. He really does only have himself to blame. I bet SKS cannot believe his luck.
For as much as he has spent most of his life in the Labour Party I fear he won't actually stand now, despite the humiliation if this passes. He has his ill named Peace & Justice Project and all his other groups, and people will stop badgering him about hanging around with all those awful people who he accidentally bumps into at various events.
I was watching a program about the British vegetable growing - the problems caused by energy bills for heating greenhouse.
Has anyone tried using waste heat from power stations for this? Literally half the energy in such stations lost as heat anyway….
Well... thirty or so years ago, I was involved (in a minor way (*)) with a scheme at a factory that had its own power station on site. AFAICR there was no, or minimal, low-pressure turbines, and the steam was sent around the factory for other processes to use (it was said they either got their steam, or electricity, for free).
What came out the other end was a lot of warm water that had to be sent to some cooling tower (cubes, actually). Someone had the idea to set up a fish farm on part of the site, using the warm water to grow fish. There were these very large bladders that were filled with water, inside of which were the fish at varying stages of development. The fish were then piped between the bladders.
It was an interesting scheme, but my involvement ended before I got to know if it was much of a success.
(*) At the connecting pipes and burying them level.
Pilkington's got there first.
Well, kind of.
There used to be a big population of tropical fish in the canal at St Helens near to the warm water discharge from the glass factory.
I genuinely never thought Starmer would hold the line on Corbyn this much. If Corbyn were not so stubborn Starmer would never have had the opportunity.
Corbyn seems to want to martyr himself. He really does only have himself to blame. I bet SKS cannot believe his luck.
Is it worth a fiver on the Tories and Lib Dems to win Islington North, if Corbyn stands as an independent against the official Labour candidate?
I would expect Corbyn to be re elected as an Independent in his constituency if Starmer and the NEC do prevent him standing as the Labour Party candidate there again
On this, I agree with you.
Cf Dennis Canavan in Falkirk West, having been prevented from standing by the New Labour Party, won with over 50 per cent of the vote.
Or Peter Law in Blaenau Gwent, having been prevented from standing by the New Labour Party, won with over 50 per cent of the vote.
I think Corbyn would win with more than 50 per cent of the vote.
Why does the government think that its attempt to criminalise possession of nitrous oxide is going to be any more successful than existing bans on possession of cocaine, heroin, ecstasy, cannabis, etc?
What a waste of fecking time.
What about people who drag race cars, and use nitrous oxide as fuel? What about hospitals, who use nitrous oxide for pain relief? I’m pretty sure there’s a number of other industrial uses of the stuff too.
Governments should have learned about prohibition from 1920s America.
The hospitals and pharmacies are already stacked with “illegal drugs”
Diamorphine and Novacaine say hi
Not a lot of cannabis, though. In my experience, anyway!
I genuinely never thought Starmer would hold the line on Corbyn this much. If Corbyn were not so stubborn Starmer would never have had the opportunity.
Corbyn seems to want to martyr himself. He really does only have himself to blame. I bet SKS cannot believe his luck.
Is it worth a fiver on the Tories and Lib Dems to win Islington North, if Corbyn stands as an independent against the official Labour candidate?
I would expect Corbyn to be re elected as an Independent in his constituency if Starmer and the NEC do prevent him standing as the Labour Party candidate there again.
Livingstone of course won the London Mayoralty in 2000 as an Independent v Frank Dobson as official Labour candidate and Blair had to let him back into Labour in the end
I now have a vision of Corbyn standing as an independent candidate for Mayor of London…. Ho hum would that set the cat among the pigeons…
Given all the drug taking around and about I'd have thought that laughing gas is just a deckchair move by the govt.
In Israel I've not been following save to see that there are demonstrations in London about it. What has Netanyahu done? Is he saying that the courts can't strike down government legislation? In which case is this something we have touched on previously whereby a democratically-elected government is trying to abolish elections?
As for the demonstrations in London about it it's interesting that these are presumably British Jews vociferously protesting about Israel and hence it is easy to see the complications of trying to separate out Israel and the Jews.
The laughing gas move is a joke, appropriately. Yet again the government overrules the scientists in a populist authoritarian knee-jerk response. For a government that is supposedly so anti cancel culture, they certainly seem to like banning things and telling people what they can and can't do.
The politicians absolutely should be able to "overrule" scientists. We've just seen what happens when they give into the Cult of the Expert.
No one's arguing they shouldn't be able to.
OLB seems to be.
As, indeed, did most of the country in 2020-1.
Not really. You've simply extrapolated what I have said with respect to one issue, applied it to a different issue, and in addition made out that I've said something I haven't. I didn't say government shouldn't be able to overrule scientific advice, and indeed this isn't my position. I said that in this case they've gone against the advice of their scientists in order to chase tabloid headlines. It's stupid policymaking and will cost the taxpayer more money, further waste police time and gum up the legal system, strengthen criminal gangs and quite possibly kill people. I've offered no opinion on lockdown policy but I would say that while scientific advice should be absolutely front and centre during a global pandemic ultimately it is for our political leaders to decide how to proceed. So I don't think I hold the views you're trying to ascribe to me.
Essentially you're criticising them for weighing up expert advice against what they think will be popular and pluimping for the latter option.
Of course they've done that - they're politicians!
Good politicians get out in front of public opinion, do what they think will be best for the whole country and try to shape opinion through action and argument. The fact that this government operates as you suggest is why this country is becoming more of a shithole every day.
Well, never let it be said that you're not an optimist.
By your standards, we have no good politicians. Sir Keir has had, for at least the last year, the perfect opportunity to act as you say a good politician does. Instead, cheered on by his party's supporters, he has deliberately done and said as little as possible, focusing on trying to win the next election by default.
That's fair. He is overly cautious. I didn't vote for him as leader. The Tories need to go but I don't hold out great hopes for the next Labour government, or indeed for the long term future of this country. We seem to be permanently in thrall to ill-informed voters and their worst prejudices, with our politicians never missing an opportunity to make a stupid, short-sighted decision. As you might gather, I don't think I am an optimist.
That's the problem with democracy - ill-informed voters.
There is merit in the Shell, Unilever and other multinationals method. The top management emerge, promoted by their peers. Employees and customers can't vote for them. Though shareholders in theory could remove them, in practice they don't. China has a similar system. It competes with democracy. There are pros and cons.
I still think democracy is the best system both morally and in terms of outcomes, but it needs to be combined with well informed voters and enlightened political leadership to deliver the best results. Right now this country seems to be caught in a downwards spiral of angry, ill informed voters, pandering and opportunistic politicians and stupid policies. It is very depressing.
I genuinely never thought Starmer would hold the line on Corbyn this much. If Corbyn were not so stubborn Starmer would never have had the opportunity.
Corbyn seems to want to martyr himself. He really does only have himself to blame. I bet SKS cannot believe his luck.
Is it worth a fiver on the Tories and Lib Dems to win Islington North, if Corbyn stands as an independent against the official Labour candidate?
I would expect Corbyn to be re elected as an Independent in his constituency if Starmer and the NEC do prevent him standing as the Labour Party candidate there again
On this, I agree with you.
Cf Dennis Canavan in Falkirk West, having been prevented from standing by the New Labour Party, won with over 50 per cent of the vote.
Or Peter Law in Blaenau Gwent, having been prevented from standing by the New Labour Party, won with over 50 per cent of the vote.
I think Corbyn would win with more than 50 per cent of the vote.
It wouldn't even be that upsetting to Starmer. Losing Islington North to such a local factor would not impact whether he wins overall, probably flushes out a few other factional opponents from standing as candidates, and blunts a key Tory attack.
On this one issue he is pretty bold.
Labourlist have picked a good image for the story.
I genuinely never thought Starmer would hold the line on Corbyn this much. If Corbyn were not so stubborn Starmer would never have had the opportunity.
Corbyn seems to want to martyr himself. He really does only have himself to blame. I bet SKS cannot believe his luck.
Is it worth a fiver on the Tories and Lib Dems to win Islington North, if Corbyn stands as an independent against the official Labour candidate?
I would expect Corbyn to be re elected as an Independent in his constituency if Starmer and the NEC do prevent him standing as the Labour Party candidate there again.
Livingstone of course won the London Mayoralty in 2000 as an Independent v Frank Dobson as official Labour candidate and Blair had to let him back into Labour in the end
Couple of occasions in the recent past in South Wales, where this happened.
I genuinely never thought Starmer would hold the line on Corbyn this much. If Corbyn were not so stubborn Starmer would never have had the opportunity.
Corbyn seems to want to martyr himself. He really does only have himself to blame. I bet SKS cannot believe his luck.
Is it worth a fiver on the Tories and Lib Dems to win Islington North, if Corbyn stands as an independent against the official Labour candidate?
I would expect Corbyn to be re elected as an Independent in his constituency if Starmer and the NEC do prevent him standing as the Labour Party candidate there again.
Livingstone of course won the London Mayoralty in 2000 as an Independent v Frank Dobson as official Labour candidate and Blair had to let him back into Labour in the end
I now have a vision of Corbyn standing as an independent candidate for Mayor of London…. Ho hum would that set the cat among the pigeons…
Corbyn household Christmas 2024.
"Look, Piers, I'm not saying I'm better than you, I'm just saying that I was at least able to get more votes than Count Binface"
I was watching a program about the British vegetable growing - the problems caused by energy bills for heating greenhouse.
Has anyone tried using waste heat from power stations for this? Literally half the energy in such stations lost as heat anyway….
Well... thirty or so years ago, I was involved (in a minor way (*)) with a scheme at a factory that had its own power station on site. AFAICR there was no, or minimal, low-pressure turbines, and the steam was sent around the factory for other processes to use (it was said they either got their steam, or electricity, for free).
What came out the other end was a lot of warm water that had to be sent to some cooling tower (cubes, actually). Someone had the idea to set up a fish farm on part of the site, using the warm water to grow fish. There were these very large bladders that were filled with water, inside of which were the fish at varying stages of development. The fish were then piped between the bladders.
It was an interesting scheme, but my involvement ended before I got to know if it was much of a success.
(*) At the connecting pipes and burying them level.
Pilkington's got there first.
Well, kind of.
There used to be a big population of tropical fish in the canal at St Helens near to the warm water discharge from the glass factory.
The fish might have ben there for a reason. In the factory I'm talking about, there were fish in the outlet culverts before they reached the river. Water quality samples were taken from the outlet culvert regularly (I think twice daily), but a much better and immediate signs of pollution problems was the fish behaviour; particularly if they started floating belly-up...
Allegedly Severn Trent once accused the factory of releasing pollution into the river and killing a load of riverine fish. The factory pointed out that the fish in their culverts were fine, and that the fish *upstream* of the outlets had died. In fact, they died all the way up to the discharge from the water company's sewage works...
Given all the drug taking around and about I'd have thought that laughing gas is just a deckchair move by the govt.
In Israel I've not been following save to see that there are demonstrations in London about it. What has Netanyahu done? Is he saying that the courts can't strike down government legislation? In which case is this something we have touched on previously whereby a democratically-elected government is trying to abolish elections?
As for the demonstrations in London about it it's interesting that these are presumably British Jews vociferously protesting about Israel and hence it is easy to see the complications of trying to separate out Israel and the Jews.
The laughing gas move is a joke, appropriately. Yet again the government overrules the scientists in a populist authoritarian knee-jerk response. For a government that is supposedly so anti cancel culture, they certainly seem to like banning things and telling people what they can and can't do.
The politicians absolutely should be able to "overrule" scientists. We've just seen what happens when they give into the Cult of the Expert.
No one's arguing they shouldn't be able to.
OLB seems to be.
As, indeed, did most of the country in 2020-1.
Not really. You've simply extrapolated what I have said with respect to one issue, applied it to a different issue, and in addition made out that I've said something I haven't. I didn't say government shouldn't be able to overrule scientific advice, and indeed this isn't my position. I said that in this case they've gone against the advice of their scientists in order to chase tabloid headlines. It's stupid policymaking and will cost the taxpayer more money, further waste police time and gum up the legal system, strengthen criminal gangs and quite possibly kill people. I've offered no opinion on lockdown policy but I would say that while scientific advice should be absolutely front and centre during a global pandemic ultimately it is for our political leaders to decide how to proceed. So I don't think I hold the views you're trying to ascribe to me.
Essentially you're criticising them for weighing up expert advice against what they think will be popular and pluimping for the latter option.
Of course they've done that - they're politicians!
Good politicians get out in front of public opinion, do what they think will be best for the whole country and try to shape opinion through action and argument. The fact that this government operates as you suggest is why this country is becoming more of a shithole every day.
Well, never let it be said that you're not an optimist.
By your standards, we have no good politicians. Sir Keir has had, for at least the last year, the perfect opportunity to act as you say a good politician does. Instead, cheered on by his party's supporters, he has deliberately done and said as little as possible, focusing on trying to win the next election by default.
That's fair. He is overly cautious. I didn't vote for him as leader. The Tories need to go but I don't hold out great hopes for the next Labour government, or indeed for the long term future of this country. We seem to be permanently in thrall to ill-informed voters and their worst prejudices, with our politicians never missing an opportunity to make a stupid, short-sighted decision. As you might gather, I don't think I am an optimist.
That's the problem with democracy - ill-informed voters.
There is merit in the Shell, Unilever and other multinationals method. The top management emerge, promoted by their peers. Employees and customers can't vote for them. Though shareholders in theory could remove them, in practice they don't. China has a similar system. It competes with democracy. There are pros and cons.
I still think democracy is the best system both morally and in terms of outcomes, but it needs to be combined with well informed voters and enlightened political leadership to deliver the best results. Right now this country seems to be caught in a downwards spiral of angry, ill informed voters, pandering and opportunistic politicians and stupid policies. It is very depressing.
If you use the level of anti-vaccine sentiment as a proxy for how well informed and rational the electorate is, then the UK is compares very favourably even to most other western democracies.
I genuinely never thought Starmer would hold the line on Corbyn this much. If Corbyn were not so stubborn Starmer would never have had the opportunity.
Corbyn seems to want to martyr himself. He really does only have himself to blame. I bet SKS cannot believe his luck.
Is it worth a fiver on the Tories and Lib Dems to win Islington North, if Corbyn stands as an independent against the official Labour candidate?
I don’t know the area but possibly more likely to be Corbyn himself.
I do have a fear, which is all-too-depressing, that the anti-woke culture wars will stir up a sufficient number of the indignant right to stop a colossal Labour victory. The fact that people endlessly bang on about a pointless sideshow narrative (trans rights), as evidenced on here by carlotta and his stuck needle, is depressing.
However, I suspect that come the General Election proper, the trans issue will burn brightly for a couple of days as the Daily Malicious vents its spleen and then will pass.
Most people will realise that we had all of this nonsense, and exactly the same arguments, with gay rights 40 years ago and that there are FAR more pressing and important matters that we face than whether Steve in the neighbouring town wishes to self-identify as Susan. (I didn't put 'Steve next door' because most people don't have a trans neighbour and never will).
As you were.
Scotland is a good tester for this theory. I kept pointing out that the row over the GRR bill was largely irrelevant as nobody who wasn't shouting cared about it. IRRELEVANT??? they screamed.
And then came the polling. Putting GRR third bottom on the list of voters' concerns. Not an issue for an electorate who (shockingly) care about jobs services and prosperity, not gender ID issues.
For the handful of mouthfoamers who are obsessed by fear it is THE issue. For almost everyone else it is a non-issue politically.
Except voters saw it as the SNP ‘s second top priority second only to independence. Who were the mouth foamers?
You have made the point for me. The polls showed that voters thought it was the SNP's 2nd top priority. For *the voters* it was their 3rd bottom priority.
Voters do not care about this issue. As demonstrated by the polls The SNP went way off piste and if they elect Forbes today the issue gets quickly dropped. Or if they elect Yousaf it gets slowly dropped.
Either way, voters do not care. It is a non-issue for them.
It’s only a non issue if politicians don’t make it one - as the SNP did. Ironically voters while in general support making change of gender easier, they oppose most of the changes that would make it so.
Do you understand how politics works? A party could go out and Make A Stand on an issue. Save the Pound! said William Hague, you MUST be worried about this because I say you are so you must Vote Conservative to Save the Pound!
Nobody cared. Non-issue, didn't move the polls at all. Politicians can make anything they like into an issue, but if it doesn't motivate people to vote, politically its a non-issue. Voters say what they are concerned about and politicians act accordingly, not the other way round.
No matter how many times a politician might ask "Are you thinking what we're thinking" when the answer is "no" they are sunk. Almost nobody in Scotland is thinking as the SNP were on this issue. They just don't care about it, and wish the government would focus on actual issues.
I expect as the only party that (mostly) opposed the GRR bill that the SCons will be experiencing a real surge in the polls.
This sort of thing could get dangerous for the Tories - like when a political party promises giveaways you can reach a point where people just do not buy the latest escalation, and then they don't believe the rest either. Posturing as being tough on crime by introducing new laws generally works, but you could just have pushed one too many, and all it will do is remind people that their perception is that the police don't do shit.
They don't, but people can point to a lot of things not happening, and ask why you need more laws. Main takeaway so far from Sunak's Q&A with voters this morning is people raising things *that are already crimes* never being investigated by police... one man suggests govt chasing headlines on laughing gas when nothing ever happens on existing crimes...
I do have a fear, which is all-too-depressing, that the anti-woke culture wars will stir up a sufficient number of the indignant right to stop a colossal Labour victory. The fact that people endlessly bang on about a pointless sideshow narrative (trans rights), as evidenced on here by carlotta and his stuck needle, is depressing.
However, I suspect that come the General Election proper, the trans issue will burn brightly for a couple of days as the Daily Malicious vents its spleen and then will pass.
Most people will realise that we had all of this nonsense, and exactly the same arguments, with gay rights 40 years ago and that there are FAR more pressing and important matters that we face than whether Steve in the neighbouring town wishes to self-identify as Susan. (I didn't put 'Steve next door' because most people don't have a trans neighbour and never will).
As you were.
Scotland is a good tester for this theory. I kept pointing out that the row over the GRR bill was largely irrelevant as nobody who wasn't shouting cared about it. IRRELEVANT??? they screamed.
And then came the polling. Putting GRR third bottom on the list of voters' concerns. Not an issue for an electorate who (shockingly) care about jobs services and prosperity, not gender ID issues.
For the handful of mouthfoamers who are obsessed by fear it is THE issue. For almost everyone else it is a non-issue politically.
Except voters saw it as the SNP ‘s second top priority second only to independence. Who were the mouth foamers?
You have made the point for me. The polls showed that voters thought it was the SNP's 2nd top priority. For *the voters* it was their 3rd bottom priority.
Voters do not care about this issue. As demonstrated by the polls The SNP went way off piste and if they elect Forbes today the issue gets quickly dropped. Or if they elect Yousaf it gets slowly dropped.
Either way, voters do not care. It is a non-issue for them.
It’s only a non issue if politicians don’t make it one - as the SNP did. Ironically voters while in general support making change of gender easier, they oppose most of the changes that would make it so.
Do you understand how politics works? A party could go out and Make A Stand on an issue. Save the Pound! said William Hague, you MUST be worried about this because I say you are so you must Vote Conservative to Save the Pound!
Nobody cared. Non-issue, didn't move the polls at all. Politicians can make anything they like into an issue, but if it doesn't motivate people to vote, politically its a non-issue. Voters say what they are concerned about and politicians act accordingly, not the other way round.
No matter how many times a politician might ask "Are you thinking what we're thinking" when the answer is "no" they are sunk. Almost nobody in Scotland is thinking as the SNP were on this issue. They just don't care about it, and wish the government would focus on actual issues.
I expect as the only party that (mostly) opposed the GRR bill that the SCons will be experiencing a real surge in the polls.
The voters are holding off switching until they see if the religious zealot (tm HYUFD) wins today.
I do have a fear, which is all-too-depressing, that the anti-woke culture wars will stir up a sufficient number of the indignant right to stop a colossal Labour victory. The fact that people endlessly bang on about a pointless sideshow narrative (trans rights), as evidenced on here by carlotta and his stuck needle, is depressing.
However, I suspect that come the General Election proper, the trans issue will burn brightly for a couple of days as the Daily Malicious vents its spleen and then will pass.
Most people will realise that we had all of this nonsense, and exactly the same arguments, with gay rights 40 years ago and that there are FAR more pressing and important matters that we face than whether Steve in the neighbouring town wishes to self-identify as Susan. (I didn't put 'Steve next door' because most people don't have a trans neighbour and never will).
As you were.
Scotland is a good tester for this theory. I kept pointing out that the row over the GRR bill was largely irrelevant as nobody who wasn't shouting cared about it. IRRELEVANT??? they screamed.
And then came the polling. Putting GRR third bottom on the list of voters' concerns. Not an issue for an electorate who (shockingly) care about jobs services and prosperity, not gender ID issues.
For the handful of mouthfoamers who are obsessed by fear it is THE issue. For almost everyone else it is a non-issue politically.
Except voters saw it as the SNP ‘s second top priority second only to independence. Who were the mouth foamers?
You have made the point for me. The polls showed that voters thought it was the SNP's 2nd top priority. For *the voters* it was their 3rd bottom priority.
Voters do not care about this issue. As demonstrated by the polls The SNP went way off piste and if they elect Forbes today the issue gets quickly dropped. Or if they elect Yousaf it gets slowly dropped.
Either way, voters do not care. It is a non-issue for them.
It’s only a non issue if politicians don’t make it one - as the SNP did. Ironically voters while in general support making change of gender easier, they oppose most of the changes that would make it so.
Do you understand how politics works? A party could go out and Make A Stand on an issue. Save the Pound! said William Hague, you MUST be worried about this because I say you are so you must Vote Conservative to Save the Pound!
Nobody cared. Non-issue, didn't move the polls at all. Politicians can make anything they like into an issue, but if it doesn't motivate people to vote, politically its a non-issue. Voters say what they are concerned about and politicians act accordingly, not the other way round.
No matter how many times a politician might ask "Are you thinking what we're thinking" when the answer is "no" they are sunk. Almost nobody in Scotland is thinking as the SNP were on this issue. They just don't care about it, and wish the government would focus on actual issues.
I expect as the only party that (mostly) opposed the GRR bill that the SCons will be experiencing a real surge in the polls.
Why? Voters don't care about that issue. They care about jobs and education and prosperity - so won't be voting Tory because not stupid.
And besides which, the Tories were so split that DRoss had to grant a free vote.
I genuinely never thought Starmer would hold the line on Corbyn this much. If Corbyn were not so stubborn Starmer would never have had the opportunity.
Corbyn seems to want to martyr himself. He really does only have himself to blame. I bet SKS cannot believe his luck.
Is it worth a fiver on the Tories and Lib Dems to win Islington North, if Corbyn stands as an independent against the official Labour candidate?
I would expect Corbyn to be re elected as an Independent in his constituency if Starmer and the NEC do prevent him standing as the Labour Party candidate there again.
Livingstone of course won the London Mayoralty in 2000 as an Independent v Frank Dobson as official Labour candidate and Blair had to let him back into Labour in the end
Would it make much difference in the scheme of things though? Corbyn is no more likely to obey the Labour whip as an official MP than an independent. In fact Sir Keir might prefer Corbyn as an indie - as a kind of monument to his (Sir Keir's) determination to face down militants.
This sort of thing could get dangerous for the Tories - like when a political party promises giveaways you can reach a point where people just do not buy the latest escalation, and then they don't believe the rest either. Posturing as being tough on crime by introducing new laws generally works, but you could just have pushed one too many, and all it will do is remind people that their perception is that the police don't do shit.
They don't, but people can point to a lot of things not happening, and ask why you need more laws. Main takeaway so far from Sunak's Q&A with voters this morning is people raising things *that are already crimes* never being investigated by police... one man suggests govt chasing headlines on laughing gas when nothing ever happens on existing crimes...
This is why Johnson made sure to only do Q+A with very tame audiences. Sunak is a better man, but may well be a worse (less effective) politician.
When the public are decoding the government's spin out loud, that's not a good sign. Partly the impudence but mostly that the code is so easily cracked.
Given all the drug taking around and about I'd have thought that laughing gas is just a deckchair move by the govt.
In Israel I've not been following save to see that there are demonstrations in London about it. What has Netanyahu done? Is he saying that the courts can't strike down government legislation? In which case is this something we have touched on previously whereby a democratically-elected government is trying to abolish elections?
As for the demonstrations in London about it it's interesting that these are presumably British Jews vociferously protesting about Israel and hence it is easy to see the complications of trying to separate out Israel and the Jews.
The laughing gas move is a joke, appropriately. Yet again the government overrules the scientists in a populist authoritarian knee-jerk response. For a government that is supposedly so anti cancel culture, they certainly seem to like banning things and telling people what they can and can't do.
The politicians absolutely should be able to "overrule" scientists. We've just seen what happens when they give into the Cult of the Expert.
No one's arguing they shouldn't be able to.
OLB seems to be.
As, indeed, did most of the country in 2020-1.
Not really. You've simply extrapolated what I have said with respect to one issue, applied it to a different issue, and in addition made out that I've said something I haven't. I didn't say government shouldn't be able to overrule scientific advice, and indeed this isn't my position. I said that in this case they've gone against the advice of their scientists in order to chase tabloid headlines. It's stupid policymaking and will cost the taxpayer more money, further waste police time and gum up the legal system, strengthen criminal gangs and quite possibly kill people. I've offered no opinion on lockdown policy but I would say that while scientific advice should be absolutely front and centre during a global pandemic ultimately it is for our political leaders to decide how to proceed. So I don't think I hold the views you're trying to ascribe to me.
Essentially you're criticising them for weighing up expert advice against what they think will be popular and pluimping for the latter option.
Of course they've done that - they're politicians!
Good politicians get out in front of public opinion, do what they think will be best for the whole country and try to shape opinion through action and argument. The fact that this government operates as you suggest is why this country is becoming more of a shithole every day.
Well, never let it be said that you're not an optimist.
By your standards, we have no good politicians. Sir Keir has had, for at least the last year, the perfect opportunity to act as you say a good politician does. Instead, cheered on by his party's supporters, he has deliberately done and said as little as possible, focusing on trying to win the next election by default.
That's fair. He is overly cautious. I didn't vote for him as leader. The Tories need to go but I don't hold out great hopes for the next Labour government, or indeed for the long term future of this country. We seem to be permanently in thrall to ill-informed voters and their worst prejudices, with our politicians never missing an opportunity to make a stupid, short-sighted decision. As you might gather, I don't think I am an optimist.
That's the problem with democracy - ill-informed voters.
There is merit in the Shell, Unilever and other multinationals method. The top management emerge, promoted by their peers. Employees and customers can't vote for them. Though shareholders in theory could remove them, in practice they don't. China has a similar system. It competes with democracy. There are pros and cons.
I still think democracy is the best system both morally and in terms of outcomes, but it needs to be combined with well informed voters and enlightened political leadership to deliver the best results. Right now this country seems to be caught in a downwards spiral of angry, ill informed voters, pandering and opportunistic politicians and stupid policies. It is very depressing.
Morally - I prefer democracy, but that's the way I've been brought up. On outcomes It's not clear that democracy wins: Economic GDP Life expectancy China 59 in 1970, 77 now and growing. USA 71 in 1970, 79 now and flat.
[Democracy] needs to be combined with well informed voters and enlightened political leadership to deliver the best results. Well ....
I do have a fear, which is all-too-depressing, that the anti-woke culture wars will stir up a sufficient number of the indignant right to stop a colossal Labour victory. The fact that people endlessly bang on about a pointless sideshow narrative (trans rights), as evidenced on here by carlotta and his stuck needle, is depressing.
However, I suspect that come the General Election proper, the trans issue will burn brightly for a couple of days as the Daily Malicious vents its spleen and then will pass.
Most people will realise that we had all of this nonsense, and exactly the same arguments, with gay rights 40 years ago and that there are FAR more pressing and important matters that we face than whether Steve in the neighbouring town wishes to self-identify as Susan. (I didn't put 'Steve next door' because most people don't have a trans neighbour and never will).
As you were.
Scotland is a good tester for this theory. I kept pointing out that the row over the GRR bill was largely irrelevant as nobody who wasn't shouting cared about it. IRRELEVANT??? they screamed.
And then came the polling. Putting GRR third bottom on the list of voters' concerns. Not an issue for an electorate who (shockingly) care about jobs services and prosperity, not gender ID issues.
For the handful of mouthfoamers who are obsessed by fear it is THE issue. For almost everyone else it is a non-issue politically.
Except voters saw it as the SNP ‘s second top priority second only to independence. Who were the mouth foamers?
You have made the point for me. The polls showed that voters thought it was the SNP's 2nd top priority. For *the voters* it was their 3rd bottom priority.
Voters do not care about this issue. As demonstrated by the polls The SNP went way off piste and if they elect Forbes today the issue gets quickly dropped. Or if they elect Yousaf it gets slowly dropped.
Either way, voters do not care. It is a non-issue for them.
It’s only a non issue if politicians don’t make it one - as the SNP did. Ironically voters while in general support making change of gender easier, they oppose most of the changes that would make it so.
Do you understand how politics works? A party could go out and Make A Stand on an issue. Save the Pound! said William Hague, you MUST be worried about this because I say you are so you must Vote Conservative to Save the Pound!
Nobody cared. Non-issue, didn't move the polls at all. Politicians can make anything they like into an issue, but if it doesn't motivate people to vote, politically its a non-issue. Voters say what they are concerned about and politicians act accordingly, not the other way round.
No matter how many times a politician might ask "Are you thinking what we're thinking" when the answer is "no" they are sunk. Almost nobody in Scotland is thinking as the SNP were on this issue. They just don't care about it, and wish the government would focus on actual issues.
I expect as the only party that (mostly) opposed the GRR bill that the SCons will be experiencing a real surge in the polls.
Why? Voters don't care about that issue. They care about jobs and education and prosperity - so won't be voting Tory because not stupid.
And besides which, the Tories were so split that DRoss had to grant a free vote.
I do have a fear, which is all-too-depressing, that the anti-woke culture wars will stir up a sufficient number of the indignant right to stop a colossal Labour victory. The fact that people endlessly bang on about a pointless sideshow narrative (trans rights), as evidenced on here by carlotta and his stuck needle, is depressing.
However, I suspect that come the General Election proper, the trans issue will burn brightly for a couple of days as the Daily Malicious vents its spleen and then will pass.
Most people will realise that we had all of this nonsense, and exactly the same arguments, with gay rights 40 years ago and that there are FAR more pressing and important matters that we face than whether Steve in the neighbouring town wishes to self-identify as Susan. (I didn't put 'Steve next door' because most people don't have a trans neighbour and never will).
As you were.
Scotland is a good tester for this theory. I kept pointing out that the row over the GRR bill was largely irrelevant as nobody who wasn't shouting cared about it. IRRELEVANT??? they screamed.
And then came the polling. Putting GRR third bottom on the list of voters' concerns. Not an issue for an electorate who (shockingly) care about jobs services and prosperity, not gender ID issues.
For the handful of mouthfoamers who are obsessed by fear it is THE issue. For almost everyone else it is a non-issue politically.
Except voters saw it as the SNP ‘s second top priority second only to independence. Who were the mouth foamers?
You have made the point for me. The polls showed that voters thought it was the SNP's 2nd top priority. For *the voters* it was their 3rd bottom priority.
Voters do not care about this issue. As demonstrated by the polls The SNP went way off piste and if they elect Forbes today the issue gets quickly dropped. Or if they elect Yousaf it gets slowly dropped.
Either way, voters do not care. It is a non-issue for them.
It’s only a non issue if politicians don’t make it one - as the SNP did. Ironically voters while in general support making change of gender easier, they oppose most of the changes that would make it so.
Do you understand how politics works? A party could go out and Make A Stand on an issue. Save the Pound! said William Hague, you MUST be worried about this because I say you are so you must Vote Conservative to Save the Pound!
Nobody cared. Non-issue, didn't move the polls at all. Politicians can make anything they like into an issue, but if it doesn't motivate people to vote, politically its a non-issue. Voters say what they are concerned about and politicians act accordingly, not the other way round.
No matter how many times a politician might ask "Are you thinking what we're thinking" when the answer is "no" they are sunk. Almost nobody in Scotland is thinking as the SNP were on this issue. They just don't care about it, and wish the government would focus on actual issues.
I expect as the only party that (mostly) opposed the GRR bill that the SCons will be experiencing a real surge in the polls.
Why? Voters don't care about that issue. They care about jobs and education and prosperity - so won't be voting Tory because not stupid.
And besides which, the Tories were so split that DRoss had to grant a free vote.
The GRR Bill is in reality the reason Sturgeon had to resign as FM and may be replaced in that role by the much more socially conservative Kate Forbes this afternoon
I genuinely never thought Starmer would hold the line on Corbyn this much. If Corbyn were not so stubborn Starmer would never have had the opportunity.
Corbyn seems to want to martyr himself. He really does only have himself to blame. I bet SKS cannot believe his luck.
Is it worth a fiver on the Tories and Lib Dems to win Islington North, if Corbyn stands as an independent against the official Labour candidate?
I would expect Corbyn to be re elected as an Independent in his constituency if Starmer and the NEC do prevent him standing as the Labour Party candidate there again.
Livingstone of course won the London Mayoralty in 2000 as an Independent v Frank Dobson as official Labour candidate and Blair had to let him back into Labour in the end
Would it make much difference in the scheme of things though? Corbyn is no more likely to obey the Labour whip as an official MP than an independent. In fact Sir Keir might prefer Corbyn as an indie - as a kind of monument to his (Sir Keir's) determination to face down militants.
The simple reality is that Jeremy Corbyn has already voted with the Tories against a Labour government hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of times. The idea that keeping him inside the tent would keep him loyal is for the birds - as was the left's hypocritical demands for the majority of Labour MPs to be loyal to his whip.
The guy does what his conscience demands. I respect that even if I disagree so often with his conscience. But when you are so against your own party so often and for so long, you are in the wrong party. He maintained some fantasy about turning it to match his ideas instead of doing what so many of us have done and simply leave.
Given all the drug taking around and about I'd have thought that laughing gas is just a deckchair move by the govt.
In Israel I've not been following save to see that there are demonstrations in London about it. What has Netanyahu done? Is he saying that the courts can't strike down government legislation? In which case is this something we have touched on previously whereby a democratically-elected government is trying to abolish elections?
As for the demonstrations in London about it it's interesting that these are presumably British Jews vociferously protesting about Israel and hence it is easy to see the complications of trying to separate out Israel and the Jews.
The laughing gas move is a joke, appropriately. Yet again the government overrules the scientists in a populist authoritarian knee-jerk response. For a government that is supposedly so anti cancel culture, they certainly seem to like banning things and telling people what they can and can't do.
The politicians absolutely should be able to "overrule" scientists. We've just seen what happens when they give into the Cult of the Expert.
No one's arguing they shouldn't be able to.
OLB seems to be.
As, indeed, did most of the country in 2020-1.
Not really. You've simply extrapolated what I have said with respect to one issue, applied it to a different issue, and in addition made out that I've said something I haven't. I didn't say government shouldn't be able to overrule scientific advice, and indeed this isn't my position. I said that in this case they've gone against the advice of their scientists in order to chase tabloid headlines. It's stupid policymaking and will cost the taxpayer more money, further waste police time and gum up the legal system, strengthen criminal gangs and quite possibly kill people. I've offered no opinion on lockdown policy but I would say that while scientific advice should be absolutely front and centre during a global pandemic ultimately it is for our political leaders to decide how to proceed. So I don't think I hold the views you're trying to ascribe to me.
Essentially you're criticising them for weighing up expert advice against what they think will be popular and pluimping for the latter option.
Of course they've done that - they're politicians!
Good politicians get out in front of public opinion, do what they think will be best for the whole country and try to shape opinion through action and argument. The fact that this government operates as you suggest is why this country is becoming more of a shithole every day.
Well, never let it be said that you're not an optimist.
By your standards, we have no good politicians. Sir Keir has had, for at least the last year, the perfect opportunity to act as you say a good politician does. Instead, cheered on by his party's supporters, he has deliberately done and said as little as possible, focusing on trying to win the next election by default.
That's fair. He is overly cautious. I didn't vote for him as leader. The Tories need to go but I don't hold out great hopes for the next Labour government, or indeed for the long term future of this country. We seem to be permanently in thrall to ill-informed voters and their worst prejudices, with our politicians never missing an opportunity to make a stupid, short-sighted decision. As you might gather, I don't think I am an optimist.
That's the problem with democracy - ill-informed voters.
There is merit in the Shell, Unilever and other multinationals method. The top management emerge, promoted by their peers. Employees and customers can't vote for them. Though shareholders in theory could remove them, in practice they don't. China has a similar system. It competes with democracy. There are pros and cons.
I still think democracy is the best system both morally and in terms of outcomes, but it needs to be combined with well informed voters and enlightened political leadership to deliver the best results. Right now this country seems to be caught in a downwards spiral of angry, ill informed voters, pandering and opportunistic politicians and stupid policies. It is very depressing.
Morally - I prefer democracy, but that's the way I've been brought up. On outcomes It's not clear that democracy wins: Economic GDP Life expectancy China 59 in 1970, 77 now and growing. USA 71 in 1970, 79 now and flat.
On gdp per head both the US and Japan are well ahead of China, the Chinese birthrate is also lower even than most western Nations and China has fewer immigrants percentage wise too
Given all the drug taking around and about I'd have thought that laughing gas is just a deckchair move by the govt.
In Israel I've not been following save to see that there are demonstrations in London about it. What has Netanyahu done? Is he saying that the courts can't strike down government legislation? In which case is this something we have touched on previously whereby a democratically-elected government is trying to abolish elections?
As for the demonstrations in London about it it's interesting that these are presumably British Jews vociferously protesting about Israel and hence it is easy to see the complications of trying to separate out Israel and the Jews.
The laughing gas move is a joke, appropriately. Yet again the government overrules the scientists in a populist authoritarian knee-jerk response. For a government that is supposedly so anti cancel culture, they certainly seem to like banning things and telling people what they can and can't do.
The politicians absolutely should be able to "overrule" scientists. We've just seen what happens when they give into the Cult of the Expert.
No one's arguing they shouldn't be able to.
OLB seems to be.
As, indeed, did most of the country in 2020-1.
Not really. You've simply extrapolated what I have said with respect to one issue, applied it to a different issue, and in addition made out that I've said something I haven't. I didn't say government shouldn't be able to overrule scientific advice, and indeed this isn't my position. I said that in this case they've gone against the advice of their scientists in order to chase tabloid headlines. It's stupid policymaking and will cost the taxpayer more money, further waste police time and gum up the legal system, strengthen criminal gangs and quite possibly kill people. I've offered no opinion on lockdown policy but I would say that while scientific advice should be absolutely front and centre during a global pandemic ultimately it is for our political leaders to decide how to proceed. So I don't think I hold the views you're trying to ascribe to me.
Essentially you're criticising them for weighing up expert advice against what they think will be popular and pluimping for the latter option.
Of course they've done that - they're politicians!
Good politicians get out in front of public opinion, do what they think will be best for the whole country and try to shape opinion through action and argument. The fact that this government operates as you suggest is why this country is becoming more of a shithole every day.
Well, never let it be said that you're not an optimist.
By your standards, we have no good politicians. Sir Keir has had, for at least the last year, the perfect opportunity to act as you say a good politician does. Instead, cheered on by his party's supporters, he has deliberately done and said as little as possible, focusing on trying to win the next election by default.
That's fair. He is overly cautious. I didn't vote for him as leader. The Tories need to go but I don't hold out great hopes for the next Labour government, or indeed for the long term future of this country. We seem to be permanently in thrall to ill-informed voters and their worst prejudices, with our politicians never missing an opportunity to make a stupid, short-sighted decision. As you might gather, I don't think I am an optimist.
That's the problem with democracy - ill-informed voters.
There is merit in the Shell, Unilever and other multinationals method. The top management emerge, promoted by their peers. Employees and customers can't vote for them. Though shareholders in theory could remove them, in practice they don't. China has a similar system. It competes with democracy. There are pros and cons.
I still think democracy is the best system both morally and in terms of outcomes, but it needs to be combined with well informed voters and enlightened political leadership to deliver the best results. Right now this country seems to be caught in a downwards spiral of angry, ill informed voters, pandering and opportunistic politicians and stupid policies. It is very depressing.
Morally - I prefer democracy, but that's the way I've been brought up. On outcomes It's not clear that democracy wins: Economic GDP (snip)Life expectancy China 59 in 1970, 77 now and growing. USA 71 in 1970, 79 now and flat.
A question: given Soviet economic figures were shown to be absolute pants, and Russia's current economic figures appear to have been plucked out of Putin's backside (perhaps that's why he walks funnily on occasion?), how much can we trust China's GDP figures?
Are they compiled under similar processes to western ones?
(I'm not denying China has undergone an economic miracle in the last few decades; just wondering whether such a centralised system is lying to itself.)
I do have a fear, which is all-too-depressing, that the anti-woke culture wars will stir up a sufficient number of the indignant right to stop a colossal Labour victory. The fact that people endlessly bang on about a pointless sideshow narrative (trans rights), as evidenced on here by carlotta and his stuck needle, is depressing.
However, I suspect that come the General Election proper, the trans issue will burn brightly for a couple of days as the Daily Malicious vents its spleen and then will pass.
Most people will realise that we had all of this nonsense, and exactly the same arguments, with gay rights 40 years ago and that there are FAR more pressing and important matters that we face than whether Steve in the neighbouring town wishes to self-identify as Susan. (I didn't put 'Steve next door' because most people don't have a trans neighbour and never will).
As you were.
Scotland is a good tester for this theory. I kept pointing out that the row over the GRR bill was largely irrelevant as nobody who wasn't shouting cared about it. IRRELEVANT??? they screamed.
And then came the polling. Putting GRR third bottom on the list of voters' concerns. Not an issue for an electorate who (shockingly) care about jobs services and prosperity, not gender ID issues.
For the handful of mouthfoamers who are obsessed by fear it is THE issue. For almost everyone else it is a non-issue politically.
Except voters saw it as the SNP ‘s second top priority second only to independence. Who were the mouth foamers?
You have made the point for me. The polls showed that voters thought it was the SNP's 2nd top priority. For *the voters* it was their 3rd bottom priority.
Voters do not care about this issue. As demonstrated by the polls The SNP went way off piste and if they elect Forbes today the issue gets quickly dropped. Or if they elect Yousaf it gets slowly dropped.
Either way, voters do not care. It is a non-issue for them.
It’s only a non issue if politicians don’t make it one - as the SNP did. Ironically voters while in general support making change of gender easier, they oppose most of the changes that would make it so.
Do you understand how politics works? A party could go out and Make A Stand on an issue. Save the Pound! said William Hague, you MUST be worried about this because I say you are so you must Vote Conservative to Save the Pound!
Nobody cared. Non-issue, didn't move the polls at all. Politicians can make anything they like into an issue, but if it doesn't motivate people to vote, politically its a non-issue. Voters say what they are concerned about and politicians act accordingly, not the other way round.
No matter how many times a politician might ask "Are you thinking what we're thinking" when the answer is "no" they are sunk. Almost nobody in Scotland is thinking as the SNP were on this issue. They just don't care about it, and wish the government would focus on actual issues.
I expect as the only party that (mostly) opposed the GRR bill that the SCons will be experiencing a real surge in the polls.
Why? Voters don't care about that issue. They care about jobs and education and prosperity - so won't be voting Tory because not stupid.
And besides which, the Tories were so split that DRoss had to grant a free vote.
The GRR Bill is in reality the reason Sturgeon had to resign as FM and may be replaced in that role by the much more socially conservative Kate Forbes this afternoon
Why don’t you believe what Sturgeon said? Seemed perfectly reasonable to me. One does reach a point in life, where one has just had enough of a particular activity.
I do have a fear, which is all-too-depressing, that the anti-woke culture wars will stir up a sufficient number of the indignant right to stop a colossal Labour victory. The fact that people endlessly bang on about a pointless sideshow narrative (trans rights), as evidenced on here by carlotta and his stuck needle, is depressing.
However, I suspect that come the General Election proper, the trans issue will burn brightly for a couple of days as the Daily Malicious vents its spleen and then will pass.
Most people will realise that we had all of this nonsense, and exactly the same arguments, with gay rights 40 years ago and that there are FAR more pressing and important matters that we face than whether Steve in the neighbouring town wishes to self-identify as Susan. (I didn't put 'Steve next door' because most people don't have a trans neighbour and never will).
As you were.
Scotland is a good tester for this theory. I kept pointing out that the row over the GRR bill was largely irrelevant as nobody who wasn't shouting cared about it. IRRELEVANT??? they screamed.
And then came the polling. Putting GRR third bottom on the list of voters' concerns. Not an issue for an electorate who (shockingly) care about jobs services and prosperity, not gender ID issues.
For the handful of mouthfoamers who are obsessed by fear it is THE issue. For almost everyone else it is a non-issue politically.
Except voters saw it as the SNP ‘s second top priority second only to independence. Who were the mouth foamers?
You have made the point for me. The polls showed that voters thought it was the SNP's 2nd top priority. For *the voters* it was their 3rd bottom priority.
Voters do not care about this issue. As demonstrated by the polls The SNP went way off piste and if they elect Forbes today the issue gets quickly dropped. Or if they elect Yousaf it gets slowly dropped.
Either way, voters do not care. It is a non-issue for them.
It’s only a non issue if politicians don’t make it one - as the SNP did. Ironically voters while in general support making change of gender easier, they oppose most of the changes that would make it so.
Do you understand how politics works? A party could go out and Make A Stand on an issue. Save the Pound! said William Hague, you MUST be worried about this because I say you are so you must Vote Conservative to Save the Pound!
Nobody cared. Non-issue, didn't move the polls at all. Politicians can make anything they like into an issue, but if it doesn't motivate people to vote, politically its a non-issue. Voters say what they are concerned about and politicians act accordingly, not the other way round.
No matter how many times a politician might ask "Are you thinking what we're thinking" when the answer is "no" they are sunk. Almost nobody in Scotland is thinking as the SNP were on this issue. They just don't care about it, and wish the government would focus on actual issues.
I expect as the only party that (mostly) opposed the GRR bill that the SCons will be experiencing a real surge in the polls.
Why? Voters don't care about that issue. They care about jobs and education and prosperity - so won't be voting Tory because not stupid.
And besides which, the Tories were so split that DRoss had to grant a free vote.
The GRR Bill is in reality the reason Sturgeon had to resign as FM and may be replaced in that role by the much more socially conservative Kate Forbes this afternoon
Why don’t you believe what Sturgeon said? Seemed perfectly reasonable to me. One does reach a point in life, where one has just had enough of a particular activity.
I don't think skepticism is entirely unwarranted when the timing is so coincidental. At the very least while it didn't mean she had to resign, the whole affair seems likely to have contributed to her deciding she had had enough of the role - particularly as she is not stepping back from politics.
I do have a fear, which is all-too-depressing, that the anti-woke culture wars will stir up a sufficient number of the indignant right to stop a colossal Labour victory. The fact that people endlessly bang on about a pointless sideshow narrative (trans rights), as evidenced on here by carlotta and his stuck needle, is depressing.
However, I suspect that come the General Election proper, the trans issue will burn brightly for a couple of days as the Daily Malicious vents its spleen and then will pass.
Most people will realise that we had all of this nonsense, and exactly the same arguments, with gay rights 40 years ago and that there are FAR more pressing and important matters that we face than whether Steve in the neighbouring town wishes to self-identify as Susan. (I didn't put 'Steve next door' because most people don't have a trans neighbour and never will).
As you were.
Scotland is a good tester for this theory. I kept pointing out that the row over the GRR bill was largely irrelevant as nobody who wasn't shouting cared about it. IRRELEVANT??? they screamed.
And then came the polling. Putting GRR third bottom on the list of voters' concerns. Not an issue for an electorate who (shockingly) care about jobs services and prosperity, not gender ID issues.
For the handful of mouthfoamers who are obsessed by fear it is THE issue. For almost everyone else it is a non-issue politically.
Except voters saw it as the SNP ‘s second top priority second only to independence. Who were the mouth foamers?
You have made the point for me. The polls showed that voters thought it was the SNP's 2nd top priority. For *the voters* it was their 3rd bottom priority.
Voters do not care about this issue. As demonstrated by the polls The SNP went way off piste and if they elect Forbes today the issue gets quickly dropped. Or if they elect Yousaf it gets slowly dropped.
Either way, voters do not care. It is a non-issue for them.
It’s only a non issue if politicians don’t make it one - as the SNP did. Ironically voters while in general support making change of gender easier, they oppose most of the changes that would make it so.
Do you understand how politics works? A party could go out and Make A Stand on an issue. Save the Pound! said William Hague, you MUST be worried about this because I say you are so you must Vote Conservative to Save the Pound!
Nobody cared. Non-issue, didn't move the polls at all. Politicians can make anything they like into an issue, but if it doesn't motivate people to vote, politically its a non-issue. Voters say what they are concerned about and politicians act accordingly, not the other way round.
No matter how many times a politician might ask "Are you thinking what we're thinking" when the answer is "no" they are sunk. Almost nobody in Scotland is thinking as the SNP were on this issue. They just don't care about it, and wish the government would focus on actual issues.
I expect as the only party that (mostly) opposed the GRR bill that the SCons will be experiencing a real surge in the polls.
Why? Voters don't care about that issue. They care about jobs and education and prosperity - so won't be voting Tory because not stupid.
And besides which, the Tories were so split that DRoss had to grant a free vote.
The GRR Bill is in reality the reason Sturgeon had to resign as FM and may be replaced in that role by the much more socially conservative Kate Forbes this afternoon
Why don’t you believe what Sturgeon said? Seemed perfectly reasonable to me. One does reach a point in life, where one has just had enough of a particular activity.
It just happened to coincide with a fall in the SNP ratings and divisions within her party.
In reality she would have preferred to step down next year, her 10th anniversary as First Minister and SNP leader
Given all the drug taking around and about I'd have thought that laughing gas is just a deckchair move by the govt.
In Israel I've not been following save to see that there are demonstrations in London about it. What has Netanyahu done? Is he saying that the courts can't strike down government legislation? In which case is this something we have touched on previously whereby a democratically-elected government is trying to abolish elections?
As for the demonstrations in London about it it's interesting that these are presumably British Jews vociferously protesting about Israel and hence it is easy to see the complications of trying to separate out Israel and the Jews.
The laughing gas move is a joke, appropriately. Yet again the government overrules the scientists in a populist authoritarian knee-jerk response. For a government that is supposedly so anti cancel culture, they certainly seem to like banning things and telling people what they can and can't do.
The politicians absolutely should be able to "overrule" scientists. We've just seen what happens when they give into the Cult of the Expert.
No one's arguing they shouldn't be able to.
OLB seems to be.
As, indeed, did most of the country in 2020-1.
Not really. You've simply extrapolated what I have said with respect to one issue, applied it to a different issue, and in addition made out that I've said something I haven't. I didn't say government shouldn't be able to overrule scientific advice, and indeed this isn't my position. I said that in this case they've gone against the advice of their scientists in order to chase tabloid headlines. It's stupid policymaking and will cost the taxpayer more money, further waste police time and gum up the legal system, strengthen criminal gangs and quite possibly kill people. I've offered no opinion on lockdown policy but I would say that while scientific advice should be absolutely front and centre during a global pandemic ultimately it is for our political leaders to decide how to proceed. So I don't think I hold the views you're trying to ascribe to me.
Essentially you're criticising them for weighing up expert advice against what they think will be popular and pluimping for the latter option.
Of course they've done that - they're politicians!
Good politicians get out in front of public opinion, do what they think will be best for the whole country and try to shape opinion through action and argument. The fact that this government operates as you suggest is why this country is becoming more of a shithole every day.
Well, never let it be said that you're not an optimist.
By your standards, we have no good politicians. Sir Keir has had, for at least the last year, the perfect opportunity to act as you say a good politician does. Instead, cheered on by his party's supporters, he has deliberately done and said as little as possible, focusing on trying to win the next election by default.
That's fair. He is overly cautious. I didn't vote for him as leader. The Tories need to go but I don't hold out great hopes for the next Labour government, or indeed for the long term future of this country. We seem to be permanently in thrall to ill-informed voters and their worst prejudices, with our politicians never missing an opportunity to make a stupid, short-sighted decision. As you might gather, I don't think I am an optimist.
That's the problem with democracy - ill-informed voters.
There is merit in the Shell, Unilever and other multinationals method. The top management emerge, promoted by their peers. Employees and customers can't vote for them. Though shareholders in theory could remove them, in practice they don't. China has a similar system. It competes with democracy. There are pros and cons.
I still think democracy is the best system both morally and in terms of outcomes, but it needs to be combined with well informed voters and enlightened political leadership to deliver the best results. Right now this country seems to be caught in a downwards spiral of angry, ill informed voters, pandering and opportunistic politicians and stupid policies. It is very depressing.
Morally - I prefer democracy, but that's the way I've been brought up. On outcomes It's not clear that democracy wins: Economic GDP Life expectancy China 59 in 1970, 77 now and growing. USA 71 in 1970, 79 now and flat.
On gdp per head both the US and Japan are well ahead of China, the Chinese birthrate is also lower even than most western Nations and China has fewer immigrants percentage wise too
GDP per head is growing much faster in China than US or Japan. Birthrate is an odd measure. Is a low birthrate good or bad? Depends on the context. Ditto number of immigrants. We are discussing the outcomes of democracy versus the competing Chinese (and Shell/Unilever) models of peer appointed leaders.
Given all the drug taking around and about I'd have thought that laughing gas is just a deckchair move by the govt.
In Israel I've not been following save to see that there are demonstrations in London about it. What has Netanyahu done? Is he saying that the courts can't strike down government legislation? In which case is this something we have touched on previously whereby a democratically-elected government is trying to abolish elections?
As for the demonstrations in London about it it's interesting that these are presumably British Jews vociferously protesting about Israel and hence it is easy to see the complications of trying to separate out Israel and the Jews.
The laughing gas move is a joke, appropriately. Yet again the government overrules the scientists in a populist authoritarian knee-jerk response. For a government that is supposedly so anti cancel culture, they certainly seem to like banning things and telling people what they can and can't do.
The politicians absolutely should be able to "overrule" scientists. We've just seen what happens when they give into the Cult of the Expert.
No one's arguing they shouldn't be able to.
OLB seems to be.
As, indeed, did most of the country in 2020-1.
Not really. You've simply extrapolated what I have said with respect to one issue, applied it to a different issue, and in addition made out that I've said something I haven't. I didn't say government shouldn't be able to overrule scientific advice, and indeed this isn't my position. I said that in this case they've gone against the advice of their scientists in order to chase tabloid headlines. It's stupid policymaking and will cost the taxpayer more money, further waste police time and gum up the legal system, strengthen criminal gangs and quite possibly kill people. I've offered no opinion on lockdown policy but I would say that while scientific advice should be absolutely front and centre during a global pandemic ultimately it is for our political leaders to decide how to proceed. So I don't think I hold the views you're trying to ascribe to me.
Essentially you're criticising them for weighing up expert advice against what they think will be popular and pluimping for the latter option.
Of course they've done that - they're politicians!
Good politicians get out in front of public opinion, do what they think will be best for the whole country and try to shape opinion through action and argument. The fact that this government operates as you suggest is why this country is becoming more of a shithole every day.
Well, never let it be said that you're not an optimist.
By your standards, we have no good politicians. Sir Keir has had, for at least the last year, the perfect opportunity to act as you say a good politician does. Instead, cheered on by his party's supporters, he has deliberately done and said as little as possible, focusing on trying to win the next election by default.
That's fair. He is overly cautious. I didn't vote for him as leader. The Tories need to go but I don't hold out great hopes for the next Labour government, or indeed for the long term future of this country. We seem to be permanently in thrall to ill-informed voters and their worst prejudices, with our politicians never missing an opportunity to make a stupid, short-sighted decision. As you might gather, I don't think I am an optimist.
That's the problem with democracy - ill-informed voters.
There is merit in the Shell, Unilever and other multinationals method. The top management emerge, promoted by their peers. Employees and customers can't vote for them. Though shareholders in theory could remove them, in practice they don't. China has a similar system. It competes with democracy. There are pros and cons.
I still think democracy is the best system both morally and in terms of outcomes, but it needs to be combined with well informed voters and enlightened political leadership to deliver the best results. Right now this country seems to be caught in a downwards spiral of angry, ill informed voters, pandering and opportunistic politicians and stupid policies. It is very depressing.
Morally - I prefer democracy, but that's the way I've been brought up. On outcomes It's not clear that democracy wins: Economic GDP Life expectancy China 59 in 1970, 77 now and growing. USA 71 in 1970, 79 now and flat.
On gdp per head both the US and Japan are well ahead of China, the Chinese birthrate is also lower even than most western Nations and China has fewer immigrants percentage wise too
GDP per head is growing much faster in China than US or Japan. Birthrate is an odd measure. Is a low birthrate good or bad? Depends on the context.
Well course it is because it starts from a much lower level.
If you want to grow gdp overall significantly relative to other nations rather than just gdp per capita then you need a well above replacement level birthrate.
Democratic India will likely thus have overtaken China in terms of gdp by 2050 as it has a much higher birthrate. Nigeria is also rapidly advancing up the gdp rankings because of its high birthrate
I do have a fear, which is all-too-depressing, that the anti-woke culture wars will stir up a sufficient number of the indignant right to stop a colossal Labour victory. The fact that people endlessly bang on about a pointless sideshow narrative (trans rights), as evidenced on here by carlotta and his stuck needle, is depressing.
However, I suspect that come the General Election proper, the trans issue will burn brightly for a couple of days as the Daily Malicious vents its spleen and then will pass.
Most people will realise that we had all of this nonsense, and exactly the same arguments, with gay rights 40 years ago and that there are FAR more pressing and important matters that we face than whether Steve in the neighbouring town wishes to self-identify as Susan. (I didn't put 'Steve next door' because most people don't have a trans neighbour and never will).
As you were.
Scotland is a good tester for this theory. I kept pointing out that the row over the GRR bill was largely irrelevant as nobody who wasn't shouting cared about it. IRRELEVANT??? they screamed.
And then came the polling. Putting GRR third bottom on the list of voters' concerns. Not an issue for an electorate who (shockingly) care about jobs services and prosperity, not gender ID issues.
For the handful of mouthfoamers who are obsessed by fear it is THE issue. For almost everyone else it is a non-issue politically.
Except voters saw it as the SNP ‘s second top priority second only to independence. Who were the mouth foamers?
You have made the point for me. The polls showed that voters thought it was the SNP's 2nd top priority. For *the voters* it was their 3rd bottom priority.
Voters do not care about this issue. As demonstrated by the polls The SNP went way off piste and if they elect Forbes today the issue gets quickly dropped. Or if they elect Yousaf it gets slowly dropped.
Either way, voters do not care. It is a non-issue for them.
It’s only a non issue if politicians don’t make it one - as the SNP did. Ironically voters while in general support making change of gender easier, they oppose most of the changes that would make it so.
Do you understand how politics works? A party could go out and Make A Stand on an issue. Save the Pound! said William Hague, you MUST be worried about this because I say you are so you must Vote Conservative to Save the Pound!
Nobody cared. Non-issue, didn't move the polls at all. Politicians can make anything they like into an issue, but if it doesn't motivate people to vote, politically its a non-issue. Voters say what they are concerned about and politicians act accordingly, not the other way round.
No matter how many times a politician might ask "Are you thinking what we're thinking" when the answer is "no" they are sunk. Almost nobody in Scotland is thinking as the SNP were on this issue. They just don't care about it, and wish the government would focus on actual issues.
I expect as the only party that (mostly) opposed the GRR bill that the SCons will be experiencing a real surge in the polls.
Why? Voters don't care about that issue. They care about jobs and education and prosperity - so won't be voting Tory because not stupid.
And besides which, the Tories were so split that DRoss had to grant a free vote.
The GRR Bill is in reality the reason Sturgeon had to resign as FM and may be replaced in that role by the much more socially conservative Kate Forbes this afternoon
Why don’t you believe what Sturgeon said? Seemed perfectly reasonable to me. One does reach a point in life, where one has just had enough of a particular activity.
It just happened to coincide with a fall in the SNP ratings and divisions within her party.
In reality she would have preferred to step down next year, her 10th anniversary as First Minister and SNP leader
A.k.a. “Oh bother this; I’m fed up with the lot of you! “
Given all the drug taking around and about I'd have thought that laughing gas is just a deckchair move by the govt.
In Israel I've not been following save to see that there are demonstrations in London about it. What has Netanyahu done? Is he saying that the courts can't strike down government legislation? In which case is this something we have touched on previously whereby a democratically-elected government is trying to abolish elections?
As for the demonstrations in London about it it's interesting that these are presumably British Jews vociferously protesting about Israel and hence it is easy to see the complications of trying to separate out Israel and the Jews.
The laughing gas move is a joke, appropriately. Yet again the government overrules the scientists in a populist authoritarian knee-jerk response. For a government that is supposedly so anti cancel culture, they certainly seem to like banning things and telling people what they can and can't do.
The politicians absolutely should be able to "overrule" scientists. We've just seen what happens when they give into the Cult of the Expert.
No one's arguing they shouldn't be able to.
OLB seems to be.
As, indeed, did most of the country in 2020-1.
Not really. You've simply extrapolated what I have said with respect to one issue, applied it to a different issue, and in addition made out that I've said something I haven't. I didn't say government shouldn't be able to overrule scientific advice, and indeed this isn't my position. I said that in this case they've gone against the advice of their scientists in order to chase tabloid headlines. It's stupid policymaking and will cost the taxpayer more money, further waste police time and gum up the legal system, strengthen criminal gangs and quite possibly kill people. I've offered no opinion on lockdown policy but I would say that while scientific advice should be absolutely front and centre during a global pandemic ultimately it is for our political leaders to decide how to proceed. So I don't think I hold the views you're trying to ascribe to me.
Essentially you're criticising them for weighing up expert advice against what they think will be popular and pluimping for the latter option.
Of course they've done that - they're politicians!
Good politicians get out in front of public opinion, do what they think will be best for the whole country and try to shape opinion through action and argument. The fact that this government operates as you suggest is why this country is becoming more of a shithole every day.
Well, never let it be said that you're not an optimist.
By your standards, we have no good politicians. Sir Keir has had, for at least the last year, the perfect opportunity to act as you say a good politician does. Instead, cheered on by his party's supporters, he has deliberately done and said as little as possible, focusing on trying to win the next election by default.
That's fair. He is overly cautious. I didn't vote for him as leader. The Tories need to go but I don't hold out great hopes for the next Labour government, or indeed for the long term future of this country. We seem to be permanently in thrall to ill-informed voters and their worst prejudices, with our politicians never missing an opportunity to make a stupid, short-sighted decision. As you might gather, I don't think I am an optimist.
That's the problem with democracy - ill-informed voters.
There is merit in the Shell, Unilever and other multinationals method. The top management emerge, promoted by their peers. Employees and customers can't vote for them. Though shareholders in theory could remove them, in practice they don't. China has a similar system. It competes with democracy. There are pros and cons.
I still think democracy is the best system both morally and in terms of outcomes, but it needs to be combined with well informed voters and enlightened political leadership to deliver the best results. Right now this country seems to be caught in a downwards spiral of angry, ill informed voters, pandering and opportunistic politicians and stupid policies. It is very depressing.
Morally - I prefer democracy, but that's the way I've been brought up. On outcomes It's not clear that democracy wins: Economic GDP (snip)Life expectancy China 59 in 1970, 77 now and growing. USA 71 in 1970, 79 now and flat.
A question: given Soviet economic figures were shown to be absolute pants, and Russia's current economic figures appear to have been plucked out of Putin's backside (perhaps that's why he walks funnily on occasion?), how much can we trust China's GDP figures?
Are they compiled under similar processes to western ones?
(I'm not denying China has undergone an economic miracle in the last few decades; just wondering whether such a centralised system is lying to itself.)
Given all the drug taking around and about I'd have thought that laughing gas is just a deckchair move by the govt.
In Israel I've not been following save to see that there are demonstrations in London about it. What has Netanyahu done? Is he saying that the courts can't strike down government legislation? In which case is this something we have touched on previously whereby a democratically-elected government is trying to abolish elections?
As for the demonstrations in London about it it's interesting that these are presumably British Jews vociferously protesting about Israel and hence it is easy to see the complications of trying to separate out Israel and the Jews.
The laughing gas move is a joke, appropriately. Yet again the government overrules the scientists in a populist authoritarian knee-jerk response. For a government that is supposedly so anti cancel culture, they certainly seem to like banning things and telling people what they can and can't do.
The politicians absolutely should be able to "overrule" scientists. We've just seen what happens when they give into the Cult of the Expert.
No one's arguing they shouldn't be able to.
OLB seems to be.
As, indeed, did most of the country in 2020-1.
Not really. You've simply extrapolated what I have said with respect to one issue, applied it to a different issue, and in addition made out that I've said something I haven't. I didn't say government shouldn't be able to overrule scientific advice, and indeed this isn't my position. I said that in this case they've gone against the advice of their scientists in order to chase tabloid headlines. It's stupid policymaking and will cost the taxpayer more money, further waste police time and gum up the legal system, strengthen criminal gangs and quite possibly kill people. I've offered no opinion on lockdown policy but I would say that while scientific advice should be absolutely front and centre during a global pandemic ultimately it is for our political leaders to decide how to proceed. So I don't think I hold the views you're trying to ascribe to me.
Essentially you're criticising them for weighing up expert advice against what they think will be popular and pluimping for the latter option.
Of course they've done that - they're politicians!
Good politicians get out in front of public opinion, do what they think will be best for the whole country and try to shape opinion through action and argument. The fact that this government operates as you suggest is why this country is becoming more of a shithole every day.
Well, never let it be said that you're not an optimist.
By your standards, we have no good politicians. Sir Keir has had, for at least the last year, the perfect opportunity to act as you say a good politician does. Instead, cheered on by his party's supporters, he has deliberately done and said as little as possible, focusing on trying to win the next election by default.
That's fair. He is overly cautious. I didn't vote for him as leader. The Tories need to go but I don't hold out great hopes for the next Labour government, or indeed for the long term future of this country. We seem to be permanently in thrall to ill-informed voters and their worst prejudices, with our politicians never missing an opportunity to make a stupid, short-sighted decision. As you might gather, I don't think I am an optimist.
That's the problem with democracy - ill-informed voters.
There is merit in the Shell, Unilever and other multinationals method. The top management emerge, promoted by their peers. Employees and customers can't vote for them. Though shareholders in theory could remove them, in practice they don't. China has a similar system. It competes with democracy. There are pros and cons.
I still think democracy is the best system both morally and in terms of outcomes, but it needs to be combined with well informed voters and enlightened political leadership to deliver the best results. Right now this country seems to be caught in a downwards spiral of angry, ill informed voters, pandering and opportunistic politicians and stupid policies. It is very depressing.
Morally - I prefer democracy, but that's the way I've been brought up. On outcomes It's not clear that democracy wins: Economic GDP (snip)Life expectancy China 59 in 1970, 77 now and growing. USA 71 in 1970, 79 now and flat.
A question: given Soviet economic figures were shown to be absolute pants, and Russia's current economic figures appear to have been plucked out of Putin's backside (perhaps that's why he walks funnily on occasion?), how much can we trust China's GDP figures?
Are they compiled under similar processes to western ones?
(I'm not denying China has undergone an economic miracle in the last few decades; just wondering whether such a centralised system is lying to itself.)
My understanding on the Chinese GDP data, from speaking to people who follow the numbers closely, is that while the cyclical picture is probably not well captured (the data are far too smooth and there is a preference to show growth targets being met) the longer term trend is probably broadly accurate. There can be a tendency for regional governments to exaggerate growth when reporting to the centre, while the central authorities most likely do want to see broadly accurate data. This doesn't mean that China's growth trajectory is sustainable. If you look at demographics, debt dynamics and the way that growth has been increasingly driven by unproductive investment, I think China is heading for a rough patch.
Given all the drug taking around and about I'd have thought that laughing gas is just a deckchair move by the govt.
In Israel I've not been following save to see that there are demonstrations in London about it. What has Netanyahu done? Is he saying that the courts can't strike down government legislation? In which case is this something we have touched on previously whereby a democratically-elected government is trying to abolish elections?
As for the demonstrations in London about it it's interesting that these are presumably British Jews vociferously protesting about Israel and hence it is easy to see the complications of trying to separate out Israel and the Jews.
The laughing gas move is a joke, appropriately. Yet again the government overrules the scientists in a populist authoritarian knee-jerk response. For a government that is supposedly so anti cancel culture, they certainly seem to like banning things and telling people what they can and can't do.
The politicians absolutely should be able to "overrule" scientists. We've just seen what happens when they give into the Cult of the Expert.
No one's arguing they shouldn't be able to.
OLB seems to be.
As, indeed, did most of the country in 2020-1.
Not really. You've simply extrapolated what I have said with respect to one issue, applied it to a different issue, and in addition made out that I've said something I haven't. I didn't say government shouldn't be able to overrule scientific advice, and indeed this isn't my position. I said that in this case they've gone against the advice of their scientists in order to chase tabloid headlines. It's stupid policymaking and will cost the taxpayer more money, further waste police time and gum up the legal system, strengthen criminal gangs and quite possibly kill people. I've offered no opinion on lockdown policy but I would say that while scientific advice should be absolutely front and centre during a global pandemic ultimately it is for our political leaders to decide how to proceed. So I don't think I hold the views you're trying to ascribe to me.
Essentially you're criticising them for weighing up expert advice against what they think will be popular and pluimping for the latter option.
Of course they've done that - they're politicians!
Good politicians get out in front of public opinion, do what they think will be best for the whole country and try to shape opinion through action and argument. The fact that this government operates as you suggest is why this country is becoming more of a shithole every day.
Well, never let it be said that you're not an optimist.
By your standards, we have no good politicians. Sir Keir has had, for at least the last year, the perfect opportunity to act as you say a good politician does. Instead, cheered on by his party's supporters, he has deliberately done and said as little as possible, focusing on trying to win the next election by default.
That's fair. He is overly cautious. I didn't vote for him as leader. The Tories need to go but I don't hold out great hopes for the next Labour government, or indeed for the long term future of this country. We seem to be permanently in thrall to ill-informed voters and their worst prejudices, with our politicians never missing an opportunity to make a stupid, short-sighted decision. As you might gather, I don't think I am an optimist.
That's the problem with democracy - ill-informed voters.
There is merit in the Shell, Unilever and other multinationals method. The top management emerge, promoted by their peers. Employees and customers can't vote for them. Though shareholders in theory could remove them, in practice they don't. China has a similar system. It competes with democracy. There are pros and cons.
I still think democracy is the best system both morally and in terms of outcomes, but it needs to be combined with well informed voters and enlightened political leadership to deliver the best results. Right now this country seems to be caught in a downwards spiral of angry, ill informed voters, pandering and opportunistic politicians and stupid policies. It is very depressing.
Morally - I prefer democracy, but that's the way I've been brought up. On outcomes It's not clear that democracy wins: Economic GDP Life expectancy China 59 in 1970, 77 now and growing. USA 71 in 1970, 79 now and flat.
On gdp per head both the US and Japan are well ahead of China, the Chinese birthrate is also lower even than most western Nations and China has fewer immigrants percentage wise too
GDP per head is growing much faster in China than US or Japan. Birthrate is an odd measure. Is a low birthrate good or bad? Depends on the context.
Well course it is because it starts from a much lower level.
If you want to grow gdp overall significantly relative to other nations rather than just gdp per capita then you need a well above replacement level birthrate.
Democratic India will likely thus have overtaken China in terms of gdp by 2050 as it has a much higher birthrate. Nigeria is also rapidly advancing up the gdp rankings because of its high birthrate
What metrics would you use to measure the relative outcomes of democrat nations versus the Chinese (and multinational company) approach?
Given all the drug taking around and about I'd have thought that laughing gas is just a deckchair move by the govt.
In Israel I've not been following save to see that there are demonstrations in London about it. What has Netanyahu done? Is he saying that the courts can't strike down government legislation? In which case is this something we have touched on previously whereby a democratically-elected government is trying to abolish elections?
As for the demonstrations in London about it it's interesting that these are presumably British Jews vociferously protesting about Israel and hence it is easy to see the complications of trying to separate out Israel and the Jews.
The laughing gas move is a joke, appropriately. Yet again the government overrules the scientists in a populist authoritarian knee-jerk response. For a government that is supposedly so anti cancel culture, they certainly seem to like banning things and telling people what they can and can't do.
The politicians absolutely should be able to "overrule" scientists. We've just seen what happens when they give into the Cult of the Expert.
No one's arguing they shouldn't be able to.
OLB seems to be.
As, indeed, did most of the country in 2020-1.
Not really. You've simply extrapolated what I have said with respect to one issue, applied it to a different issue, and in addition made out that I've said something I haven't. I didn't say government shouldn't be able to overrule scientific advice, and indeed this isn't my position. I said that in this case they've gone against the advice of their scientists in order to chase tabloid headlines. It's stupid policymaking and will cost the taxpayer more money, further waste police time and gum up the legal system, strengthen criminal gangs and quite possibly kill people. I've offered no opinion on lockdown policy but I would say that while scientific advice should be absolutely front and centre during a global pandemic ultimately it is for our political leaders to decide how to proceed. So I don't think I hold the views you're trying to ascribe to me.
Essentially you're criticising them for weighing up expert advice against what they think will be popular and pluimping for the latter option.
Of course they've done that - they're politicians!
Good politicians get out in front of public opinion, do what they think will be best for the whole country and try to shape opinion through action and argument. The fact that this government operates as you suggest is why this country is becoming more of a shithole every day.
Well, never let it be said that you're not an optimist.
By your standards, we have no good politicians. Sir Keir has had, for at least the last year, the perfect opportunity to act as you say a good politician does. Instead, cheered on by his party's supporters, he has deliberately done and said as little as possible, focusing on trying to win the next election by default.
That's fair. He is overly cautious. I didn't vote for him as leader. The Tories need to go but I don't hold out great hopes for the next Labour government, or indeed for the long term future of this country. We seem to be permanently in thrall to ill-informed voters and their worst prejudices, with our politicians never missing an opportunity to make a stupid, short-sighted decision. As you might gather, I don't think I am an optimist.
That's the problem with democracy - ill-informed voters.
There is merit in the Shell, Unilever and other multinationals method. The top management emerge, promoted by their peers. Employees and customers can't vote for them. Though shareholders in theory could remove them, in practice they don't. China has a similar system. It competes with democracy. There are pros and cons.
I still think democracy is the best system both morally and in terms of outcomes, but it needs to be combined with well informed voters and enlightened political leadership to deliver the best results. Right now this country seems to be caught in a downwards spiral of angry, ill informed voters, pandering and opportunistic politicians and stupid policies. It is very depressing.
Morally - I prefer democracy, but that's the way I've been brought up. On outcomes It's not clear that democracy wins: Economic GDP Life expectancy China 59 in 1970, 77 now and growing. USA 71 in 1970, 79 now and flat.
On gdp per head both the US and Japan are well ahead of China, the Chinese birthrate is also lower even than most western Nations and China has fewer immigrants percentage wise too
GDP per head is growing much faster in China than US or Japan. Birthrate is an odd measure. Is a low birthrate good or bad? Depends on the context.
Well course it is because it starts from a much lower level.
If you want to grow gdp overall significantly relative to other nations rather than just gdp per capita then you need a well above replacement level birthrate.
Democratic India will likely thus have overtaken China in terms of gdp by 2050 as it has a much higher birthrate. Nigeria is also rapidly advancing up the gdp rankings because of its high birthrate
What metrics would you use to measure the relative outcomes of democrat nations versus the Chinese (and multinational company) approach?
Gdp and wealth per head, education levels, personal freedom and liberty
Given all the drug taking around and about I'd have thought that laughing gas is just a deckchair move by the govt.
In Israel I've not been following save to see that there are demonstrations in London about it. What has Netanyahu done? Is he saying that the courts can't strike down government legislation? In which case is this something we have touched on previously whereby a democratically-elected government is trying to abolish elections?
As for the demonstrations in London about it it's interesting that these are presumably British Jews vociferously protesting about Israel and hence it is easy to see the complications of trying to separate out Israel and the Jews.
The laughing gas move is a joke, appropriately. Yet again the government overrules the scientists in a populist authoritarian knee-jerk response. For a government that is supposedly so anti cancel culture, they certainly seem to like banning things and telling people what they can and can't do.
The politicians absolutely should be able to "overrule" scientists. We've just seen what happens when they give into the Cult of the Expert.
No one's arguing they shouldn't be able to.
OLB seems to be.
As, indeed, did most of the country in 2020-1.
Not really. You've simply extrapolated what I have said with respect to one issue, applied it to a different issue, and in addition made out that I've said something I haven't. I didn't say government shouldn't be able to overrule scientific advice, and indeed this isn't my position. I said that in this case they've gone against the advice of their scientists in order to chase tabloid headlines. It's stupid policymaking and will cost the taxpayer more money, further waste police time and gum up the legal system, strengthen criminal gangs and quite possibly kill people. I've offered no opinion on lockdown policy but I would say that while scientific advice should be absolutely front and centre during a global pandemic ultimately it is for our political leaders to decide how to proceed. So I don't think I hold the views you're trying to ascribe to me.
Essentially you're criticising them for weighing up expert advice against what they think will be popular and pluimping for the latter option.
Of course they've done that - they're politicians!
Good politicians get out in front of public opinion, do what they think will be best for the whole country and try to shape opinion through action and argument. The fact that this government operates as you suggest is why this country is becoming more of a shithole every day.
Well, never let it be said that you're not an optimist.
By your standards, we have no good politicians. Sir Keir has had, for at least the last year, the perfect opportunity to act as you say a good politician does. Instead, cheered on by his party's supporters, he has deliberately done and said as little as possible, focusing on trying to win the next election by default.
That's fair. He is overly cautious. I didn't vote for him as leader. The Tories need to go but I don't hold out great hopes for the next Labour government, or indeed for the long term future of this country. We seem to be permanently in thrall to ill-informed voters and their worst prejudices, with our politicians never missing an opportunity to make a stupid, short-sighted decision. As you might gather, I don't think I am an optimist.
That's the problem with democracy - ill-informed voters.
There is merit in the Shell, Unilever and other multinationals method. The top management emerge, promoted by their peers. Employees and customers can't vote for them. Though shareholders in theory could remove them, in practice they don't. China has a similar system. It competes with democracy. There are pros and cons.
I still think democracy is the best system both morally and in terms of outcomes, but it needs to be combined with well informed voters and enlightened political leadership to deliver the best results. Right now this country seems to be caught in a downwards spiral of angry, ill informed voters, pandering and opportunistic politicians and stupid policies. It is very depressing.
Morally - I prefer democracy, but that's the way I've been brought up. On outcomes It's not clear that democracy wins: Economic GDP Life expectancy China 59 in 1970, 77 now and growing. USA 71 in 1970, 79 now and flat.
On gdp per head both the US and Japan are well ahead of China, the Chinese birthrate is also lower even than most western Nations and China has fewer immigrants percentage wise too
GDP per head is growing much faster in China than US or Japan. Birthrate is an odd measure. Is a low birthrate good or bad? Depends on the context.
Well course it is because it starts from a much lower level.
If you want to grow gdp overall significantly relative to other nations rather than just gdp per capita then you need a well above replacement level birthrate.
Democratic India will likely thus have overtaken China in terms of gdp by 2050 as it has a much higher birthrate. Nigeria is also rapidly advancing up the gdp rankings because of its high birthrate
What metrics would you use to measure the relative outcomes of democrat nations versus the Chinese (and multinational company) approach?
To be clear: I prefer to live in a democracy rather than in China. But that's because I am a liberal and rather anti-authority. I'd get into trouble in China.
But I don't have a religious type faith in democracy and I can see it's flaws.
If I was born and brought up in China, I'd probably prefer the Chinese system to eg the US one.
I do have a fear, which is all-too-depressing, that the anti-woke culture wars will stir up a sufficient number of the indignant right to stop a colossal Labour victory. The fact that people endlessly bang on about a pointless sideshow narrative (trans rights), as evidenced on here by carlotta and his stuck needle, is depressing.
However, I suspect that come the General Election proper, the trans issue will burn brightly for a couple of days as the Daily Malicious vents its spleen and then will pass.
Most people will realise that we had all of this nonsense, and exactly the same arguments, with gay rights 40 years ago and that there are FAR more pressing and important matters that we face than whether Steve in the neighbouring town wishes to self-identify as Susan. (I didn't put 'Steve next door' because most people don't have a trans neighbour and never will).
As you were.
Scotland is a good tester for this theory. I kept pointing out that the row over the GRR bill was largely irrelevant as nobody who wasn't shouting cared about it. IRRELEVANT??? they screamed.
And then came the polling. Putting GRR third bottom on the list of voters' concerns. Not an issue for an electorate who (shockingly) care about jobs services and prosperity, not gender ID issues.
For the handful of mouthfoamers who are obsessed by fear it is THE issue. For almost everyone else it is a non-issue politically.
Except voters saw it as the SNP ‘s second top priority second only to independence. Who were the mouth foamers?
You have made the point for me. The polls showed that voters thought it was the SNP's 2nd top priority. For *the voters* it was their 3rd bottom priority.
Voters do not care about this issue. As demonstrated by the polls The SNP went way off piste and if they elect Forbes today the issue gets quickly dropped. Or if they elect Yousaf it gets slowly dropped.
Either way, voters do not care. It is a non-issue for them.
It’s only a non issue if politicians don’t make it one - as the SNP did. Ironically voters while in general support making change of gender easier, they oppose most of the changes that would make it so.
Do you understand how politics works? A party could go out and Make A Stand on an issue. Save the Pound! said William Hague, you MUST be worried about this because I say you are so you must Vote Conservative to Save the Pound!
Nobody cared. Non-issue, didn't move the polls at all. Politicians can make anything they like into an issue, but if it doesn't motivate people to vote, politically its a non-issue. Voters say what they are concerned about and politicians act accordingly, not the other way round.
No matter how many times a politician might ask "Are you thinking what we're thinking" when the answer is "no" they are sunk. Almost nobody in Scotland is thinking as the SNP were on this issue. They just don't care about it, and wish the government would focus on actual issues.
I expect as the only party that (mostly) opposed the GRR bill that the SCons will be experiencing a real surge in the polls.
Why? Voters don't care about that issue. They care about jobs and education and prosperity - so won't be voting Tory because not stupid.
And besides which, the Tories were so split that DRoss had to grant a free vote.
The GRR Bill is in reality the reason Sturgeon had to resign as FM and may be replaced in that role by the much more socially conservative Kate Forbes this afternoon
Why don’t you believe what Sturgeon said? Seemed perfectly reasonable to me. One does reach a point in life, where one has just had enough of a particular activity.
More to the point, people had had enough of her... when she screwed up over her ludicrous stance on Gender recognition.. she knew she was done for. At least she had the decency to go quickly unlike Gordon McDoom
Given all the drug taking around and about I'd have thought that laughing gas is just a deckchair move by the govt.
In Israel I've not been following save to see that there are demonstrations in London about it. What has Netanyahu done? Is he saying that the courts can't strike down government legislation? In which case is this something we have touched on previously whereby a democratically-elected government is trying to abolish elections?
As for the demonstrations in London about it it's interesting that these are presumably British Jews vociferously protesting about Israel and hence it is easy to see the complications of trying to separate out Israel and the Jews.
The laughing gas move is a joke, appropriately. Yet again the government overrules the scientists in a populist authoritarian knee-jerk response. For a government that is supposedly so anti cancel culture, they certainly seem to like banning things and telling people what they can and can't do.
The politicians absolutely should be able to "overrule" scientists. We've just seen what happens when they give into the Cult of the Expert.
No one's arguing they shouldn't be able to.
OLB seems to be.
As, indeed, did most of the country in 2020-1.
Not really. You've simply extrapolated what I have said with respect to one issue, applied it to a different issue, and in addition made out that I've said something I haven't. I didn't say government shouldn't be able to overrule scientific advice, and indeed this isn't my position. I said that in this case they've gone against the advice of their scientists in order to chase tabloid headlines. It's stupid policymaking and will cost the taxpayer more money, further waste police time and gum up the legal system, strengthen criminal gangs and quite possibly kill people. I've offered no opinion on lockdown policy but I would say that while scientific advice should be absolutely front and centre during a global pandemic ultimately it is for our political leaders to decide how to proceed. So I don't think I hold the views you're trying to ascribe to me.
Essentially you're criticising them for weighing up expert advice against what they think will be popular and pluimping for the latter option.
Of course they've done that - they're politicians!
Good politicians get out in front of public opinion, do what they think will be best for the whole country and try to shape opinion through action and argument. The fact that this government operates as you suggest is why this country is becoming more of a shithole every day.
Well, never let it be said that you're not an optimist.
By your standards, we have no good politicians. Sir Keir has had, for at least the last year, the perfect opportunity to act as you say a good politician does. Instead, cheered on by his party's supporters, he has deliberately done and said as little as possible, focusing on trying to win the next election by default.
That's fair. He is overly cautious. I didn't vote for him as leader. The Tories need to go but I don't hold out great hopes for the next Labour government, or indeed for the long term future of this country. We seem to be permanently in thrall to ill-informed voters and their worst prejudices, with our politicians never missing an opportunity to make a stupid, short-sighted decision. As you might gather, I don't think I am an optimist.
That's the problem with democracy - ill-informed voters.
There is merit in the Shell, Unilever and other multinationals method. The top management emerge, promoted by their peers. Employees and customers can't vote for them. Though shareholders in theory could remove them, in practice they don't. China has a similar system. It competes with democracy. There are pros and cons.
I still think democracy is the best system both morally and in terms of outcomes, but it needs to be combined with well informed voters and enlightened political leadership to deliver the best results. Right now this country seems to be caught in a downwards spiral of angry, ill informed voters, pandering and opportunistic politicians and stupid policies. It is very depressing.
Morally - I prefer democracy, but that's the way I've been brought up. On outcomes It's not clear that democracy wins: Economic GDP Life expectancy China 59 in 1970, 77 now and growing. USA 71 in 1970, 79 now and flat.
On gdp per head both the US and Japan are well ahead of China, the Chinese birthrate is also lower even than most western Nations and China has fewer immigrants percentage wise too
GDP per head is growing much faster in China than US or Japan. Birthrate is an odd measure. Is a low birthrate good or bad? Depends on the context.
Well course it is because it starts from a much lower level.
If you want to grow gdp overall significantly relative to other nations rather than just gdp per capita then you need a well above replacement level birthrate.
Democratic India will likely thus have overtaken China in terms of gdp by 2050 as it has a much higher birthrate. Nigeria is also rapidly advancing up the gdp rankings because of its high birthrate
What metrics would you use to measure the relative outcomes of democrat nations versus the Chinese (and multinational company) approach?
To be clear: I prefer to live in a democracy rather than in China. But that's because I am a liberal and rather anti-authority. I'd get into trouble in China.
But I don't have a religious type faith in democracy and I can see it's flaws.
If I was born and brought up in China, I'd probably prefer the Chinese system to eg the US one.
Democracy ie representative of the Burkean kind where the losers accept the results and most decisions are left to parliamentary representatives and the government works.
Direct democracy with too many referendums and refusal of the losers to accept the results of elections however produces problems and just leads to division
Given all the drug taking around and about I'd have thought that laughing gas is just a deckchair move by the govt.
In Israel I've not been following save to see that there are demonstrations in London about it. What has Netanyahu done? Is he saying that the courts can't strike down government legislation? In which case is this something we have touched on previously whereby a democratically-elected government is trying to abolish elections?
As for the demonstrations in London about it it's interesting that these are presumably British Jews vociferously protesting about Israel and hence it is easy to see the complications of trying to separate out Israel and the Jews.
The laughing gas move is a joke, appropriately. Yet again the government overrules the scientists in a populist authoritarian knee-jerk response. For a government that is supposedly so anti cancel culture, they certainly seem to like banning things and telling people what they can and can't do.
The politicians absolutely should be able to "overrule" scientists. We've just seen what happens when they give into the Cult of the Expert.
No one's arguing they shouldn't be able to.
OLB seems to be.
As, indeed, did most of the country in 2020-1.
Not really. You've simply extrapolated what I have said with respect to one issue, applied it to a different issue, and in addition made out that I've said something I haven't. I didn't say government shouldn't be able to overrule scientific advice, and indeed this isn't my position. I said that in this case they've gone against the advice of their scientists in order to chase tabloid headlines. It's stupid policymaking and will cost the taxpayer more money, further waste police time and gum up the legal system, strengthen criminal gangs and quite possibly kill people. I've offered no opinion on lockdown policy but I would say that while scientific advice should be absolutely front and centre during a global pandemic ultimately it is for our political leaders to decide how to proceed. So I don't think I hold the views you're trying to ascribe to me.
Essentially you're criticising them for weighing up expert advice against what they think will be popular and pluimping for the latter option.
Of course they've done that - they're politicians!
Good politicians get out in front of public opinion, do what they think will be best for the whole country and try to shape opinion through action and argument. The fact that this government operates as you suggest is why this country is becoming more of a shithole every day.
Well, never let it be said that you're not an optimist.
By your standards, we have no good politicians. Sir Keir has had, for at least the last year, the perfect opportunity to act as you say a good politician does. Instead, cheered on by his party's supporters, he has deliberately done and said as little as possible, focusing on trying to win the next election by default.
That's fair. He is overly cautious. I didn't vote for him as leader. The Tories need to go but I don't hold out great hopes for the next Labour government, or indeed for the long term future of this country. We seem to be permanently in thrall to ill-informed voters and their worst prejudices, with our politicians never missing an opportunity to make a stupid, short-sighted decision. As you might gather, I don't think I am an optimist.
That's the problem with democracy - ill-informed voters.
There is merit in the Shell, Unilever and other multinationals method. The top management emerge, promoted by their peers. Employees and customers can't vote for them. Though shareholders in theory could remove them, in practice they don't. China has a similar system. It competes with democracy. There are pros and cons.
I still think democracy is the best system both morally and in terms of outcomes, but it needs to be combined with well informed voters and enlightened political leadership to deliver the best results. Right now this country seems to be caught in a downwards spiral of angry, ill informed voters, pandering and opportunistic politicians and stupid policies. It is very depressing.
Morally - I prefer democracy, but that's the way I've been brought up. On outcomes It's not clear that democracy wins: Economic GDP Life expectancy China 59 in 1970, 77 now and growing. USA 71 in 1970, 79 now and flat.
On gdp per head both the US and Japan are well ahead of China, the Chinese birthrate is also lower even than most western Nations and China has fewer immigrants percentage wise too
GDP per head is growing much faster in China than US or Japan. Birthrate is an odd measure. Is a low birthrate good or bad? Depends on the context.
Well course it is because it starts from a much lower level.
If you want to grow gdp overall significantly relative to other nations rather than just gdp per capita then you need a well above replacement level birthrate.
Democratic India will likely thus have overtaken China in terms of gdp by 2050 as it has a much higher birthrate. Nigeria is also rapidly advancing up the gdp rankings because of its high birthrate
What metrics would you use to measure the relative outcomes of democrat nations versus the Chinese (and multinational company) approach?
Gdp and wealth per head, education levels, personal freedom and liberty
Given all the drug taking around and about I'd have thought that laughing gas is just a deckchair move by the govt.
In Israel I've not been following save to see that there are demonstrations in London about it. What has Netanyahu done? Is he saying that the courts can't strike down government legislation? In which case is this something we have touched on previously whereby a democratically-elected government is trying to abolish elections?
As for the demonstrations in London about it it's interesting that these are presumably British Jews vociferously protesting about Israel and hence it is easy to see the complications of trying to separate out Israel and the Jews.
The laughing gas move is a joke, appropriately. Yet again the government overrules the scientists in a populist authoritarian knee-jerk response. For a government that is supposedly so anti cancel culture, they certainly seem to like banning things and telling people what they can and can't do.
The politicians absolutely should be able to "overrule" scientists. We've just seen what happens when they give into the Cult of the Expert.
No one's arguing they shouldn't be able to.
OLB seems to be.
As, indeed, did most of the country in 2020-1.
Not really. You've simply extrapolated what I have said with respect to one issue, applied it to a different issue, and in addition made out that I've said something I haven't. I didn't say government shouldn't be able to overrule scientific advice, and indeed this isn't my position. I said that in this case they've gone against the advice of their scientists in order to chase tabloid headlines. It's stupid policymaking and will cost the taxpayer more money, further waste police time and gum up the legal system, strengthen criminal gangs and quite possibly kill people. I've offered no opinion on lockdown policy but I would say that while scientific advice should be absolutely front and centre during a global pandemic ultimately it is for our political leaders to decide how to proceed. So I don't think I hold the views you're trying to ascribe to me.
Essentially you're criticising them for weighing up expert advice against what they think will be popular and pluimping for the latter option.
Of course they've done that - they're politicians!
Good politicians get out in front of public opinion, do what they think will be best for the whole country and try to shape opinion through action and argument. The fact that this government operates as you suggest is why this country is becoming more of a shithole every day.
Well, never let it be said that you're not an optimist.
By your standards, we have no good politicians. Sir Keir has had, for at least the last year, the perfect opportunity to act as you say a good politician does. Instead, cheered on by his party's supporters, he has deliberately done and said as little as possible, focusing on trying to win the next election by default.
That's fair. He is overly cautious. I didn't vote for him as leader. The Tories need to go but I don't hold out great hopes for the next Labour government, or indeed for the long term future of this country. We seem to be permanently in thrall to ill-informed voters and their worst prejudices, with our politicians never missing an opportunity to make a stupid, short-sighted decision. As you might gather, I don't think I am an optimist.
That's the problem with democracy - ill-informed voters.
There is merit in the Shell, Unilever and other multinationals method. The top management emerge, promoted by their peers. Employees and customers can't vote for them. Though shareholders in theory could remove them, in practice they don't. China has a similar system. It competes with democracy. There are pros and cons.
I still think democracy is the best system both morally and in terms of outcomes, but it needs to be combined with well informed voters and enlightened political leadership to deliver the best results. Right now this country seems to be caught in a downwards spiral of angry, ill informed voters, pandering and opportunistic politicians and stupid policies. It is very depressing.
Morally - I prefer democracy, but that's the way I've been brought up. On outcomes It's not clear that democracy wins: Economic GDP Life expectancy China 59 in 1970, 77 now and growing. USA 71 in 1970, 79 now and flat.
On gdp per head both the US and Japan are well ahead of China, the Chinese birthrate is also lower even than most western Nations and China has fewer immigrants percentage wise too
GDP per head is growing much faster in China than US or Japan. Birthrate is an odd measure. Is a low birthrate good or bad? Depends on the context.
Well course it is because it starts from a much lower level.
If you want to grow gdp overall significantly relative to other nations rather than just gdp per capita then you need a well above replacement level birthrate.
Democratic India will likely thus have overtaken China in terms of gdp by 2050 as it has a much higher birthrate. Nigeria is also rapidly advancing up the gdp rankings because of its high birthrate
What metrics would you use to measure the relative outcomes of democrat nations versus the Chinese (and multinational company) approach?
I'd take a close look at the direction of travel over the next half decade. Since the west's commitment to accelerating Chinese development is undergoing something of a sea change.
Duke of Windsor ‘gave palace layout to Nazis before bombing
[Alexander Larman, whose books on the royal family between the wars outline the duke’s wartime assistance to Germany] told the festival that the Duke of Windsor, who abdicated in 1936 over his love for Wallis Simpson, an American divorcee , said he had provided “inside information” on the layout of Buckingham Palace. The Nazis bombed the palace in 1940 with several bombs hitting “family quarters”.
Larman said there was no doubt that the duke was a Nazi sympathiser and that it looked as if he had provided information to them. “The Nazis knew what they were doing and that was because they had inside information [from the duke],” Larman said.
Given all the drug taking around and about I'd have thought that laughing gas is just a deckchair move by the govt.
In Israel I've not been following save to see that there are demonstrations in London about it. What has Netanyahu done? Is he saying that the courts can't strike down government legislation? In which case is this something we have touched on previously whereby a democratically-elected government is trying to abolish elections?
As for the demonstrations in London about it it's interesting that these are presumably British Jews vociferously protesting about Israel and hence it is easy to see the complications of trying to separate out Israel and the Jews.
The laughing gas move is a joke, appropriately. Yet again the government overrules the scientists in a populist authoritarian knee-jerk response. For a government that is supposedly so anti cancel culture, they certainly seem to like banning things and telling people what they can and can't do.
The politicians absolutely should be able to "overrule" scientists. We've just seen what happens when they give into the Cult of the Expert.
No one's arguing they shouldn't be able to.
OLB seems to be.
As, indeed, did most of the country in 2020-1.
Not really. You've simply extrapolated what I have said with respect to one issue, applied it to a different issue, and in addition made out that I've said something I haven't. I didn't say government shouldn't be able to overrule scientific advice, and indeed this isn't my position. I said that in this case they've gone against the advice of their scientists in order to chase tabloid headlines. It's stupid policymaking and will cost the taxpayer more money, further waste police time and gum up the legal system, strengthen criminal gangs and quite possibly kill people. I've offered no opinion on lockdown policy but I would say that while scientific advice should be absolutely front and centre during a global pandemic ultimately it is for our political leaders to decide how to proceed. So I don't think I hold the views you're trying to ascribe to me.
Essentially you're criticising them for weighing up expert advice against what they think will be popular and pluimping for the latter option.
Of course they've done that - they're politicians!
Good politicians get out in front of public opinion, do what they think will be best for the whole country and try to shape opinion through action and argument. The fact that this government operates as you suggest is why this country is becoming more of a shithole every day.
Well, never let it be said that you're not an optimist.
By your standards, we have no good politicians. Sir Keir has had, for at least the last year, the perfect opportunity to act as you say a good politician does. Instead, cheered on by his party's supporters, he has deliberately done and said as little as possible, focusing on trying to win the next election by default.
That's fair. He is overly cautious. I didn't vote for him as leader. The Tories need to go but I don't hold out great hopes for the next Labour government, or indeed for the long term future of this country. We seem to be permanently in thrall to ill-informed voters and their worst prejudices, with our politicians never missing an opportunity to make a stupid, short-sighted decision. As you might gather, I don't think I am an optimist.
That's the problem with democracy - ill-informed voters.
There is merit in the Shell, Unilever and other multinationals method. The top management emerge, promoted by their peers. Employees and customers can't vote for them. Though shareholders in theory could remove them, in practice they don't. China has a similar system. It competes with democracy. There are pros and cons.
I still think democracy is the best system both morally and in terms of outcomes, but it needs to be combined with well informed voters and enlightened political leadership to deliver the best results. Right now this country seems to be caught in a downwards spiral of angry, ill informed voters, pandering and opportunistic politicians and stupid policies. It is very depressing.
Morally - I prefer democracy, but that's the way I've been brought up. On outcomes It's not clear that democracy wins: Economic GDP Life expectancy China 59 in 1970, 77 now and growing. USA 71 in 1970, 79 now and flat.
On gdp per head both the US and Japan are well ahead of China, the Chinese birthrate is also lower even than most western Nations and China has fewer immigrants percentage wise too
GDP per head is growing much faster in China than US or Japan. Birthrate is an odd measure. Is a low birthrate good or bad? Depends on the context.
Well course it is because it starts from a much lower level.
If you want to grow gdp overall significantly relative to other nations rather than just gdp per capita then you need a well above replacement level birthrate.
Democratic India will likely thus have overtaken China in terms of gdp by 2050 as it has a much higher birthrate. Nigeria is also rapidly advancing up the gdp rankings because of its high birthrate
What metrics would you use to measure the relative outcomes of democrat nations versus the Chinese (and multinational company) approach?
To be clear: I prefer to live in a democracy rather than in China. But that's because I am a liberal and rather anti-authority. I'd get into trouble in China.
But I don't have a religious type faith in democracy and I can see it's flaws.
If I was born and brought up in China, I'd probably prefer the Chinese system to eg the US one.
Democracy ie representative of the Burkean kind where the losers accept the results and most decisions are left to parliamentary representatives works.
Direct democracy with too many referendums and refusal of the losers to accept the results of elections however produces problems and just leads to division
Both such systems can work (see Switzerland), or go badly wrong (see Israel now).
Neither thing has functioned very well in the UK recently.
Given all the drug taking around and about I'd have thought that laughing gas is just a deckchair move by the govt.
In Israel I've not been following save to see that there are demonstrations in London about it. What has Netanyahu done? Is he saying that the courts can't strike down government legislation? In which case is this something we have touched on previously whereby a democratically-elected government is trying to abolish elections?
As for the demonstrations in London about it it's interesting that these are presumably British Jews vociferously protesting about Israel and hence it is easy to see the complications of trying to separate out Israel and the Jews.
The laughing gas move is a joke, appropriately. Yet again the government overrules the scientists in a populist authoritarian knee-jerk response. For a government that is supposedly so anti cancel culture, they certainly seem to like banning things and telling people what they can and can't do.
The politicians absolutely should be able to "overrule" scientists. We've just seen what happens when they give into the Cult of the Expert.
No one's arguing they shouldn't be able to.
OLB seems to be.
As, indeed, did most of the country in 2020-1.
Not really. You've simply extrapolated what I have said with respect to one issue, applied it to a different issue, and in addition made out that I've said something I haven't. I didn't say government shouldn't be able to overrule scientific advice, and indeed this isn't my position. I said that in this case they've gone against the advice of their scientists in order to chase tabloid headlines. It's stupid policymaking and will cost the taxpayer more money, further waste police time and gum up the legal system, strengthen criminal gangs and quite possibly kill people. I've offered no opinion on lockdown policy but I would say that while scientific advice should be absolutely front and centre during a global pandemic ultimately it is for our political leaders to decide how to proceed. So I don't think I hold the views you're trying to ascribe to me.
Essentially you're criticising them for weighing up expert advice against what they think will be popular and pluimping for the latter option.
Of course they've done that - they're politicians!
Good politicians get out in front of public opinion, do what they think will be best for the whole country and try to shape opinion through action and argument. The fact that this government operates as you suggest is why this country is becoming more of a shithole every day.
Well, never let it be said that you're not an optimist.
By your standards, we have no good politicians. Sir Keir has had, for at least the last year, the perfect opportunity to act as you say a good politician does. Instead, cheered on by his party's supporters, he has deliberately done and said as little as possible, focusing on trying to win the next election by default.
That's fair. He is overly cautious. I didn't vote for him as leader. The Tories need to go but I don't hold out great hopes for the next Labour government, or indeed for the long term future of this country. We seem to be permanently in thrall to ill-informed voters and their worst prejudices, with our politicians never missing an opportunity to make a stupid, short-sighted decision. As you might gather, I don't think I am an optimist.
That's the problem with democracy - ill-informed voters.
There is merit in the Shell, Unilever and other multinationals method. The top management emerge, promoted by their peers. Employees and customers can't vote for them. Though shareholders in theory could remove them, in practice they don't. China has a similar system. It competes with democracy. There are pros and cons.
I still think democracy is the best system both morally and in terms of outcomes, but it needs to be combined with well informed voters and enlightened political leadership to deliver the best results. Right now this country seems to be caught in a downwards spiral of angry, ill informed voters, pandering and opportunistic politicians and stupid policies. It is very depressing.
Morally - I prefer democracy, but that's the way I've been brought up. On outcomes It's not clear that democracy wins: Economic GDP Life expectancy China 59 in 1970, 77 now and growing. USA 71 in 1970, 79 now and flat.
On gdp per head both the US and Japan are well ahead of China, the Chinese birthrate is also lower even than most western Nations and China has fewer immigrants percentage wise too
GDP per head is growing much faster in China than US or Japan. Birthrate is an odd measure. Is a low birthrate good or bad? Depends on the context.
Well course it is because it starts from a much lower level.
If you want to grow gdp overall significantly relative to other nations rather than just gdp per capita then you need a well above replacement level birthrate.
Democratic India will likely thus have overtaken China in terms of gdp by 2050 as it has a much higher birthrate. Nigeria is also rapidly advancing up the gdp rankings because of its high birthrate
What metrics would you use to measure the relative outcomes of democrat nations versus the Chinese (and multinational company) approach?
Gdp and wealth per head, education levels, personal freedom and liberty
A mere passing blip, I'm sure.
If we had Chinese levels of repression you would already be in prison for challenging the authority of the UK government on a public forum
Murrayfield? Are they expecting all the members to turn up in person?
The SRU use the space under the seating for a selection of rooms that can be hired for things like trade, antiques and hobby fairs and business meetings. Uses the facilities when the rugger buggers aren't around.
Edit: pretty good transport links too - fairly convenient for train and air as well as bus. And plenty of parking. So makes sense for a major press conference.
Given all the drug taking around and about I'd have thought that laughing gas is just a deckchair move by the govt.
In Israel I've not been following save to see that there are demonstrations in London about it. What has Netanyahu done? Is he saying that the courts can't strike down government legislation? In which case is this something we have touched on previously whereby a democratically-elected government is trying to abolish elections?
As for the demonstrations in London about it it's interesting that these are presumably British Jews vociferously protesting about Israel and hence it is easy to see the complications of trying to separate out Israel and the Jews.
The laughing gas move is a joke, appropriately. Yet again the government overrules the scientists in a populist authoritarian knee-jerk response. For a government that is supposedly so anti cancel culture, they certainly seem to like banning things and telling people what they can and can't do.
The politicians absolutely should be able to "overrule" scientists. We've just seen what happens when they give into the Cult of the Expert.
No one's arguing they shouldn't be able to.
OLB seems to be.
As, indeed, did most of the country in 2020-1.
Not really. You've simply extrapolated what I have said with respect to one issue, applied it to a different issue, and in addition made out that I've said something I haven't. I didn't say government shouldn't be able to overrule scientific advice, and indeed this isn't my position. I said that in this case they've gone against the advice of their scientists in order to chase tabloid headlines. It's stupid policymaking and will cost the taxpayer more money, further waste police time and gum up the legal system, strengthen criminal gangs and quite possibly kill people. I've offered no opinion on lockdown policy but I would say that while scientific advice should be absolutely front and centre during a global pandemic ultimately it is for our political leaders to decide how to proceed. So I don't think I hold the views you're trying to ascribe to me.
Essentially you're criticising them for weighing up expert advice against what they think will be popular and pluimping for the latter option.
Of course they've done that - they're politicians!
Good politicians get out in front of public opinion, do what they think will be best for the whole country and try to shape opinion through action and argument. The fact that this government operates as you suggest is why this country is becoming more of a shithole every day.
Well, never let it be said that you're not an optimist.
By your standards, we have no good politicians. Sir Keir has had, for at least the last year, the perfect opportunity to act as you say a good politician does. Instead, cheered on by his party's supporters, he has deliberately done and said as little as possible, focusing on trying to win the next election by default.
That's fair. He is overly cautious. I didn't vote for him as leader. The Tories need to go but I don't hold out great hopes for the next Labour government, or indeed for the long term future of this country. We seem to be permanently in thrall to ill-informed voters and their worst prejudices, with our politicians never missing an opportunity to make a stupid, short-sighted decision. As you might gather, I don't think I am an optimist.
That's the problem with democracy - ill-informed voters.
There is merit in the Shell, Unilever and other multinationals method. The top management emerge, promoted by their peers. Employees and customers can't vote for them. Though shareholders in theory could remove them, in practice they don't. China has a similar system. It competes with democracy. There are pros and cons.
Anti democrats invariably conclude that you can find out what people want and what best serves their interests by not asking them.
And by not asking 'Quis custodiet ipsos custodes'.
Given all the drug taking around and about I'd have thought that laughing gas is just a deckchair move by the govt.
In Israel I've not been following save to see that there are demonstrations in London about it. What has Netanyahu done? Is he saying that the courts can't strike down government legislation? In which case is this something we have touched on previously whereby a democratically-elected government is trying to abolish elections?
As for the demonstrations in London about it it's interesting that these are presumably British Jews vociferously protesting about Israel and hence it is easy to see the complications of trying to separate out Israel and the Jews.
The laughing gas move is a joke, appropriately. Yet again the government overrules the scientists in a populist authoritarian knee-jerk response. For a government that is supposedly so anti cancel culture, they certainly seem to like banning things and telling people what they can and can't do.
The politicians absolutely should be able to "overrule" scientists. We've just seen what happens when they give into the Cult of the Expert.
No one's arguing they shouldn't be able to.
OLB seems to be.
As, indeed, did most of the country in 2020-1.
Not really. You've simply extrapolated what I have said with respect to one issue, applied it to a different issue, and in addition made out that I've said something I haven't. I didn't say government shouldn't be able to overrule scientific advice, and indeed this isn't my position. I said that in this case they've gone against the advice of their scientists in order to chase tabloid headlines. It's stupid policymaking and will cost the taxpayer more money, further waste police time and gum up the legal system, strengthen criminal gangs and quite possibly kill people. I've offered no opinion on lockdown policy but I would say that while scientific advice should be absolutely front and centre during a global pandemic ultimately it is for our political leaders to decide how to proceed. So I don't think I hold the views you're trying to ascribe to me.
Essentially you're criticising them for weighing up expert advice against what they think will be popular and pluimping for the latter option.
Of course they've done that - they're politicians!
Good politicians get out in front of public opinion, do what they think will be best for the whole country and try to shape opinion through action and argument. The fact that this government operates as you suggest is why this country is becoming more of a shithole every day.
Well, never let it be said that you're not an optimist.
By your standards, we have no good politicians. Sir Keir has had, for at least the last year, the perfect opportunity to act as you say a good politician does. Instead, cheered on by his party's supporters, he has deliberately done and said as little as possible, focusing on trying to win the next election by default.
That's fair. He is overly cautious. I didn't vote for him as leader. The Tories need to go but I don't hold out great hopes for the next Labour government, or indeed for the long term future of this country. We seem to be permanently in thrall to ill-informed voters and their worst prejudices, with our politicians never missing an opportunity to make a stupid, short-sighted decision. As you might gather, I don't think I am an optimist.
That's the problem with democracy - ill-informed voters.
There is merit in the Shell, Unilever and other multinationals method. The top management emerge, promoted by their peers. Employees and customers can't vote for them. Though shareholders in theory could remove them, in practice they don't. China has a similar system. It competes with democracy. There are pros and cons.
I still think democracy is the best system both morally and in terms of outcomes, but it needs to be combined with well informed voters and enlightened political leadership to deliver the best results. Right now this country seems to be caught in a downwards spiral of angry, ill informed voters, pandering and opportunistic politicians and stupid policies. It is very depressing.
Morally - I prefer democracy, but that's the way I've been brought up. On outcomes It's not clear that democracy wins: Economic GDP Life expectancy China 59 in 1970, 77 now and growing. USA 71 in 1970, 79 now and flat.
On gdp per head both the US and Japan are well ahead of China, the Chinese birthrate is also lower even than most western Nations and China has fewer immigrants percentage wise too
GDP per head is growing much faster in China than US or Japan. Birthrate is an odd measure. Is a low birthrate good or bad? Depends on the context.
Well course it is because it starts from a much lower level.
If you want to grow gdp overall significantly relative to other nations rather than just gdp per capita then you need a well above replacement level birthrate.
Democratic India will likely thus have overtaken China in terms of gdp by 2050 as it has a much higher birthrate. Nigeria is also rapidly advancing up the gdp rankings because of its high birthrate
What metrics would you use to measure the relative outcomes of democrat nations versus the Chinese (and multinational company) approach?
To be clear: I prefer to live in a democracy rather than in China. But that's because I am a liberal and rather anti-authority. I'd get into trouble in China.
But I don't have a religious type faith in democracy and I can see it's flaws.
If I was born and brought up in China, I'd probably prefer the Chinese system to eg the US one.
Democracy ie representative of the Burkean kind where the losers accept the results and most decisions are left to parliamentary representatives works.
Direct democracy with too many referendums and refusal of the losers to accept the results of elections however produces problems and just leads to division
Both such systems can work (see Switzerland), or go badly wrong (see Israel now).
Switzerland may be an exception but only because its population is one of the wealthiest and most educated in the world
I do have a fear, which is all-too-depressing, that the anti-woke culture wars will stir up a sufficient number of the indignant right to stop a colossal Labour victory. The fact that people endlessly bang on about a pointless sideshow narrative (trans rights), as evidenced on here by carlotta and his stuck needle, is depressing.
However, I suspect that come the General Election proper, the trans issue will burn brightly for a couple of days as the Daily Malicious vents its spleen and then will pass.
Most people will realise that we had all of this nonsense, and exactly the same arguments, with gay rights 40 years ago and that there are FAR more pressing and important matters that we face than whether Steve in the neighbouring town wishes to self-identify as Susan. (I didn't put 'Steve next door' because most people don't have a trans neighbour and never will).
As you were.
Scotland is a good tester for this theory. I kept pointing out that the row over the GRR bill was largely irrelevant as nobody who wasn't shouting cared about it. IRRELEVANT??? they screamed.
And then came the polling. Putting GRR third bottom on the list of voters' concerns. Not an issue for an electorate who (shockingly) care about jobs services and prosperity, not gender ID issues.
For the handful of mouthfoamers who are obsessed by fear it is THE issue. For almost everyone else it is a non-issue politically.
Except voters saw it as the SNP ‘s second top priority second only to independence. Who were the mouth foamers?
You have made the point for me. The polls showed that voters thought it was the SNP's 2nd top priority. For *the voters* it was their 3rd bottom priority.
Voters do not care about this issue. As demonstrated by the polls The SNP went way off piste and if they elect Forbes today the issue gets quickly dropped. Or if they elect Yousaf it gets slowly dropped.
Either way, voters do not care. It is a non-issue for them.
It’s only a non issue if politicians don’t make it one - as the SNP did. Ironically voters while in general support making change of gender easier, they oppose most of the changes that would make it so.
Do you understand how politics works? A party could go out and Make A Stand on an issue. Save the Pound! said William Hague, you MUST be worried about this because I say you are so you must Vote Conservative to Save the Pound!
Nobody cared. Non-issue, didn't move the polls at all. Politicians can make anything they like into an issue, but if it doesn't motivate people to vote, politically its a non-issue. Voters say what they are concerned about and politicians act accordingly, not the other way round.
No matter how many times a politician might ask "Are you thinking what we're thinking" when the answer is "no" they are sunk. Almost nobody in Scotland is thinking as the SNP were on this issue. They just don't care about it, and wish the government would focus on actual issues.
I expect as the only party that (mostly) opposed the GRR bill that the SCons will be experiencing a real surge in the polls.
Why? Voters don't care about that issue. They care about jobs and education and prosperity - so won't be voting Tory because not stupid.
And besides which, the Tories were so split that DRoss had to grant a free vote.
The GRR Bill is in reality the reason Sturgeon had to resign as FM and may be replaced in that role by the much more socially conservative Kate Forbes this afternoon
Why don’t you believe what Sturgeon said? Seemed perfectly reasonable to me. One does reach a point in life, where one has just had enough of a particular activity.
More to the point, people had had enough of her... when she screwed up over her ludicrous stance on Gender recognition.. she knew she was done for. At least she had the decency to go quickly unlike Gordon McDoom
I'm at a loss as to what it might be, but perhaps you should choose a subject to opine upon about which you have a smidgeon of a clue?
I do have a fear, which is all-too-depressing, that the anti-woke culture wars will stir up a sufficient number of the indignant right to stop a colossal Labour victory. The fact that people endlessly bang on about a pointless sideshow narrative (trans rights), as evidenced on here by carlotta and his stuck needle, is depressing.
However, I suspect that come the General Election proper, the trans issue will burn brightly for a couple of days as the Daily Malicious vents its spleen and then will pass.
Most people will realise that we had all of this nonsense, and exactly the same arguments, with gay rights 40 years ago and that there are FAR more pressing and important matters that we face than whether Steve in the neighbouring town wishes to self-identify as Susan. (I didn't put 'Steve next door' because most people don't have a trans neighbour and never will).
As you were.
Scotland is a good tester for this theory. I kept pointing out that the row over the GRR bill was largely irrelevant as nobody who wasn't shouting cared about it. IRRELEVANT??? they screamed.
And then came the polling. Putting GRR third bottom on the list of voters' concerns. Not an issue for an electorate who (shockingly) care about jobs services and prosperity, not gender ID issues.
For the handful of mouthfoamers who are obsessed by fear it is THE issue. For almost everyone else it is a non-issue politically.
Except voters saw it as the SNP ‘s second top priority second only to independence. Who were the mouth foamers?
You have made the point for me. The polls showed that voters thought it was the SNP's 2nd top priority. For *the voters* it was their 3rd bottom priority.
Voters do not care about this issue. As demonstrated by the polls The SNP went way off piste and if they elect Forbes today the issue gets quickly dropped. Or if they elect Yousaf it gets slowly dropped.
Either way, voters do not care. It is a non-issue for them.
It’s only a non issue if politicians don’t make it one - as the SNP did. Ironically voters while in general support making change of gender easier, they oppose most of the changes that would make it so.
Do you understand how politics works? A party could go out and Make A Stand on an issue. Save the Pound! said William Hague, you MUST be worried about this because I say you are so you must Vote Conservative to Save the Pound!
Nobody cared. Non-issue, didn't move the polls at all. Politicians can make anything they like into an issue, but if it doesn't motivate people to vote, politically its a non-issue. Voters say what they are concerned about and politicians act accordingly, not the other way round.
No matter how many times a politician might ask "Are you thinking what we're thinking" when the answer is "no" they are sunk. Almost nobody in Scotland is thinking as the SNP were on this issue. They just don't care about it, and wish the government would focus on actual issues.
I expect as the only party that (mostly) opposed the GRR bill that the SCons will be experiencing a real surge in the polls.
Why? Voters don't care about that issue. They care about jobs and education and prosperity - so won't be voting Tory because not stupid.
And besides which, the Tories were so split that DRoss had to grant a free vote.
The GRR Bill is in reality the reason Sturgeon had to resign as FM and may be replaced in that role by the much more socially conservative Kate Forbes this afternoon
Why don’t you believe what Sturgeon said? Seemed perfectly reasonable to me. One does reach a point in life, where one has just had enough of a particular activity.
It just happened to coincide with a fall in the SNP ratings and divisions within her party.
In reality she would have preferred to step down next year, her 10th anniversary as First Minister and SNP leader
A.k.a. “Oh bother this; I’m fed up with the lot of you! “
I'm impressed by HYUFD's range of sweeping and supposedly authoritative statements about everything north, and indeed also south, of the border.
I genuinely never thought Starmer would hold the line on Corbyn this much. If Corbyn were not so stubborn Starmer would never have had the opportunity.
Corbyn seems to want to martyr himself. He really does only have himself to blame. I bet SKS cannot believe his luck.
Is it worth a fiver on the Tories and Lib Dems to win Islington North, if Corbyn stands as an independent against the official Labour candidate?
I don’t know the area but possibly more likely to be Corbyn himself.
I lived there for a good while and canvassed in local elections. Corbyn has a big personal vote (people who weren't voting Labour in the locals often said spontaneously that they'd be voting for him), reinforced by the fact that many voters quite like the "maverick independent fearlessly saying what he thinks" idea. I'd think he'll start as favourite if he stands but if Labour wins big nationally that may carry Islington North too. What the Greens do may be important as they have a significant local presence (they are the only non-Labour party with any local councillors at all!) - they might be best-advised strategically to endorse him (I'm sure they'd love him to defect, but doubt if he will), but their history is to stand everywhere. I don't think the Tories or LibDems have any real chance in the constituency.
Duke of Windsor ‘gave palace layout to Nazis before bombing
[Alexander Larman, whose books on the royal family between the wars outline the duke’s wartime assistance to Germany] told the festival that the Duke of Windsor, who abdicated in 1936 over his love for Wallis Simpson, an American divorcee , said he had provided “inside information” on the layout of Buckingham Palace. The Nazis bombed the palace in 1940 with several bombs hitting “family quarters”.
Larman said there was no doubt that the duke was a Nazi sympathiser and that it looked as if he had provided information to them. “The Nazis knew what they were doing and that was because they had inside information [from the duke],” Larman said.
You do realise the Duke of Windsor had no children and none of the current royal family are descended from him?
You do also realise if he had succeeded the King’s grandfather would have been blown up by the Nazis as George VI unlike his brother stayed in London with Churchill and defied Hitler
Given all the drug taking around and about I'd have thought that laughing gas is just a deckchair move by the govt.
In Israel I've not been following save to see that there are demonstrations in London about it. What has Netanyahu done? Is he saying that the courts can't strike down government legislation? In which case is this something we have touched on previously whereby a democratically-elected government is trying to abolish elections?
As for the demonstrations in London about it it's interesting that these are presumably British Jews vociferously protesting about Israel and hence it is easy to see the complications of trying to separate out Israel and the Jews.
The laughing gas move is a joke, appropriately. Yet again the government overrules the scientists in a populist authoritarian knee-jerk response. For a government that is supposedly so anti cancel culture, they certainly seem to like banning things and telling people what they can and can't do.
The politicians absolutely should be able to "overrule" scientists. We've just seen what happens when they give into the Cult of the Expert.
No one's arguing they shouldn't be able to.
OLB seems to be.
As, indeed, did most of the country in 2020-1.
Not really. You've simply extrapolated what I have said with respect to one issue, applied it to a different issue, and in addition made out that I've said something I haven't. I didn't say government shouldn't be able to overrule scientific advice, and indeed this isn't my position. I said that in this case they've gone against the advice of their scientists in order to chase tabloid headlines. It's stupid policymaking and will cost the taxpayer more money, further waste police time and gum up the legal system, strengthen criminal gangs and quite possibly kill people. I've offered no opinion on lockdown policy but I would say that while scientific advice should be absolutely front and centre during a global pandemic ultimately it is for our political leaders to decide how to proceed. So I don't think I hold the views you're trying to ascribe to me.
Essentially you're criticising them for weighing up expert advice against what they think will be popular and pluimping for the latter option.
Of course they've done that - they're politicians!
Good politicians get out in front of public opinion, do what they think will be best for the whole country and try to shape opinion through action and argument. The fact that this government operates as you suggest is why this country is becoming more of a shithole every day.
Well, never let it be said that you're not an optimist.
By your standards, we have no good politicians. Sir Keir has had, for at least the last year, the perfect opportunity to act as you say a good politician does. Instead, cheered on by his party's supporters, he has deliberately done and said as little as possible, focusing on trying to win the next election by default.
That's fair. He is overly cautious. I didn't vote for him as leader. The Tories need to go but I don't hold out great hopes for the next Labour government, or indeed for the long term future of this country. We seem to be permanently in thrall to ill-informed voters and their worst prejudices, with our politicians never missing an opportunity to make a stupid, short-sighted decision. As you might gather, I don't think I am an optimist.
That's the problem with democracy - ill-informed voters.
There is merit in the Shell, Unilever and other multinationals method. The top management emerge, promoted by their peers. Employees and customers can't vote for them. Though shareholders in theory could remove them, in practice they don't. China has a similar system. It competes with democracy. There are pros and cons.
I still think democracy is the best system both morally and in terms of outcomes, but it needs to be combined with well informed voters and enlightened political leadership to deliver the best results. Right now this country seems to be caught in a downwards spiral of angry, ill informed voters, pandering and opportunistic politicians and stupid policies. It is very depressing.
Morally - I prefer democracy, but that's the way I've been brought up. On outcomes It's not clear that democracy wins: Economic GDP Life expectancy China 59 in 1970, 77 now and growing. USA 71 in 1970, 79 now and flat.
On gdp per head both the US and Japan are well ahead of China, the Chinese birthrate is also lower even than most western Nations and China has fewer immigrants percentage wise too
GDP per head is growing much faster in China than US or Japan. Birthrate is an odd measure. Is a low birthrate good or bad? Depends on the context.
Well course it is because it starts from a much lower level.
If you want to grow gdp overall significantly relative to other nations rather than just gdp per capita then you need a well above replacement level birthrate.
Democratic India will likely thus have overtaken China in terms of gdp by 2050 as it has a much higher birthrate. Nigeria is also rapidly advancing up the gdp rankings because of its high birthrate
What metrics would you use to measure the relative outcomes of democrat nations versus the Chinese (and multinational company) approach?
Gdp and wealth per head, education levels, personal freedom and liberty
A mere passing blip, I'm sure.
If we had Chinese levels of repression you would already be in prison for challenging the authority of the UK government on a public forum
Given all the drug taking around and about I'd have thought that laughing gas is just a deckchair move by the govt.
In Israel I've not been following save to see that there are demonstrations in London about it. What has Netanyahu done? Is he saying that the courts can't strike down government legislation? In which case is this something we have touched on previously whereby a democratically-elected government is trying to abolish elections?
As for the demonstrations in London about it it's interesting that these are presumably British Jews vociferously protesting about Israel and hence it is easy to see the complications of trying to separate out Israel and the Jews.
The laughing gas move is a joke, appropriately. Yet again the government overrules the scientists in a populist authoritarian knee-jerk response. For a government that is supposedly so anti cancel culture, they certainly seem to like banning things and telling people what they can and can't do.
The politicians absolutely should be able to "overrule" scientists. We've just seen what happens when they give into the Cult of the Expert.
No one's arguing they shouldn't be able to.
OLB seems to be.
As, indeed, did most of the country in 2020-1.
Not really. You've simply extrapolated what I have said with respect to one issue, applied it to a different issue, and in addition made out that I've said something I haven't. I didn't say government shouldn't be able to overrule scientific advice, and indeed this isn't my position. I said that in this case they've gone against the advice of their scientists in order to chase tabloid headlines. It's stupid policymaking and will cost the taxpayer more money, further waste police time and gum up the legal system, strengthen criminal gangs and quite possibly kill people. I've offered no opinion on lockdown policy but I would say that while scientific advice should be absolutely front and centre during a global pandemic ultimately it is for our political leaders to decide how to proceed. So I don't think I hold the views you're trying to ascribe to me.
Essentially you're criticising them for weighing up expert advice against what they think will be popular and pluimping for the latter option.
Of course they've done that - they're politicians!
Good politicians get out in front of public opinion, do what they think will be best for the whole country and try to shape opinion through action and argument. The fact that this government operates as you suggest is why this country is becoming more of a shithole every day.
Well, never let it be said that you're not an optimist.
By your standards, we have no good politicians. Sir Keir has had, for at least the last year, the perfect opportunity to act as you say a good politician does. Instead, cheered on by his party's supporters, he has deliberately done and said as little as possible, focusing on trying to win the next election by default.
That's fair. He is overly cautious. I didn't vote for him as leader. The Tories need to go but I don't hold out great hopes for the next Labour government, or indeed for the long term future of this country. We seem to be permanently in thrall to ill-informed voters and their worst prejudices, with our politicians never missing an opportunity to make a stupid, short-sighted decision. As you might gather, I don't think I am an optimist.
That's the problem with democracy - ill-informed voters.
There is merit in the Shell, Unilever and other multinationals method. The top management emerge, promoted by their peers. Employees and customers can't vote for them. Though shareholders in theory could remove them, in practice they don't. China has a similar system. It competes with democracy. There are pros and cons.
I still think democracy is the best system both morally and in terms of outcomes, but it needs to be combined with well informed voters and enlightened political leadership to deliver the best results. Right now this country seems to be caught in a downwards spiral of angry, ill informed voters, pandering and opportunistic politicians and stupid policies. It is very depressing.
Morally - I prefer democracy, but that's the way I've been brought up. On outcomes It's not clear that democracy wins: Economic GDP Life expectancy China 59 in 1970, 77 now and growing. USA 71 in 1970, 79 now and flat.
On gdp per head both the US and Japan are well ahead of China, the Chinese birthrate is also lower even than most western Nations and China has fewer immigrants percentage wise too
GDP per head is growing much faster in China than US or Japan. Birthrate is an odd measure. Is a low birthrate good or bad? Depends on the context.
Well course it is because it starts from a much lower level.
If you want to grow gdp overall significantly relative to other nations rather than just gdp per capita then you need a well above replacement level birthrate.
Democratic India will likely thus have overtaken China in terms of gdp by 2050 as it has a much higher birthrate. Nigeria is also rapidly advancing up the gdp rankings because of its high birthrate
What metrics would you use to measure the relative outcomes of democrat nations versus the Chinese (and multinational company) approach?
Gdp and wealth per head, education levels, personal freedom and liberty
A mere passing blip, I'm sure.
If we had Chinese levels of repression you would already be in prison for challenging the authority of the UK government on a public forum
Given all the drug taking around and about I'd have thought that laughing gas is just a deckchair move by the govt.
In Israel I've not been following save to see that there are demonstrations in London about it. What has Netanyahu done? Is he saying that the courts can't strike down government legislation? In which case is this something we have touched on previously whereby a democratically-elected government is trying to abolish elections?
As for the demonstrations in London about it it's interesting that these are presumably British Jews vociferously protesting about Israel and hence it is easy to see the complications of trying to separate out Israel and the Jews.
The laughing gas move is a joke, appropriately. Yet again the government overrules the scientists in a populist authoritarian knee-jerk response. For a government that is supposedly so anti cancel culture, they certainly seem to like banning things and telling people what they can and can't do.
The politicians absolutely should be able to "overrule" scientists. We've just seen what happens when they give into the Cult of the Expert.
No one's arguing they shouldn't be able to.
OLB seems to be.
As, indeed, did most of the country in 2020-1.
Not really. You've simply extrapolated what I have said with respect to one issue, applied it to a different issue, and in addition made out that I've said something I haven't. I didn't say government shouldn't be able to overrule scientific advice, and indeed this isn't my position. I said that in this case they've gone against the advice of their scientists in order to chase tabloid headlines. It's stupid policymaking and will cost the taxpayer more money, further waste police time and gum up the legal system, strengthen criminal gangs and quite possibly kill people. I've offered no opinion on lockdown policy but I would say that while scientific advice should be absolutely front and centre during a global pandemic ultimately it is for our political leaders to decide how to proceed. So I don't think I hold the views you're trying to ascribe to me.
Essentially you're criticising them for weighing up expert advice against what they think will be popular and pluimping for the latter option.
Of course they've done that - they're politicians!
Good politicians get out in front of public opinion, do what they think will be best for the whole country and try to shape opinion through action and argument. The fact that this government operates as you suggest is why this country is becoming more of a shithole every day.
Well, never let it be said that you're not an optimist.
By your standards, we have no good politicians. Sir Keir has had, for at least the last year, the perfect opportunity to act as you say a good politician does. Instead, cheered on by his party's supporters, he has deliberately done and said as little as possible, focusing on trying to win the next election by default.
That's fair. He is overly cautious. I didn't vote for him as leader. The Tories need to go but I don't hold out great hopes for the next Labour government, or indeed for the long term future of this country. We seem to be permanently in thrall to ill-informed voters and their worst prejudices, with our politicians never missing an opportunity to make a stupid, short-sighted decision. As you might gather, I don't think I am an optimist.
That's the problem with democracy - ill-informed voters.
There is merit in the Shell, Unilever and other multinationals method. The top management emerge, promoted by their peers. Employees and customers can't vote for them. Though shareholders in theory could remove them, in practice they don't. China has a similar system. It competes with democracy. There are pros and cons.
I still think democracy is the best system both morally and in terms of outcomes, but it needs to be combined with well informed voters and enlightened political leadership to deliver the best results. Right now this country seems to be caught in a downwards spiral of angry, ill informed voters, pandering and opportunistic politicians and stupid policies. It is very depressing.
Morally - I prefer democracy, but that's the way I've been brought up. On outcomes It's not clear that democracy wins: Economic GDP Life expectancy China 59 in 1970, 77 now and growing. USA 71 in 1970, 79 now and flat.
On gdp per head both the US and Japan are well ahead of China, the Chinese birthrate is also lower even than most western Nations and China has fewer immigrants percentage wise too
GDP per head is growing much faster in China than US or Japan. Birthrate is an odd measure. Is a low birthrate good or bad? Depends on the context.
Well course it is because it starts from a much lower level.
If you want to grow gdp overall significantly relative to other nations rather than just gdp per capita then you need a well above replacement level birthrate.
Democratic India will likely thus have overtaken China in terms of gdp by 2050 as it has a much higher birthrate. Nigeria is also rapidly advancing up the gdp rankings because of its high birthrate
What metrics would you use to measure the relative outcomes of democrat nations versus the Chinese (and multinational company) approach?
Gdp and wealth per head, education levels, personal freedom and liberty
A mere passing blip, I'm sure.
If we had Chinese levels of repression you would already be in prison for challenging the authority of the UK government on a public forum
Given all the drug taking around and about I'd have thought that laughing gas is just a deckchair move by the govt.
In Israel I've not been following save to see that there are demonstrations in London about it. What has Netanyahu done? Is he saying that the courts can't strike down government legislation? In which case is this something we have touched on previously whereby a democratically-elected government is trying to abolish elections?
As for the demonstrations in London about it it's interesting that these are presumably British Jews vociferously protesting about Israel and hence it is easy to see the complications of trying to separate out Israel and the Jews.
The laughing gas move is a joke, appropriately. Yet again the government overrules the scientists in a populist authoritarian knee-jerk response. For a government that is supposedly so anti cancel culture, they certainly seem to like banning things and telling people what they can and can't do.
The politicians absolutely should be able to "overrule" scientists. We've just seen what happens when they give into the Cult of the Expert.
No one's arguing they shouldn't be able to.
OLB seems to be.
As, indeed, did most of the country in 2020-1.
Not really. You've simply extrapolated what I have said with respect to one issue, applied it to a different issue, and in addition made out that I've said something I haven't. I didn't say government shouldn't be able to overrule scientific advice, and indeed this isn't my position. I said that in this case they've gone against the advice of their scientists in order to chase tabloid headlines. It's stupid policymaking and will cost the taxpayer more money, further waste police time and gum up the legal system, strengthen criminal gangs and quite possibly kill people. I've offered no opinion on lockdown policy but I would say that while scientific advice should be absolutely front and centre during a global pandemic ultimately it is for our political leaders to decide how to proceed. So I don't think I hold the views you're trying to ascribe to me.
Essentially you're criticising them for weighing up expert advice against what they think will be popular and pluimping for the latter option.
Of course they've done that - they're politicians!
Good politicians get out in front of public opinion, do what they think will be best for the whole country and try to shape opinion through action and argument. The fact that this government operates as you suggest is why this country is becoming more of a shithole every day.
Well, never let it be said that you're not an optimist.
By your standards, we have no good politicians. Sir Keir has had, for at least the last year, the perfect opportunity to act as you say a good politician does. Instead, cheered on by his party's supporters, he has deliberately done and said as little as possible, focusing on trying to win the next election by default.
That's fair. He is overly cautious. I didn't vote for him as leader. The Tories need to go but I don't hold out great hopes for the next Labour government, or indeed for the long term future of this country. We seem to be permanently in thrall to ill-informed voters and their worst prejudices, with our politicians never missing an opportunity to make a stupid, short-sighted decision. As you might gather, I don't think I am an optimist.
That's the problem with democracy - ill-informed voters.
There is merit in the Shell, Unilever and other multinationals method. The top management emerge, promoted by their peers. Employees and customers can't vote for them. Though shareholders in theory could remove them, in practice they don't. China has a similar system. It competes with democracy. There are pros and cons.
I still think democracy is the best system both morally and in terms of outcomes, but it needs to be combined with well informed voters and enlightened political leadership to deliver the best results. Right now this country seems to be caught in a downwards spiral of angry, ill informed voters, pandering and opportunistic politicians and stupid policies. It is very depressing.
Morally - I prefer democracy, but that's the way I've been brought up. On outcomes It's not clear that democracy wins: Economic GDP Life expectancy China 59 in 1970, 77 now and growing. USA 71 in 1970, 79 now and flat.
On gdp per head both the US and Japan are well ahead of China, the Chinese birthrate is also lower even than most western Nations and China has fewer immigrants percentage wise too
GDP per head is growing much faster in China than US or Japan. Birthrate is an odd measure. Is a low birthrate good or bad? Depends on the context.
Well course it is because it starts from a much lower level.
If you want to grow gdp overall significantly relative to other nations rather than just gdp per capita then you need a well above replacement level birthrate.
Democratic India will likely thus have overtaken China in terms of gdp by 2050 as it has a much higher birthrate. Nigeria is also rapidly advancing up the gdp rankings because of its high birthrate
What metrics would you use to measure the relative outcomes of democrat nations versus the Chinese (and multinational company) approach?
Gdp and wealth per head, education levels, personal freedom and liberty
A mere passing blip, I'm sure.
If we had Chinese levels of repression you would already be in prison for challenging the authority of the UK government on a public forum
Numbers in jail USA 505/100, 000 China 164/100,000
Duke of Windsor ‘gave palace layout to Nazis before bombing
[Alexander Larman, whose books on the royal family between the wars outline the duke’s wartime assistance to Germany] told the festival that the Duke of Windsor, who abdicated in 1936 over his love for Wallis Simpson, an American divorcee , said he had provided “inside information” on the layout of Buckingham Palace. The Nazis bombed the palace in 1940 with several bombs hitting “family quarters”.
Larman said there was no doubt that the duke was a Nazi sympathiser and that it looked as if he had provided information to them. “The Nazis knew what they were doing and that was because they had inside information [from the duke],” Larman said.
You do realise the Duke of Windsor had no children and none of the current royal family are descended from him?
You do also realise if he had succeeded the King’s grandfather would have been blown up by the Nazis as George VI unlike his brother stayed in London with Churchill and defied Hitler
YOu do realise that Mr Simpson was as closely related to KCIII as King George V [edit] was?
Given all the drug taking around and about I'd have thought that laughing gas is just a deckchair move by the govt.
In Israel I've not been following save to see that there are demonstrations in London about it. What has Netanyahu done? Is he saying that the courts can't strike down government legislation? In which case is this something we have touched on previously whereby a democratically-elected government is trying to abolish elections?
As for the demonstrations in London about it it's interesting that these are presumably British Jews vociferously protesting about Israel and hence it is easy to see the complications of trying to separate out Israel and the Jews.
The laughing gas move is a joke, appropriately. Yet again the government overrules the scientists in a populist authoritarian knee-jerk response. For a government that is supposedly so anti cancel culture, they certainly seem to like banning things and telling people what they can and can't do.
The politicians absolutely should be able to "overrule" scientists. We've just seen what happens when they give into the Cult of the Expert.
No one's arguing they shouldn't be able to.
OLB seems to be.
As, indeed, did most of the country in 2020-1.
Not really. You've simply extrapolated what I have said with respect to one issue, applied it to a different issue, and in addition made out that I've said something I haven't. I didn't say government shouldn't be able to overrule scientific advice, and indeed this isn't my position. I said that in this case they've gone against the advice of their scientists in order to chase tabloid headlines. It's stupid policymaking and will cost the taxpayer more money, further waste police time and gum up the legal system, strengthen criminal gangs and quite possibly kill people. I've offered no opinion on lockdown policy but I would say that while scientific advice should be absolutely front and centre during a global pandemic ultimately it is for our political leaders to decide how to proceed. So I don't think I hold the views you're trying to ascribe to me.
Essentially you're criticising them for weighing up expert advice against what they think will be popular and pluimping for the latter option.
Of course they've done that - they're politicians!
Good politicians get out in front of public opinion, do what they think will be best for the whole country and try to shape opinion through action and argument. The fact that this government operates as you suggest is why this country is becoming more of a shithole every day.
Well, never let it be said that you're not an optimist.
By your standards, we have no good politicians. Sir Keir has had, for at least the last year, the perfect opportunity to act as you say a good politician does. Instead, cheered on by his party's supporters, he has deliberately done and said as little as possible, focusing on trying to win the next election by default.
That's fair. He is overly cautious. I didn't vote for him as leader. The Tories need to go but I don't hold out great hopes for the next Labour government, or indeed for the long term future of this country. We seem to be permanently in thrall to ill-informed voters and their worst prejudices, with our politicians never missing an opportunity to make a stupid, short-sighted decision. As you might gather, I don't think I am an optimist.
That's the problem with democracy - ill-informed voters.
There is merit in the Shell, Unilever and other multinationals method. The top management emerge, promoted by their peers. Employees and customers can't vote for them. Though shareholders in theory could remove them, in practice they don't. China has a similar system. It competes with democracy. There are pros and cons.
I still think democracy is the best system both morally and in terms of outcomes, but it needs to be combined with well informed voters and enlightened political leadership to deliver the best results. Right now this country seems to be caught in a downwards spiral of angry, ill informed voters, pandering and opportunistic politicians and stupid policies. It is very depressing.
Morally - I prefer democracy, but that's the way I've been brought up. On outcomes It's not clear that democracy wins: Economic GDP Life expectancy China 59 in 1970, 77 now and growing. USA 71 in 1970, 79 now and flat.
On gdp per head both the US and Japan are well ahead of China, the Chinese birthrate is also lower even than most western Nations and China has fewer immigrants percentage wise too
GDP per head is growing much faster in China than US or Japan. Birthrate is an odd measure. Is a low birthrate good or bad? Depends on the context.
Well course it is because it starts from a much lower level.
If you want to grow gdp overall significantly relative to other nations rather than just gdp per capita then you need a well above replacement level birthrate.
Democratic India will likely thus have overtaken China in terms of gdp by 2050 as it has a much higher birthrate. Nigeria is also rapidly advancing up the gdp rankings because of its high birthrate
What metrics would you use to measure the relative outcomes of democrat nations versus the Chinese (and multinational company) approach?
To be clear: I prefer to live in a democracy rather than in China. But that's because I am a liberal and rather anti-authority. I'd get into trouble in China.
But I don't have a religious type faith in democracy and I can see it's flaws.
If I was born and brought up in China, I'd probably prefer the Chinese system to eg the US one.
I think I do have a religious type faith in democracy.
Democracy doesn't deliver the right result quickly. But autocracies tend not to deliver the right result at all. I have a high degree of faith in western voters to come to the right conclusions, eventually.
Radio 4 talking about the fact that sales of petrol and diesel cars are supposed to end in 7 years. Does anyone believe this will happen at that time?
Yes.
As someone who works for a company that installs electric car charge points I think there is absolutely no chance of that happening. At the current rate of new installs it will take until the year 3000 before we have enough to get rid of petrol and diesel.
Radio 4 talking about the fact that sales of petrol and diesel cars are supposed to end in 7 years. Does anyone believe this will happen at that time?
PHEV sales will continue until 2035 and you won't be able to buy a mass market car that isn't a BEV or PHEV in 2030 so, yes.
There will still be those gammony arseholes who will refuse, with great ostentation, to buy one because they won't tow a horsebox from Falmouth to Thurso without stopping or something.
Given all the drug taking around and about I'd have thought that laughing gas is just a deckchair move by the govt.
In Israel I've not been following save to see that there are demonstrations in London about it. What has Netanyahu done? Is he saying that the courts can't strike down government legislation? In which case is this something we have touched on previously whereby a democratically-elected government is trying to abolish elections?
As for the demonstrations in London about it it's interesting that these are presumably British Jews vociferously protesting about Israel and hence it is easy to see the complications of trying to separate out Israel and the Jews.
The laughing gas move is a joke, appropriately. Yet again the government overrules the scientists in a populist authoritarian knee-jerk response. For a government that is supposedly so anti cancel culture, they certainly seem to like banning things and telling people what they can and can't do.
The politicians absolutely should be able to "overrule" scientists. We've just seen what happens when they give into the Cult of the Expert.
No one's arguing they shouldn't be able to.
OLB seems to be.
As, indeed, did most of the country in 2020-1.
Not really. You've simply extrapolated what I have said with respect to one issue, applied it to a different issue, and in addition made out that I've said something I haven't. I didn't say government shouldn't be able to overrule scientific advice, and indeed this isn't my position. I said that in this case they've gone against the advice of their scientists in order to chase tabloid headlines. It's stupid policymaking and will cost the taxpayer more money, further waste police time and gum up the legal system, strengthen criminal gangs and quite possibly kill people. I've offered no opinion on lockdown policy but I would say that while scientific advice should be absolutely front and centre during a global pandemic ultimately it is for our political leaders to decide how to proceed. So I don't think I hold the views you're trying to ascribe to me.
Essentially you're criticising them for weighing up expert advice against what they think will be popular and pluimping for the latter option.
Of course they've done that - they're politicians!
Good politicians get out in front of public opinion, do what they think will be best for the whole country and try to shape opinion through action and argument. The fact that this government operates as you suggest is why this country is becoming more of a shithole every day.
Well, never let it be said that you're not an optimist.
By your standards, we have no good politicians. Sir Keir has had, for at least the last year, the perfect opportunity to act as you say a good politician does. Instead, cheered on by his party's supporters, he has deliberately done and said as little as possible, focusing on trying to win the next election by default.
That's fair. He is overly cautious. I didn't vote for him as leader. The Tories need to go but I don't hold out great hopes for the next Labour government, or indeed for the long term future of this country. We seem to be permanently in thrall to ill-informed voters and their worst prejudices, with our politicians never missing an opportunity to make a stupid, short-sighted decision. As you might gather, I don't think I am an optimist.
That's the problem with democracy - ill-informed voters.
There is merit in the Shell, Unilever and other multinationals method. The top management emerge, promoted by their peers. Employees and customers can't vote for them. Though shareholders in theory could remove them, in practice they don't. China has a similar system. It competes with democracy. There are pros and cons.
I still think democracy is the best system both morally and in terms of outcomes, but it needs to be combined with well informed voters and enlightened political leadership to deliver the best results. Right now this country seems to be caught in a downwards spiral of angry, ill informed voters, pandering and opportunistic politicians and stupid policies. It is very depressing.
Morally - I prefer democracy, but that's the way I've been brought up. On outcomes It's not clear that democracy wins: Economic GDP Life expectancy China 59 in 1970, 77 now and growing. USA 71 in 1970, 79 now and flat.
On gdp per head both the US and Japan are well ahead of China, the Chinese birthrate is also lower even than most western Nations and China has fewer immigrants percentage wise too
GDP per head is growing much faster in China than US or Japan. Birthrate is an odd measure. Is a low birthrate good or bad? Depends on the context.
Well course it is because it starts from a much lower level.
If you want to grow gdp overall significantly relative to other nations rather than just gdp per capita then you need a well above replacement level birthrate.
Democratic India will likely thus have overtaken China in terms of gdp by 2050 as it has a much higher birthrate. Nigeria is also rapidly advancing up the gdp rankings because of its high birthrate
What metrics would you use to measure the relative outcomes of democrat nations versus the Chinese (and multinational company) approach?
Gdp and wealth per head, education levels, personal freedom and liberty
A mere passing blip, I'm sure.
If we had Chinese levels of repression you would already be in prison for challenging the authority of the UK government on a public forum
Numbers in jail USA 505/100, 000 China 164/100,000
The fact the US has a better rate of convicting and imprisoning criminals than China doesn't mean it has less political freedom.
You can tweet or write or say what you want about the US government under the First amendment to the US constitution as long as it isn't classified information. In China however you can't criticise Xi or the Chinese government in public without risk of arrest
Duke of Windsor ‘gave palace layout to Nazis before bombing
[Alexander Larman, whose books on the royal family between the wars outline the duke’s wartime assistance to Germany] told the festival that the Duke of Windsor, who abdicated in 1936 over his love for Wallis Simpson, an American divorcee , said he had provided “inside information” on the layout of Buckingham Palace. The Nazis bombed the palace in 1940 with several bombs hitting “family quarters”.
Larman said there was no doubt that the duke was a Nazi sympathiser and that it looked as if he had provided information to them. “The Nazis knew what they were doing and that was because they had inside information [from the duke],” Larman said.
You do realise the Duke of Windsor had no children and none of the current royal family are descended from him?
You do also realise if he had succeeded the King’s grandfather would have been blown up by the Nazis as George VI unlike his brother stayed in London with Churchill and defied Hitler
YOu do realise that Mr Simpson was as closely related to KCIII as King George V [edit] was?
No the Duke of Windsor was more closely related to George V than KCIII as he was his father not his great grandfather.
However KCIII's grandfather was George VI not Edward VIII
I do have a fear, which is all-too-depressing, that the anti-woke culture wars will stir up a sufficient number of the indignant right to stop a colossal Labour victory. The fact that people endlessly bang on about a pointless sideshow narrative (trans rights), as evidenced on here by carlotta and his stuck needle, is depressing.
However, I suspect that come the General Election proper, the trans issue will burn brightly for a couple of days as the Daily Malicious vents its spleen and then will pass.
Most people will realise that we had all of this nonsense, and exactly the same arguments, with gay rights 40 years ago and that there are FAR more pressing and important matters that we face than whether Steve in the neighbouring town wishes to self-identify as Susan. (I didn't put 'Steve next door' because most people don't have a trans neighbour and never will).
As you were.
Scotland is a good tester for this theory. I kept pointing out that the row over the GRR bill was largely irrelevant as nobody who wasn't shouting cared about it. IRRELEVANT??? they screamed.
And then came the polling. Putting GRR third bottom on the list of voters' concerns. Not an issue for an electorate who (shockingly) care about jobs services and prosperity, not gender ID issues.
For the handful of mouthfoamers who are obsessed by fear it is THE issue. For almost everyone else it is a non-issue politically.
People in Scotland were concerned, it was not the principle but the fact that they took out all amendmnts that people would have been happy with, they would only consulted with Stonewall etc , derided people's concerns and hence public opinion is against it and things are now much worse than they were due to Sturgeon being a pig headed egotist who again only listened to a very limited view on the subject. It has setback the subject for many many years to come.
Mismanagement of public accounts cost Wales £155.5m at the height of Covid, according to a Senedd committee. The Welsh government failed to spend the extra cash by March 2021 and had to give it back to the UK government.
Meanwhile, Welsh government estimates put the amount of fraud and error in a Covid business grant scheme between £700,000 and £37m in 2020-21.
It is the fact that the fraud estimate is so uncertain that is astonishing.
Is it? My experience of Welsh Labour suggests the really surprising thing is they've admitted there was fraud.
It is a public accounts committee.
Of course, Llafur never admit fraud. That is why Wales (uniquely in the UK) has no proper inquiry into the handling of Covid by its government. It is also why the Senedd (uniquely in the UK) has no register of lobbyists.
No doubt today will be mainly about Scotland.
The real achievement of Salmond & Sturgeon has -- in my opinion -- been to show the Scottish people that an alternative to corrupt and insular Labour rule in Holyrood was possible.
Scotland is in a far, far better place than Wales because of this.
Unfortunately Sturgeon went awry and changed to Labour path.
That's an AC-208 he's flying which were delivered to Afghanistan in 2019. British combat forces were finally run out of Helmand in 2014 so he's chatting shit.
Given all the drug taking around and about I'd have thought that laughing gas is just a deckchair move by the govt.
In Israel I've not been following save to see that there are demonstrations in London about it. What has Netanyahu done? Is he saying that the courts can't strike down government legislation? In which case is this something we have touched on previously whereby a democratically-elected government is trying to abolish elections?
As for the demonstrations in London about it it's interesting that these are presumably British Jews vociferously protesting about Israel and hence it is easy to see the complications of trying to separate out Israel and the Jews.
The laughing gas move is a joke, appropriately. Yet again the government overrules the scientists in a populist authoritarian knee-jerk response. For a government that is supposedly so anti cancel culture, they certainly seem to like banning things and telling people what they can and can't do.
The politicians absolutely should be able to "overrule" scientists. We've just seen what happens when they give into the Cult of the Expert.
No one's arguing they shouldn't be able to.
OLB seems to be.
As, indeed, did most of the country in 2020-1.
Not really. You've simply extrapolated what I have said with respect to one issue, applied it to a different issue, and in addition made out that I've said something I haven't. I didn't say government shouldn't be able to overrule scientific advice, and indeed this isn't my position. I said that in this case they've gone against the advice of their scientists in order to chase tabloid headlines. It's stupid policymaking and will cost the taxpayer more money, further waste police time and gum up the legal system, strengthen criminal gangs and quite possibly kill people. I've offered no opinion on lockdown policy but I would say that while scientific advice should be absolutely front and centre during a global pandemic ultimately it is for our political leaders to decide how to proceed. So I don't think I hold the views you're trying to ascribe to me.
Essentially you're criticising them for weighing up expert advice against what they think will be popular and pluimping for the latter option.
Of course they've done that - they're politicians!
Good politicians get out in front of public opinion, do what they think will be best for the whole country and try to shape opinion through action and argument. The fact that this government operates as you suggest is why this country is becoming more of a shithole every day.
Well, never let it be said that you're not an optimist.
By your standards, we have no good politicians. Sir Keir has had, for at least the last year, the perfect opportunity to act as you say a good politician does. Instead, cheered on by his party's supporters, he has deliberately done and said as little as possible, focusing on trying to win the next election by default.
That's fair. He is overly cautious. I didn't vote for him as leader. The Tories need to go but I don't hold out great hopes for the next Labour government, or indeed for the long term future of this country. We seem to be permanently in thrall to ill-informed voters and their worst prejudices, with our politicians never missing an opportunity to make a stupid, short-sighted decision. As you might gather, I don't think I am an optimist.
That's the problem with democracy - ill-informed voters.
There is merit in the Shell, Unilever and other multinationals method. The top management emerge, promoted by their peers. Employees and customers can't vote for them. Though shareholders in theory could remove them, in practice they don't. China has a similar system. It competes with democracy. There are pros and cons.
I still think democracy is the best system both morally and in terms of outcomes, but it needs to be combined with well informed voters and enlightened political leadership to deliver the best results. Right now this country seems to be caught in a downwards spiral of angry, ill informed voters, pandering and opportunistic politicians and stupid policies. It is very depressing.
Morally - I prefer democracy, but that's the way I've been brought up. On outcomes It's not clear that democracy wins: Economic GDP Life expectancy China 59 in 1970, 77 now and growing. USA 71 in 1970, 79 now and flat.
On gdp per head both the US and Japan are well ahead of China, the Chinese birthrate is also lower even than most western Nations and China has fewer immigrants percentage wise too
GDP per head is growing much faster in China than US or Japan. Birthrate is an odd measure. Is a low birthrate good or bad? Depends on the context.
Well course it is because it starts from a much lower level.
If you want to grow gdp overall significantly relative to other nations rather than just gdp per capita then you need a well above replacement level birthrate.
Democratic India will likely thus have overtaken China in terms of gdp by 2050 as it has a much higher birthrate. Nigeria is also rapidly advancing up the gdp rankings because of its high birthrate
What metrics would you use to measure the relative outcomes of democrat nations versus the Chinese (and multinational company) approach?
Gdp and wealth per head, education levels, personal freedom and liberty
A mere passing blip, I'm sure.
If we had Chinese levels of repression you would already be in prison for challenging the authority of the UK government on a public forum
Numbers in jail USA 505/100, 000 China 164/100,000
The fact the US has a better rate of convicting and imprisoning criminals than China doesn't mean it has less political freedom.
You can tweet or write or say what you want about the US government under the First amendment to the US constitution as long as it isn't classified information. In China however you can't criticise Xi or the Chinese government in public without risk of arrest
Not sure you can dismiss the fact that around 20% of all the world's prisoners are in prison in the "Land of the Free" as being due to 'a better rate of convicting and imprisoning criminals'.
Comments
The Labour leader’s motion says the “Labour Party’s standing with the electorate in the country, and its electoral prospects in seats it is required to win in order to secure a parliamentary majority and/or win the next general election, are both significantly diminished should Mr Corbyn be endorsed by the Labour Party as one of its candidates for the next general election”.
It goes on to say Labour’s hopes of victory “are not well served by Mr Corbyn running as a Labour Party candidate”.
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jeremy-corbyn-to-be-formally-blocked-from-standing-as-a-labour-candidate_uk_64215c76e4b048e0689f6350
Corbyn was understandably furious about previous mention of barring him, and plenty of people who are not fans of his might well agree this is unfair, but in these situations they still cannot seem to avoid hyperbole. See the bit in bold - I am pretty confident that it is ultimately up to the NEC if it chooses to exercise such authority.
Keir Starmer’s statement about my future is a flagrant attack on the democratic rights of Islington North Labour Party members. It is up to them – not party leaders – to decide who their candidate should be. Any attempt to block my candidacy is a denial of due process, and should be opposed by anybody who believes in the value of democracy
The rule book of the party even says 'where the NEC so determines' there shall be a constituency Labour Party, which implies they don't have to even have such a unit. Furthermore, it explicitly can withhold or withdraw endorsement of a candidate in the event of disciplinary proceedings et al - so while Corbyn no doubt can argue the toss about whether the specific rules have been followed, and may even be right, it is not the case that local parties have an unfettered right to decide who their candidate will be.
He lasted less than 3 years.
https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1640289520854679552?s=20
Hardly "get[ting] out in front of public opinion", now, is it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thanet_Earth
[There are actually loads of CHP plants but that was the one that came to mind when you mentioned greenhouses]
In a world where extremes of human behaviour are so bizarre it is entirely possible that one or more searches of 8 year olds are going to happen per year, with good reason, in a population of 60 million. But the job of the BBC (unlike Mail, Guardian etc) is to actually give the poor old licence payer the hard data even if it spoils the story. That is (should be) what makes the BBC unique.
Diamorphine and Novacaine say hi
NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYME: Adam Jogee, 31, has 5/8ths ethnic ancestry - African, Asian & Caribbean ancestors; also Staffordshire family roots. Cllr in Haringey, London, since 2014; cabinet member for economic devt since 2022. Works for shadow environment minister Ruth Jones.
NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYME: Sue Moffat, 61, local cllr since 2018; writer/director, documentary dramas, social & political issues, New Vic Borderlines Theatre, Stoke; visiting lect Nottingham Univ; res'ch fellow Keele Uni. Grew up as musician; studied Chetham’s Music School & RNCM
NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYME: Andrew Hammond, 48, consultant, p/t academic, focussing on foreign affairs & climate change; visiting fellow, Warwick Univ; fmr associate, LSE IDEAS. Stood Daventry 2005; Tamworth 2017; fmr spad, Home Sec Charles Clarke, & advised John Reid & John Prescott
https://twitter.com/tomorrowsmps/status/1640274494479540224?cxt=HHwWgICxmcq9tsMtAAAA
Small enough to build within urban centres, unlike the average power station.
As you might gather, I don't think I am an optimist.
The hard left understood this very well, and control of the NEC was something they battled very hard to obtain...
Livingstone of course won the London Mayoralty in 2000 as an Independent v Frank Dobson as official Labour candidate and Blair had to let him back into Labour in the end
What came out the other end was a lot of warm water that had to be sent to some cooling tower (cubes, actually). Someone had the idea to set up a fish farm on part of the site, using the warm water to grow fish. There were these very large bladders that were filled with water, inside of which were the fish at varying stages of development. The fish were then piped between the bladders.
It was an interesting scheme, but my involvement ended before I got to know if it was much of a success.
(*) At the connecting pipes and burying them level.
I hope he does stand - by pretty much all accounts he has been a good constituency MP (I should hope so after 30+ years on the backbenches), and a true test of personal vote would be interesting.
There is merit in the Shell, Unilever and other multinationals method. The top management emerge, promoted by their peers. Employees and customers can't vote for them. Though shareholders in theory could remove them, in practice they don't. China has a similar system.
It competes with democracy. There are pros and cons.
Corbyn as an independent is what we already have, and I expect he will carry on voting with the Tories as he has done for decades.
Well, kind of.
There used to be a big population of tropical fish in the canal at St Helens near to the warm water discharge from the glass factory.
Not really useful, but amusing.
https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/specialist-teams/restoration/restoration-stories/the-hotties-of-st-helens
Cf Dennis Canavan in Falkirk West, having been prevented from standing by the New Labour Party, won with over 50 per cent of the vote.
Or Peter Law in Blaenau Gwent, having been prevented from standing by the New Labour Party, won with over 50 per cent of the vote.
I think Corbyn would win with more than 50 per cent of the vote.
On this one issue he is pretty bold.
Labourlist have picked a good image for the story.
"Look, Piers, I'm not saying I'm better than you, I'm just saying that I was at least able to get more votes than Count Binface"
Allegedly Severn Trent once accused the factory of releasing pollution into the river and killing a load of riverine fish. The factory pointed out that the fish in their culverts were fine, and that the fish *upstream* of the outlets had died. In fact, they died all the way up to the discharge from the water company's sewage works...
They don't, but people can point to a lot of things not happening, and ask why you need more laws.
Main takeaway so far from Sunak's Q&A with voters this morning is people raising things *that are already crimes* never being investigated by police... one man suggests govt chasing headlines on laughing gas when nothing ever happens on existing crimes...
https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1640278880408707073?cxt=HHwWgoCx9e-8uMMtAAAA
as a Unicef Ambassador
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11905917/Orlando-Bloom-tells-Zelensky-strength-Ukrainians-awe-inspiring-visits-Kyiv.html
And besides which, the Tories were so split that DRoss had to grant a free vote.
When the public are decoding the government's spin out loud, that's not a good sign. Partly the impudence but mostly that the code is so easily cracked.
On outcomes It's not clear that democracy wins:
Economic GDP
Life expectancy
China 59 in 1970, 77 now and growing.
USA 71 in 1970, 79 now and flat.
[Democracy] needs to be combined with well informed voters and enlightened political leadership to deliver the best results.
Well ....
The guy does what his conscience demands. I respect that even if I disagree so often with his conscience. But when you are so against your own party so often and for so long, you are in the wrong party. He maintained some fantasy about turning it to match his ideas instead of doing what so many of us have done and simply leave.
Are they compiled under similar processes to western ones?
(I'm not denying China has undergone an economic miracle in the last few decades; just wondering whether such a centralised system is lying to itself.)
In reality she would have preferred to step down next year, her 10th anniversary as First Minister and SNP leader
Birthrate is an odd measure. Is a low birthrate good or bad? Depends on the context.
Ditto number of immigrants.
We are discussing the outcomes of democracy versus the competing Chinese (and Shell/Unilever) models of peer appointed leaders.
If you want to grow gdp overall significantly relative to other nations rather than just gdp per capita then you need a well above replacement level birthrate.
Democratic India will likely thus have overtaken China in terms of gdp by 2050 as it has a much higher birthrate. Nigeria is also rapidly advancing up the gdp rankings because of its high birthrate
This doesn't mean that China's growth trajectory is sustainable. If you look at demographics, debt dynamics and the way that growth has been increasingly driven by unproductive investment, I think China is heading for a rough patch.
I prefer to live in a democracy rather than in China. But that's because I am a liberal and rather anti-authority. I'd get into trouble in China.
But I don't have a religious type faith in democracy and I can see it's flaws.
If I was born and brought up in China, I'd probably prefer the Chinese system to eg the US one.
Direct democracy with too many referendums and refusal of the losers to accept the results of elections however produces problems and just leads to division
Since the west's commitment to accelerating Chinese development is undergoing something of a sea change.
German Christian Democrats rewrite Merkel’s China playbook
The conservatives are adjusting their views on Beijing, saying the balance has shifted ‘toward systemic rivalry.’
https://www.politico.eu/article/german-christian-democrats-to-overturn-angela-merkels-china-policy/
Duke of Windsor ‘gave palace layout to Nazis before bombing
[Alexander Larman, whose books on the royal family between the wars outline the duke’s wartime assistance to Germany] told the festival that the Duke of Windsor, who abdicated in 1936 over his love for Wallis Simpson, an American divorcee , said he had provided “inside information” on the layout of Buckingham Palace. The Nazis bombed the palace in 1940 with several bombs hitting “family quarters”.
Larman said there was no doubt that the duke was a Nazi sympathiser and that it looked as if he had provided information to them. “The Nazis knew what they were doing and that was because they had inside information [from the duke],” Larman said.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/duke-of-windsor-gave-palace-layout-to-nazis-before-bombing-zbdh0c9qr
Neither thing has functioned very well in the UK recently.
Edit: pretty good transport links too - fairly convenient for train and air as well as bus. And plenty of parking. So makes sense for a major press conference.
And by not asking 'Quis custodiet ipsos custodes'.
https://mobile.twitter.com/JohnSimpsonNews/status/1640295651459121154
You do also realise if he had succeeded the King’s grandfather would have been blown up by the Nazis as George VI unlike his brother stayed in London with Churchill and defied Hitler
Perhaps I should follow the guidance of Boris and prepare peons of gratitude for both of them. Not going to bother with Regan though.
USA 505/100, 000
China 164/100,000
Democracy doesn't deliver the right result quickly. But autocracies tend not to deliver the right result at all. I have a high degree of faith in western voters to come to the right conclusions, eventually.
There will still be those gammony arseholes who will refuse, with great ostentation, to buy one because they won't tow a horsebox from Falmouth to Thurso without stopping or something.
You can tweet or write or say what you want about the US government under the First amendment to the US constitution as long as it isn't classified information. In China however you can't criticise Xi or the Chinese government in public without risk of arrest
However KCIII's grandfather was George VI not Edward VIII
It has setback the subject for many many years to come.
You're either going to led by a Cambridge graduate or a chap with Pakistani heritage, either are hallmarks of awesomeness.
(With apologies to Ash Regan, I mean I am more likely to succeed Nicola Sturgeon than she is.)