Neither party deserves to win next time as neither has a convincing answer to any of the major problems that face the country.
In fact, tbh, they barely pretend to. Starmer's offer is that he isn't the Conservatives (something that could have been said of his former boss and "friend" Jeremy Corbyn), and Sunak's is that he is doing a better job than his predecessor. Both true, but they'll hardly get the economy going again or sort out the public services.
If either come up with any good ideas, we can reassess.
Neither party deserves to win next time as neither has a convincing answer to any of the major problems that face the country.
In fact, tbh, they barely pretend to. Starmer's offer is that he isn't the Conservatives, and Sunak's is that he is doing a better job than his predecessor. Both true, but they'll hardly get the economy going again or sort out the public services.
If either come up with any good ideas, we can reassess.
I remain convinced it will end up more 2010 in reverse than 1997
My word, reading some of the comments defending Raab today reminds me of the day the Owen Paterson report was published.
We had people who hadn't read the full report denying there was no appellate process whereas those of us who had read the report knew they were talking shite.
On topic - a small closing of the gap was inevitable. Boris and the Truss had pushed away even core voters. Sunak has returned some semblance of government.
Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places
He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
It probably needed dredging.
Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.
Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?
When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
I am sure the people who avoided being knee deep in river water are quite satisfied with the job he did.
So you believe people can break the law if it is popular then? That'd be quite the step from believing the sentence is simply excessive.
I believe that when someone has taken the job of a Government agency (more often it is the police) into their own hands, it is an opportunity to ask why, as well as mete out a proportionate punishment.
I don't get this. Some ultra-libertarian that people can do whatever the hell they like with their land?
In principle, I have sympathy with that, but that right does sometimes need to be qualified and restricted* where it impinges on the common good.
How is this different from the Left?
We do it the other way round. We start from a presumption in favour of private property rights, and then work back from that if we need to do so.
(*Incidentally, I think rivers/oceans are underprotected and badgers/foxes overprotected, FWIW)
What’s the logic of starting from a presumption of property rights? Is it a moral case (those property rights are naturally derived, it tend to be in the hands of those most deserving, for instance) or a pragmatic case (preserving property rights is important for prosperity, say). I’m genuinely interested.
I would suggest the latter. For both prosperity and the stability of the country property rights are one of the most important cornerstones.
I would not go as far as the Propertarian wing of Libertarianism which goes beyond the basic rights not to have your property taken off you but goes on to advocate that you have the right to do whatever the hell you want - up to and including murder on your own property. That is simply lunacy but it is a strain of thought that exists and has its strong advocates. But I would agree that it is extremely difficult to have a stable society without some basic property rights.
In the case of the farmer, we have started from the basis of property rights and then moderated them for the good of others. Those saying he was preventing flooding actually have it 180 degrees the wrong way round. By dredging and cutting down trees he was preventing flooding on uninhabited flood plain and increasing the risk of flooding downstream where people actually have homes because he was increasing the flow across his land.
If he believed so strongly that the law was wrong he should have advocated and campaigned to get it changed or modified, not simply broken it. I happen to think many of the tax laws in this country are wrong. I will happily campaign and advocate for changes. But as long as they are the laws I am going to abide by them rather than thinking they uniquely should not apply to me.
Thanks (and sorry for a slow response - kids bedtime). That makes a lot of sense.
If it’s the pragmatic case (which I agree wholeheartedly with), it then seems highly desirable to moderate property rights because of their tendency to exacerbate inequality.
Specifically, if the case for property rights are that they are essential to prosperity, it is consistent with that to have a strong presumption that those who benefit from the wealth generated by those rights should share that wealth. If they aren’t morally deserving of the extra wealth, but nevertheless keep a large proportion of it, as is currently the case, then forced redistribution through high taxes seems the best answer.
Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places
He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
It probably needed dredging.
Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.
Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?
When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
I am sure the people who avoided being knee deep in river water are quite satisfied with the job he did.
So you believe people can break the law if it is popular then? That'd be quite the step from believing the sentence is simply excessive.
I believe that when someone has taken the job of a Government agency (more often it is the police) into their own hands, it is an opportunity to ask why, as well as mete out a proportionate punishment.
I don't get this. Some ultra-libertarian that people can do whatever the hell they like with their land?
In principle, I have sympathy with that, but that right does sometimes need to be qualified and restricted* where it impinges on the common good.
How is this different from the Left?
We do it the other way round. We start from a presumption in favour of private property rights, and then work back from that if we need to do so.
(*Incidentally, I think rivers/oceans are underprotected and badgers/foxes overprotected, FWIW)
What’s the logic of starting from a presumption of property rights? Is it a moral case (those property rights are naturally derived, it tend to be in the hands of those most deserving, for instance) or a pragmatic case (preserving property rights is important for prosperity, say). I’m genuinely interested.
If you've invested to own property, and you've taken on the risks and liabilities of doing so, then my starting position would be that it's yours to do with as you please.
I think free societies depend on this, as does wider economic prosperity.
Does it depend on where you get the money from to invest? I agree with you in the case of eg an entrepreneur who has got rich from inventing a widget that others benefit from. I disagree in the case of, say, inherited wealth.
And how would you compare the risks of property investment with, say, the risks of a zero hours contract?
Again, genuine questions, not loaded.
Sorry to repost - but interested in your answers CR if you read it.
Incidentally I thought it was rather ironic that on a day when a minister was fired for allegations of what appears to be fairly low-level bullying being upheld, OFSTED, against who, there have been literally countless allegations of bullying, fraud, and even safeguarding breaches against children, announced it would not change any of its behaviours despite their bullying literally killing people.
Does anyone else sense a double standard?
I was struck by that this morning, listening to the latest news report regarding OFSTED. They appear to assume they are immune from any responsibility for the results of their actions.
They are the Guardians
Read the Republic to realise how stupid the idea is. To the point that some philosophers resort to the "Plato was being sarcastic" excuse.
"The Guardians is a dystopian political thriller set in the 1980s. Following economic chaos, democratic government has been overthrown in a bloodless coup, the Royal Family fled into self-imposed exile and the United Kingdom is ruled autocratically by Prime Minister Sir Timothy Hobson. Hobson is initially a pawn of 'the General'; a military officer by the name of Roger, who later becomes the Minister of Defence. Hobson subscribes to an outwardly benevolent paternalistic fascism, based on the principle that "democracy is a form of group suicide.""
Some episodes are tosh, but some are really very good and the overall series is a good window into 1970s 'dystopian thought'.
'1990' is another 70s variation on the theme from an almost opposite viewpoint (left-wing authoritarian government & starring Edward Woodward).
Incidentally I thought it was rather ironic that on a day when a minister was fired for allegations of what appears to be fairly low-level bullying being upheld, OFSTED, against who, there have been literally countless allegations of bullying, fraud, and even safeguarding breaches against children, announced it would not change any of its behaviours despite their bullying literally killing people.
Does anyone else sense a double standard?
I was struck by that this morning, listening to the latest news report regarding OFSTED. They appear to assume they are immune from any responsibility for the results of their actions.
They are the Guardians
Read the Republic to realise how stupid the idea is. To the point that some philosophers resort to the "Plato was being sarcastic" excuse.
"The Guardians is a dystopian political thriller set in the 1980s. Following economic chaos, democratic government has been overthrown in a bloodless coup, the Royal Family fled into self-imposed exile and the United Kingdom is ruled autocratically by Prime Minister Sir Timothy Hobson. Hobson is initially a pawn of 'the General'; a military officer by the name of Roger, who later becomes the Minister of Defence. Hobson subscribes to an outwardly benevolent paternalistic fascism, based on the principle that "democracy is a form of group suicide.""
Some episodes are tosh, but some are really very good and the overall series is a good window into 1970s 'dystopian thought'.
'1990' is another 70s variation on the theme from an almost opposite viewpoint (left-wing authoritarian government & starring Edward Woodward).
Interesting snippet. The series was judged unsuitable for broadcast in Northern Ireland.
Incidentally I thought it was rather ironic that on a day when a minister was fired for allegations of what appears to be fairly low-level bullying being upheld, OFSTED, against who, there have been literally countless allegations of bullying, fraud, and even safeguarding breaches against children, announced it would not change any of its behaviours despite their bullying literally killing people.
Does anyone else sense a double standard?
I was struck by that this morning, listening to the latest news report regarding OFSTED. They appear to assume they are immune from any responsibility for the results of their actions.
They are the Guardians
Read the Republic to realise how stupid the idea is. To the point that some philosophers resort to the "Plato was being sarcastic" excuse.
"The Guardians is a dystopian political thriller set in the 1980s. Following economic chaos, democratic government has been overthrown in a bloodless coup, the Royal Family fled into self-imposed exile and the United Kingdom is ruled autocratically by Prime Minister Sir Timothy Hobson. Hobson is initially a pawn of 'the General'; a military officer by the name of Roger, who later becomes the Minister of Defence. Hobson subscribes to an outwardly benevolent paternalistic fascism, based on the principle that "democracy is a form of group suicide.""
Some episodes are tosh, but some are really very good and the overall series is a good window into 1970s 'dystopian thought'.
'1990' is another 70s variation on the theme from an almost opposite viewpoint (left-wing authoritarian government & starring Edward Woodward).
I think we read the book at school! This is the one where the UK is split into the "City" and the "County" by a massive wall, right?
Well Liz Truss should never have been Prime Minister.
An abberation quickly corrected.
It wasn't "quickly corrected" in the sense that we are still paying a very large premium for the loss of confidence in UK economic policy, and will for some time.
It was a crazy move foisted on the country by a party jam packed with crazies... who are also still there.
Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places
He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
It probably needed dredging.
Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.
Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?
When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
I am sure the people who avoided being knee deep in river water are quite satisfied with the job he did.
So you believe people can break the law if it is popular then? That'd be quite the step from believing the sentence is simply excessive.
I believe that when someone has taken the job of a Government agency (more often it is the police) into their own hands, it is an opportunity to ask why, as well as mete out a proportionate punishment.
I don't get this. Some ultra-libertarian that people can do whatever the hell they like with their land?
In principle, I have sympathy with that, but that right does sometimes need to be qualified and restricted* where it impinges on the common good.
How is this different from the Left?
We do it the other way round. We start from a presumption in favour of private property rights, and then work back from that if we need to do so.
(*Incidentally, I think rivers/oceans are underprotected and badgers/foxes overprotected, FWIW)
What’s the logic of starting from a presumption of property rights? Is it a moral case (those property rights are naturally derived, it tend to be in the hands of those most deserving, for instance) or a pragmatic case (preserving property rights is important for prosperity, say). I’m genuinely interested.
I would suggest the latter. For both prosperity and the stability of the country property rights are one of the most important cornerstones.
I would not go as far as the Propertarian wing of Libertarianism which goes beyond the basic rights not to have your property taken off you but goes on to advocate that you have the right to do whatever the hell you want - up to and including murder on your own property. That is simply lunacy but it is a strain of thought that exists and has its strong advocates. But I would agree that it is extremely difficult to have a stable society without some basic property rights.
In the case of the farmer, we have started from the basis of property rights and then moderated them for the good of others. Those saying he was preventing flooding actually have it 180 degrees the wrong way round. By dredging and cutting down trees he was preventing flooding on uninhabited flood plain and increasing the risk of flooding downstream where people actually have homes because he was increasing the flow across his land.
If he believed so strongly that the law was wrong he should have advocated and campaigned to get it changed or modified, not simply broken it. I happen to think many of the tax laws in this country are wrong. I will happily campaign and advocate for changes. But as long as they are the laws I am going to abide by them rather than thinking they uniquely should not apply to me.
Thanks (and sorry for a slow response - kids bedtime). That makes a lot of sense.
If it’s the pragmatic case (which I agree wholeheartedly with), it then seems highly desirable to moderate property rights because of their tendency to exacerbate inequality.
Specifically, if the case for property rights are that they are essential to prosperity, it is consistent with that to have a strong presumption that those who benefit from the wealth generated by those rights should share that wealth. If they aren’t morally deserving of the extra wealth, but nevertheless keep a large proportion of it, as is currently the case, then forced redistribution through high taxes seems the best answer.
I would suggest you are perhaps conflating two separate things. The ownership of property does not automatically mean the accumulation of wealth to be redistributed. That has only really been the case during the house price boom of the last 50 years or so. Indeed at times prior to the explosion in property prices it was the justifiable complaint of larger property owners that they were a drain on resources rather than a benefit.
So I would entirely separate the need for reasonably strong property rights from the question of wealth and its redistribution. Not least because whatever wealth accrues to property ownership is only theoretical until such times as it is actually sold. Forced redistribution of a theoretical wealth seems fundamentally wrong to me.
Neither party deserves to win next time as neither has a convincing answer to any of the major problems that face the country.
In fact, tbh, they barely pretend to. Starmer's offer is that he isn't the Conservatives (something that could have been said of his former boss and "friend" Jeremy Corbyn), and Sunak's is that he is doing a better job than his predecessor. Both true, but they'll hardly get the economy going again or sort out the public services.
If either come up with any good ideas, we can reassess.
I wouldn't mind the result being total deadlock, so that the parties are forced to come up with new ideas for working together.
Well Liz Truss should never have been Prime Minister.
An abberation quickly corrected.
It wasn't "quickly corrected" in the sense that we are still paying a very large premium for the loss of confidence in UK economic policy, and will for some time.
It was a crazy move foisted on the country by a party jam packed with crazies... who are also still there.
But it was corrected.
And the consequence of the Truss Interregnum is that Labour will have virtually no room to borrow. So if it is to move the dial at all, it will have to tax. Whether that sinks in before the next election rather dictates the outcome of that next election.
Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places
He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
It probably needed dredging.
Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.
Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?
When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
I am sure the people who avoided being knee deep in river water are quite satisfied with the job he did.
So you believe people can break the law if it is popular then? That'd be quite the step from believing the sentence is simply excessive.
I believe that when someone has taken the job of a Government agency (more often it is the police) into their own hands, it is an opportunity to ask why, as well as mete out a proportionate punishment.
I don't get this. Some ultra-libertarian that people can do whatever the hell they like with their land?
In principle, I have sympathy with that, but that right does sometimes need to be qualified and restricted* where it impinges on the common good.
How is this different from the Left?
We do it the other way round. We start from a presumption in favour of private property rights, and then work back from that if we need to do so.
(*Incidentally, I think rivers/oceans are underprotected and badgers/foxes overprotected, FWIW)
What’s the logic of starting from a presumption of property rights? Is it a moral case (those property rights are naturally derived, it tend to be in the hands of those most deserving, for instance) or a pragmatic case (preserving property rights is important for prosperity, say). I’m genuinely interested.
I would suggest the latter. For both prosperity and the stability of the country property rights are one of the most important cornerstones.
I would not go as far as the Propertarian wing of Libertarianism which goes beyond the basic rights not to have your property taken off you but goes on to advocate that you have the right to do whatever the hell you want - up to and including murder on your own property. That is simply lunacy but it is a strain of thought that exists and has its strong advocates. But I would agree that it is extremely difficult to have a stable society without some basic property rights.
In the case of the farmer, we have started from the basis of property rights and then moderated them for the good of others. Those saying he was preventing flooding actually have it 180 degrees the wrong way round. By dredging and cutting down trees he was preventing flooding on uninhabited flood plain and increasing the risk of flooding downstream where people actually have homes because he was increasing the flow across his land.
If he believed so strongly that the law was wrong he should have advocated and campaigned to get it changed or modified, not simply broken it. I happen to think many of the tax laws in this country are wrong. I will happily campaign and advocate for changes. But as long as they are the laws I am going to abide by them rather than thinking they uniquely should not apply to me.
Thanks (and sorry for a slow response - kids bedtime). That makes a lot of sense.
If it’s the pragmatic case (which I agree wholeheartedly with), it then seems highly desirable to moderate property rights because of their tendency to exacerbate inequality.
Specifically, if the case for property rights are that they are essential to prosperity, it is consistent with that to have a strong presumption that those who benefit from the wealth generated by those rights should share that wealth. If they aren’t morally deserving of the extra wealth, but nevertheless keep a large proportion of it, as is currently the case, then forced redistribution through high taxes seems the best answer.
I would suggest you are perhaps conflating two separate things. The ownership of property does not automatically mean the accumulation of wealth to be redistributed. That has only really been the case during the house price boom of the last 50 years or so. Indeed at times prior to the explosion in property prices it was the justifiable complaint of larger property owners that they were a drain on resources rather than a benefit.
So I would entirely separate the need for reasonably strong property rights from the question of wealth and its redistribution. Not least because whatever wealth accrues to property ownership is only theoretical until such times as it is actually sold. Forced redistribution of a theoretical wealth seems fundamentally wrong to me.
Again, I largely agree with your first paragraph and I wholeheartedly agree that there is nothing inherent in property rights that requires redistribution.
But, the last 50 years being what they are, the contingent case for redistribution at present seems strong. I guess I’d go so far as to say the system of property rights you’re defending has been allowed to be bent so far out of shape that it risks being broken entirely.
Neither party deserves to win next time as neither has a convincing answer to any of the major problems that face the country.
In fact, tbh, they barely pretend to. Starmer's offer is that he isn't the Conservatives (something that could have been said of his former boss and "friend" Jeremy Corbyn), and Sunak's is that he is doing a better job than his predecessor. Both true, but they'll hardly get the economy going again or sort out the public services.
If either come up with any good ideas, we can reassess.
I wouldn't mind the result being total deadlock, so that the parties are forced to come up with new ideas for working together.
Deadlock worked brilliantly between 2017-2019, right?
Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places
He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
It probably needed dredging.
Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.
Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?
When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
I am sure the people who avoided being knee deep in river water are quite satisfied with the job he did.
So you believe people can break the law if it is popular then? That'd be quite the step from believing the sentence is simply excessive.
I believe that when someone has taken the job of a Government agency (more often it is the police) into their own hands, it is an opportunity to ask why, as well as mete out a proportionate punishment.
I don't get this. Some ultra-libertarian that people can do whatever the hell they like with their land?
In principle, I have sympathy with that, but that right does sometimes need to be qualified and restricted* where it impinges on the common good.
How is this different from the Left?
We do it the other way round. We start from a presumption in favour of private property rights, and then work back from that if we need to do so.
(*Incidentally, I think rivers/oceans are underprotected and badgers/foxes overprotected, FWIW)
What’s the logic of starting from a presumption of property rights? Is it a moral case (those property rights are naturally derived, it tend to be in the hands of those most deserving, for instance) or a pragmatic case (preserving property rights is important for prosperity, say). I’m genuinely interested.
I would suggest the latter. For both prosperity and the stability of the country property rights are one of the most important cornerstones.
I would not go as far as the Propertarian wing of Libertarianism which goes beyond the basic rights not to have your property taken off you but goes on to advocate that you have the right to do whatever the hell you want - up to and including murder on your own property. That is simply lunacy but it is a strain of thought that exists and has its strong advocates. But I would agree that it is extremely difficult to have a stable society without some basic property rights.
In the case of the farmer, we have started from the basis of property rights and then moderated them for the good of others. Those saying he was preventing flooding actually have it 180 degrees the wrong way round. By dredging and cutting down trees he was preventing flooding on uninhabited flood plain and increasing the risk of flooding downstream where people actually have homes because he was increasing the flow across his land.
If he believed so strongly that the law was wrong he should have advocated and campaigned to get it changed or modified, not simply broken it. I happen to think many of the tax laws in this country are wrong. I will happily campaign and advocate for changes. But as long as they are the laws I am going to abide by them rather than thinking they uniquely should not apply to me.
Thanks (and sorry for a slow response - kids bedtime). That makes a lot of sense.
If it’s the pragmatic case (which I agree wholeheartedly with), it then seems highly desirable to moderate property rights because of their tendency to exacerbate inequality.
Specifically, if the case for property rights are that they are essential to prosperity, it is consistent with that to have a strong presumption that those who benefit from the wealth generated by those rights should share that wealth. If they aren’t morally deserving of the extra wealth, but nevertheless keep a large proportion of it, as is currently the case, then forced redistribution through high taxes seems the best answer.
I would suggest you are perhaps conflating two separate things. The ownership of property does not automatically mean the accumulation of wealth to be redistributed. That has only really been the case during the house price boom of the last 50 years or so. Indeed at times prior to the explosion in property prices it was the justifiable complaint of larger property owners that they were a drain on resources rather than a benefit.
So I would entirely separate the need for reasonably strong property rights from the question of wealth and its redistribution. Not least because whatever wealth accrues to property ownership is only theoretical until such times as it is actually sold. Forced redistribution of a theoretical wealth seems fundamentally wrong to me.
But it was undeniably a good thing that the world of Downton Abbey passed away as running large homes with servants became uneconomic and property ownership began to become more common amongst ordinary folk, replacing the large scale private renting that had been common earlier in the 20th C. This process only really went into reverse this century, and that isn’t a good thing.
Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places
He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
It probably needed dredging.
Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.
Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?
When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
I am sure the people who avoided being knee deep in river water are quite satisfied with the job he did.
So you believe people can break the law if it is popular then? That'd be quite the step from believing the sentence is simply excessive.
I believe that when someone has taken the job of a Government agency (more often it is the police) into their own hands, it is an opportunity to ask why, as well as mete out a proportionate punishment.
I don't get this. Some ultra-libertarian that people can do whatever the hell they like with their land?
In principle, I have sympathy with that, but that right does sometimes need to be qualified and restricted* where it impinges on the common good.
How is this different from the Left?
We do it the other way round. We start from a presumption in favour of private property rights, and then work back from that if we need to do so.
(*Incidentally, I think rivers/oceans are underprotected and badgers/foxes overprotected, FWIW)
What’s the logic of starting from a presumption of property rights? Is it a moral case (those property rights are naturally derived, it tend to be in the hands of those most deserving, for instance) or a pragmatic case (preserving property rights is important for prosperity, say). I’m genuinely interested.
I would suggest the latter. For both prosperity and the stability of the country property rights are one of the most important cornerstones.
I would not go as far as the Propertarian wing of Libertarianism which goes beyond the basic rights not to have your property taken off you but goes on to advocate that you have the right to do whatever the hell you want - up to and including murder on your own property. That is simply lunacy but it is a strain of thought that exists and has its strong advocates. But I would agree that it is extremely difficult to have a stable society without some basic property rights.
In the case of the farmer, we have started from the basis of property rights and then moderated them for the good of others. Those saying he was preventing flooding actually have it 180 degrees the wrong way round. By dredging and cutting down trees he was preventing flooding on uninhabited flood plain and increasing the risk of flooding downstream where people actually have homes because he was increasing the flow across his land.
If he believed so strongly that the law was wrong he should have advocated and campaigned to get it changed or modified, not simply broken it. I happen to think many of the tax laws in this country are wrong. I will happily campaign and advocate for changes. But as long as they are the laws I am going to abide by them rather than thinking they uniquely should not apply to me.
Thanks (and sorry for a slow response - kids bedtime). That makes a lot of sense.
If it’s the pragmatic case (which I agree wholeheartedly with), it then seems highly desirable to moderate property rights because of their tendency to exacerbate inequality.
Specifically, if the case for property rights are that they are essential to prosperity, it is consistent with that to have a strong presumption that those who benefit from the wealth generated by those rights should share that wealth. If they aren’t morally deserving of the extra wealth, but nevertheless keep a large proportion of it, as is currently the case, then forced redistribution through high taxes seems the best answer.
I would suggest you are perhaps conflating two separate things. The ownership of property does not automatically mean the accumulation of wealth to be redistributed. That has only really been the case during the house price boom of the last 50 years or so. Indeed at times prior to the explosion in property prices it was the justifiable complaint of larger property owners that they were a drain on resources rather than a benefit.
So I would entirely separate the need for reasonably strong property rights from the question of wealth and its redistribution. Not least because whatever wealth accrues to property ownership is only theoretical until such times as it is actually sold. Forced redistribution of a theoretical wealth seems fundamentally wrong to me.
Property, of course, is a somewhat ambiguous term anyway. ‘Property rights’ certainly doesn’t apply only to land and buildings.
Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places
He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
It probably needed dredging.
Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.
Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?
When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
I am sure the people who avoided being knee deep in river water are quite satisfied with the job he did.
So you believe people can break the law if it is popular then? That'd be quite the step from believing the sentence is simply excessive.
I believe that when someone has taken the job of a Government agency (more often it is the police) into their own hands, it is an opportunity to ask why, as well as mete out a proportionate punishment.
I don't get this. Some ultra-libertarian that people can do whatever the hell they like with their land?
In principle, I have sympathy with that, but that right does sometimes need to be qualified and restricted* where it impinges on the common good.
How is this different from the Left?
We do it the other way round. We start from a presumption in favour of private property rights, and then work back from that if we need to do so.
(*Incidentally, I think rivers/oceans are underprotected and badgers/foxes overprotected, FWIW)
What’s the logic of starting from a presumption of property rights? Is it a moral case (those property rights are naturally derived, it tend to be in the hands of those most deserving, for instance) or a pragmatic case (preserving property rights is important for prosperity, say). I’m genuinely interested.
I would suggest the latter. For both prosperity and the stability of the country property rights are one of the most important cornerstones.
I would not go as far as the Propertarian wing of Libertarianism which goes beyond the basic rights not to have your property taken off you but goes on to advocate that you have the right to do whatever the hell you want - up to and including murder on your own property. That is simply lunacy but it is a strain of thought that exists and has its strong advocates. But I would agree that it is extremely difficult to have a stable society without some basic property rights.
In the case of the farmer, we have started from the basis of property rights and then moderated them for the good of others. Those saying he was preventing flooding actually have it 180 degrees the wrong way round. By dredging and cutting down trees he was preventing flooding on uninhabited flood plain and increasing the risk of flooding downstream where people actually have homes because he was increasing the flow across his land.
If he believed so strongly that the law was wrong he should have advocated and campaigned to get it changed or modified, not simply broken it. I happen to think many of the tax laws in this country are wrong. I will happily campaign and advocate for changes. But as long as they are the laws I am going to abide by them rather than thinking they uniquely should not apply to me.
Thanks (and sorry for a slow response - kids bedtime). That makes a lot of sense.
If it’s the pragmatic case (which I agree wholeheartedly with), it then seems highly desirable to moderate property rights because of their tendency to exacerbate inequality.
Specifically, if the case for property rights are that they are essential to prosperity, it is consistent with that to have a strong presumption that those who benefit from the wealth generated by those rights should share that wealth. If they aren’t morally deserving of the extra wealth, but nevertheless keep a large proportion of it, as is currently the case, then forced redistribution through high taxes seems the best answer.
I would suggest you are perhaps conflating two separate things. The ownership of property does not automatically mean the accumulation of wealth to be redistributed. That has only really been the case during the house price boom of the last 50 years or so. Indeed at times prior to the explosion in property prices it was the justifiable complaint of larger property owners that they were a drain on resources rather than a benefit.
So I would entirely separate the need for reasonably strong property rights from the question of wealth and its redistribution. Not least because whatever wealth accrues to property ownership is only theoretical until such times as it is actually sold. Forced redistribution of a theoretical wealth seems fundamentally wrong to me.
Property, of course, is a somewhat ambiguous term anyway. ‘Property rights’ certainly doesn’t apply only to land and buildings.
Thing about rivers though is that while legally they may be part of the surrounding landholding, as Heraclitus pointed out the water keeps moving on elsewhere.
So anything you do on *your* land has effects on somebody else's.*
How does that feed in to property rights?
*Particularly if you damn a river and cause a section of it to dry up, as this dickhead did.
Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places
He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
It probably needed dredging.
Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.
Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?
When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
I am sure the people who avoided being knee deep in river water are quite satisfied with the job he did.
So you believe people can break the law if it is popular then? That'd be quite the step from believing the sentence is simply excessive.
I believe that when someone has taken the job of a Government agency (more often it is the police) into their own hands, it is an opportunity to ask why, as well as mete out a proportionate punishment.
I don't get this. Some ultra-libertarian that people can do whatever the hell they like with their land?
In principle, I have sympathy with that, but that right does sometimes need to be qualified and restricted* where it impinges on the common good.
How is this different from the Left?
We do it the other way round. We start from a presumption in favour of private property rights, and then work back from that if we need to do so.
(*Incidentally, I think rivers/oceans are underprotected and badgers/foxes overprotected, FWIW)
What’s the logic of starting from a presumption of property rights? Is it a moral case (those property rights are naturally derived, it tend to be in the hands of those most deserving, for instance) or a pragmatic case (preserving property rights is important for prosperity, say). I’m genuinely interested.
I would suggest the latter. For both prosperity and the stability of the country property rights are one of the most important cornerstones.
I would not go as far as the Propertarian wing of Libertarianism which goes beyond the basic rights not to have your property taken off you but goes on to advocate that you have the right to do whatever the hell you want - up to and including murder on your own property. That is simply lunacy but it is a strain of thought that exists and has its strong advocates. But I would agree that it is extremely difficult to have a stable society without some basic property rights.
In the case of the farmer, we have started from the basis of property rights and then moderated them for the good of others. Those saying he was preventing flooding actually have it 180 degrees the wrong way round. By dredging and cutting down trees he was preventing flooding on uninhabited flood plain and increasing the risk of flooding downstream where people actually have homes because he was increasing the flow across his land.
If he believed so strongly that the law was wrong he should have advocated and campaigned to get it changed or modified, not simply broken it. I happen to think many of the tax laws in this country are wrong. I will happily campaign and advocate for changes. But as long as they are the laws I am going to abide by them rather than thinking they uniquely should not apply to me.
Thanks (and sorry for a slow response - kids bedtime). That makes a lot of sense.
If it’s the pragmatic case (which I agree wholeheartedly with), it then seems highly desirable to moderate property rights because of their tendency to exacerbate inequality.
Specifically, if the case for property rights are that they are essential to prosperity, it is consistent with that to have a strong presumption that those who benefit from the wealth generated by those rights should share that wealth. If they aren’t morally deserving of the extra wealth, but nevertheless keep a large proportion of it, as is currently the case, then forced redistribution through high taxes seems the best answer.
I would suggest you are perhaps conflating two separate things. The ownership of property does not automatically mean the accumulation of wealth to be redistributed. That has only really been the case during the house price boom of the last 50 years or so. Indeed at times prior to the explosion in property prices it was the justifiable complaint of larger property owners that they were a drain on resources rather than a benefit.
So I would entirely separate the need for reasonably strong property rights from the question of wealth and its redistribution. Not least because whatever wealth accrues to property ownership is only theoretical until such times as it is actually sold. Forced redistribution of a theoretical wealth seems fundamentally wrong to me.
Property, of course, is a somewhat ambiguous term anyway. ‘Property rights’ certainly doesn’t apply only to land and buildings.
Thing about rivers though is that while legally they may be part of the surrounding landholding, as Heraclitus pointed out the water keeps moving on elsewhere.
So anything you do on *your* land has effects on somebody else's.*
How does that feed in to property rights?
*Particularly if you damn a river and cause a section of it to dry up, as this dickhead did.
Have there not anyway been laws relating to land, outside of property owbpnership rights and which constrain those rights, for many centuries ?
The absolutist case for property is just nonsense.
Completely off topic, but I thought what I saw on my walk to get groceries this morning would interest some of you:
I shop more at a local QFC (a subsidiary of Kroger) than anywhere else. The most direct walk there takes me 10 short blocks north, and then northeast across a large park.
In those 10 blocks I saw people gathering at the Iman Center for an EID* celebration, a Presbyterian church, which holds services in both English and Chinese, a Unitarian church that also hosts a Jewish meeting, behind that a Baptist church, and further along, a 100 year old Episcopalian Church.
And on the way back, I had a nice talk with two elderly Jehovah Witness ladies. (The Jehovah Witnesses regularly set up at the front of the local library, and I often chat with them, there.
I am mildly disappointed that there are no Hindu or Buddhist gathering places along the route. But the Unitarians do have a sign asking us to support the Duwamish tribe, who probably have a religion of their own.
(*Equity, Inclusion, and Diversity? Probably not, since they made no effort to include me.)
"In the end, the Fox was more like the scorpion in the well-known fable, stinging the frog of democracy it was being carried on, sinking them both into a quagmire of dishonesty, disinformation and disorder. It was simply being true to its nature. It still is. "
Either Trump is the nominee, or they’re trying to destroy the Florida autocrat before Trump succumbs to his legal travails.
There’s a (narrow and slightly unlikely) lane for one of the long shots.
Hi Democratic Party! Hi yourself, GOP. How's tricks? Oh fine fine. But listen ... fancy 4 more years in the WH? What, you're not actually going to pick HIM, are you? Yup, reckon so. Well blow me down. Much obliged.
My view is that NOM is the favourite, and that the odds are still wrong.
However, if you look back at the odds, and then think forward, the only conclusion can be that we had no idea in the past how it would look now, now now we have no idea how it will look in 12 months time.
I think a Tory victory is nearer a 20% chance than 13%. NOM is nearer 45%-50%. Lab victory over rated.
But what do know? I recently dipped a toe in the water on Arsenal for the Premiership.
On topic: I suspect the consensus will swing wildly in the next 18 months or so - local elections will probably throw the cards up on the air again.
Perversely after my previous subdued reports, this evening was easily the best Labour canvass yet - including an 86-year-old former Tory member who said, very quietly, "After their contempt for democracy in the last few years, including today's nonsense, I have resolved never to vote for them again."
But sweet-natured voters of all colours. One still-Tory elderly lady who had given me directions to a nearby road walked quickly down the steep hill outside her home to say "So sorry, I got it wrong, it's the second turning, not the first. I'm so glad I caught you."
The title was gone after the West Ham game. They may struggle to finish second now.
Or they might beat City at City and be favs again. I'll back that if the betting overreacts and they go to a stupid price. Often happens with football, market overreaction.
Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places
He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
It probably needed dredging.
Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.
Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?
When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
I am sure the people who avoided being knee deep in river water are quite satisfied with the job he did.
So you believe people can break the law if it is popular then? That'd be quite the step from believing the sentence is simply excessive.
I believe that when someone has taken the job of a Government agency (more often it is the police) into their own hands, it is an opportunity to ask why, as well as mete out a proportionate punishment.
I don't get this. Some ultra-libertarian that people can do whatever the hell they like with their land?
In principle, I have sympathy with that, but that right does sometimes need to be qualified and restricted* where it impinges on the common good.
How is this different from the Left?
We do it the other way round. We start from a presumption in favour of private property rights, and then work back from that if we need to do so.
(*Incidentally, I think rivers/oceans are underprotected and badgers/foxes overprotected, FWIW)
What’s the logic of starting from a presumption of property rights? Is it a moral case (those property rights are naturally derived, it tend to be in the hands of those most deserving, for instance) or a pragmatic case (preserving property rights is important for prosperity, say). I’m genuinely interested.
I would suggest the latter. For both prosperity and the stability of the country property rights are one of the most important cornerstones.
I would not go as far as the Propertarian wing of Libertarianism which goes beyond the basic rights not to have your property taken off you but goes on to advocate that you have the right to do whatever the hell you want - up to and including murder on your own property. That is simply lunacy but it is a strain of thought that exists and has its strong advocates. But I would agree that it is extremely difficult to have a stable society without some basic property rights.
In the case of the farmer, we have started from the basis of property rights and then moderated them for the good of others. Those saying he was preventing flooding actually have it 180 degrees the wrong way round. By dredging and cutting down trees he was preventing flooding on uninhabited flood plain and increasing the risk of flooding downstream where people actually have homes because he was increasing the flow across his land.
If he believed so strongly that the law was wrong he should have advocated and campaigned to get it changed or modified, not simply broken it. I happen to think many of the tax laws in this country are wrong. I will happily campaign and advocate for changes. But as long as they are the laws I am going to abide by them rather than thinking they uniquely should not apply to me.
Thanks (and sorry for a slow response - kids bedtime). That makes a lot of sense.
If it’s the pragmatic case (which I agree wholeheartedly with), it then seems highly desirable to moderate property rights because of their tendency to exacerbate inequality.
Specifically, if the case for property rights are that they are essential to prosperity, it is consistent with that to have a strong presumption that those who benefit from the wealth generated by those rights should share that wealth. If they aren’t morally deserving of the extra wealth, but nevertheless keep a large proportion of it, as is currently the case, then forced redistribution through high taxes seems the best answer.
I would suggest you are perhaps conflating two separate things. The ownership of property does not automatically mean the accumulation of wealth to be redistributed. That has only really been the case during the house price boom of the last 50 years or so. Indeed at times prior to the explosion in property prices it was the justifiable complaint of larger property owners that they were a drain on resources rather than a benefit.
So I would entirely separate the need for reasonably strong property rights from the question of wealth and its redistribution. Not least because whatever wealth accrues to property ownership is only theoretical until such times as it is actually sold. Forced redistribution of a theoretical wealth seems fundamentally wrong to me.
Property, of course, is a somewhat ambiguous term anyway. ‘Property rights’ certainly doesn’t apply only to land and buildings.
Thing about rivers though is that while legally they may be part of the surrounding landholding, as Heraclitus pointed out the water keeps moving on elsewhere.
So anything you do on *your* land has effects on somebody else's.*
How does that feed in to property rights?
*Particularly if you damn a river and cause a section of it to dry up, as this dickhead did.
Have there not anyway been laws relating to land, outside of property owbpnership rights and which constrain those rights, for many centuries ?
The absolutist case for property is just nonsense.
Whoever's is the soil, it is theirs all the way to Heaven and all the way to Hell.
Well Liz Truss should never have been Prime Minister.
An abberation quickly corrected.
It wasn't "quickly corrected" in the sense that we are still paying a very large premium for the loss of confidence in UK economic policy, and will for some time.
It was a crazy move foisted on the country by a party jam packed with crazies... who are also still there.
Do you have any details of this 'premium' we are 'still paying'? Anything with some figures would be good.
Either Trump is the nominee, or they’re trying to destroy the Florida autocrat before Trump succumbs to his legal travails.
There’s a (narrow and slightly unlikely) lane for one of the long shots.
For DeSantis it all seems a long time since his glorious heydey after winning re-election. He looks almost bereft, flailing about trying to look cool taking on Disney of all people.
Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places
He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
It probably needed dredging.
Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.
Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?
When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
I am sure the people who avoided being knee deep in river water are quite satisfied with the job he did.
So you believe people can break the law if it is popular then? That'd be quite the step from believing the sentence is simply excessive.
I believe that when someone has taken the job of a Government agency (more often it is the police) into their own hands, it is an opportunity to ask why, as well as mete out a proportionate punishment.
I don't get this. Some ultra-libertarian that people can do whatever the hell they like with their land?
In principle, I have sympathy with that, but that right does sometimes need to be qualified and restricted* where it impinges on the common good.
How is this different from the Left?
We do it the other way round. We start from a presumption in favour of private property rights, and then work back from that if we need to do so.
(*Incidentally, I think rivers/oceans are underprotected and badgers/foxes overprotected, FWIW)
What’s the logic of starting from a presumption of property rights? Is it a moral case (those property rights are naturally derived, it tend to be in the hands of those most deserving, for instance) or a pragmatic case (preserving property rights is important for prosperity, say). I’m genuinely interested.
I would suggest the latter. For both prosperity and the stability of the country property rights are one of the most important cornerstones.
I would not go as far as the Propertarian wing of Libertarianism which goes beyond the basic rights not to have your property taken off you but goes on to advocate that you have the right to do whatever the hell you want - up to and including murder on your own property. That is simply lunacy but it is a strain of thought that exists and has its strong advocates. But I would agree that it is extremely difficult to have a stable society without some basic property rights.
In the case of the farmer, we have started from the basis of property rights and then moderated them for the good of others. Those saying he was preventing flooding actually have it 180 degrees the wrong way round. By dredging and cutting down trees he was preventing flooding on uninhabited flood plain and increasing the risk of flooding downstream where people actually have homes because he was increasing the flow across his land.
If he believed so strongly that the law was wrong he should have advocated and campaigned to get it changed or modified, not simply broken it. I happen to think many of the tax laws in this country are wrong. I will happily campaign and advocate for changes. But as long as they are the laws I am going to abide by them rather than thinking they uniquely should not apply to me.
Thanks (and sorry for a slow response - kids bedtime). That makes a lot of sense.
If it’s the pragmatic case (which I agree wholeheartedly with), it then seems highly desirable to moderate property rights because of their tendency to exacerbate inequality.
Specifically, if the case for property rights are that they are essential to prosperity, it is consistent with that to have a strong presumption that those who benefit from the wealth generated by those rights should share that wealth. If they aren’t morally deserving of the extra wealth, but nevertheless keep a large proportion of it, as is currently the case, then forced redistribution through high taxes seems the best answer.
I would suggest you are perhaps conflating two separate things. The ownership of property does not automatically mean the accumulation of wealth to be redistributed. That has only really been the case during the house price boom of the last 50 years or so. Indeed at times prior to the explosion in property prices it was the justifiable complaint of larger property owners that they were a drain on resources rather than a benefit.
So I would entirely separate the need for reasonably strong property rights from the question of wealth and its redistribution. Not least because whatever wealth accrues to property ownership is only theoretical until such times as it is actually sold. Forced redistribution of a theoretical wealth seems fundamentally wrong to me.
Property, of course, is a somewhat ambiguous term anyway. ‘Property rights’ certainly doesn’t apply only to land and buildings.
Thing about rivers though is that while legally they may be part of the surrounding landholding, as Heraclitus pointed out the water keeps moving on elsewhere.
So anything you do on *your* land has effects on somebody else's.*
How does that feed in to property rights?
*Particularly if you damn a river and cause a section of it to dry up, as this dickhead did.
Have there not anyway been laws relating to land, outside of property owbpnership rights and which constrain those rights, for many centuries ?
The absolutist case for property is just nonsense.
A major purpose of the law is to mediate when the rights one one conflicts with the right of another. Which is why water rights and the management of rivers has been the subject of law and legal judgements for many centuries.
Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places
He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
It probably needed dredging.
Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.
Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?
When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
I am sure the people who avoided being knee deep in river water are quite satisfied with the job he did.
So you believe people can break the law if it is popular then? That'd be quite the step from believing the sentence is simply excessive.
I believe that when someone has taken the job of a Government agency (more often it is the police) into their own hands, it is an opportunity to ask why, as well as mete out a proportionate punishment.
I don't get this. Some ultra-libertarian that people can do whatever the hell they like with their land?
In principle, I have sympathy with that, but that right does sometimes need to be qualified and restricted* where it impinges on the common good.
How is this different from the Left?
We do it the other way round. We start from a presumption in favour of private property rights, and then work back from that if we need to do so.
(*Incidentally, I think rivers/oceans are underprotected and badgers/foxes overprotected, FWIW)
What’s the logic of starting from a presumption of property rights? Is it a moral case (those property rights are naturally derived, it tend to be in the hands of those most deserving, for instance) or a pragmatic case (preserving property rights is important for prosperity, say). I’m genuinely interested.
I would suggest the latter. For both prosperity and the stability of the country property rights are one of the most important cornerstones.
I would not go as far as the Propertarian wing of Libertarianism which goes beyond the basic rights not to have your property taken off you but goes on to advocate that you have the right to do whatever the hell you want - up to and including murder on your own property. That is simply lunacy but it is a strain of thought that exists and has its strong advocates. But I would agree that it is extremely difficult to have a stable society without some basic property rights.
In the case of the farmer, we have started from the basis of property rights and then moderated them for the good of others. Those saying he was preventing flooding actually have it 180 degrees the wrong way round. By dredging and cutting down trees he was preventing flooding on uninhabited flood plain and increasing the risk of flooding downstream where people actually have homes because he was increasing the flow across his land.
If he believed so strongly that the law was wrong he should have advocated and campaigned to get it changed or modified, not simply broken it. I happen to think many of the tax laws in this country are wrong. I will happily campaign and advocate for changes. But as long as they are the laws I am going to abide by them rather than thinking they uniquely should not apply to me.
Thanks (and sorry for a slow response - kids bedtime). That makes a lot of sense.
If it’s the pragmatic case (which I agree wholeheartedly with), it then seems highly desirable to moderate property rights because of their tendency to exacerbate inequality.
Specifically, if the case for property rights are that they are essential to prosperity, it is consistent with that to have a strong presumption that those who benefit from the wealth generated by those rights should share that wealth. If they aren’t morally deserving of the extra wealth, but nevertheless keep a large proportion of it, as is currently the case, then forced redistribution through high taxes seems the best answer.
I would suggest you are perhaps conflating two separate things. The ownership of property does not automatically mean the accumulation of wealth to be redistributed. That has only really been the case during the house price boom of the last 50 years or so. Indeed at times prior to the explosion in property prices it was the justifiable complaint of larger property owners that they were a drain on resources rather than a benefit.
So I would entirely separate the need for reasonably strong property rights from the question of wealth and its redistribution. Not least because whatever wealth accrues to property ownership is only theoretical until such times as it is actually sold. Forced redistribution of a theoretical wealth seems fundamentally wrong to me.
Property, of course, is a somewhat ambiguous term anyway. ‘Property rights’ certainly doesn’t apply only to land and buildings.
Thing about rivers though is that while legally they may be part of the surrounding landholding, as Heraclitus pointed out the water keeps moving on elsewhere.
So anything you do on *your* land has effects on somebody else's.*
How does that feed in to property rights?
*Particularly if you damn a river and cause a section of it to dry up, as this dickhead did.
Have there not anyway been laws relating to land, outside of property owbpnership rights and which constrain those rights, for many centuries ?
The absolutist case for property is just nonsense.
A major purpose of the law is to mediate when the rights one one conflicts with the right of another. Which is why water rights and the management of rivers has been the subject of law and legal judgements for many centuries.
I thought the purpose of the law was to find ways for rich people to avoid paying taxes whilst complaining about the taxes they do pay.
On topic: I suspect the consensus will swing wildly in the next 18 months or so - local elections will probably throw the cards up on the air again.
Perversely after my previous subdued reports, this evening was easily the best Labour canvass yet - including an 86-year-old former Tory member who said, very quietly, "After their contempt for democracy in the last few years, including today's nonsense, I have resolved never to vote for them again."
But sweet-natured voters of all colours. One still-Tory elderly lady who had given me directions to a nearby road walked quickly down the steep hill outside her home to say "So sorry, I got it wrong, it's the second turning, not the first. I'm so glad I caught you."
People are nice. This is what is missing in a lot of political discourse.
Either Trump is the nominee, or they’re trying to destroy the Florida autocrat before Trump succumbs to his legal travails.
There’s a (narrow and slightly unlikely) lane for one of the long shots.
I wasn't really aware of De Santis's prior career in the House of Representatives, where apparently he was utterly undestinguished. He has six billionaires backing him but is otherwise a total dud. I don't fancy his chances.
If Starmer fails to win the projected national vote at the local elections, would his position as leader come under pressure?
I think he is certain to win the projected adjusted national vote (IE once it's adjusted to take account of what areas are being contested and what aren't?). But it will be a LOT less than the polls say. LAB always underperform in the real vote.
If Starmer fails to win the projected national vote at the local elections, would his position as leader come under pressure?
The last Labour leader to be forced out without facing the electorate was George Lansbury in 1935. Under very unusual circumstances. It just doesn't happen, not least because there is no effective mechanism to remove them.
On topic: I suspect the consensus will swing wildly in the next 18 months or so - local elections will probably throw the cards up on the air again.
Perversely after my previous subdued reports, this evening was easily the best Labour canvass yet - including an 86-year-old former Tory member who said, very quietly, "After their contempt for democracy in the last few years, including today's nonsense, I have resolved never to vote for them again."
But sweet-natured voters of all colours. One still-Tory elderly lady who had given me directions to a nearby road walked quickly down the steep hill outside her home to say "So sorry, I got it wrong, it's the second turning, not the first. I'm so glad I caught you."
Sounds to me like her conscience got the better of her after her initial plan to send that pesky Labour canvasser the wrong way
If Starmer fails to win the projected national vote at the local elections, would his position as leader come under pressure?
I think he is certain to win the projected adjusted national vote (IE once it's adjusted to take account of what areas are being contested and what aren't?). But it will be a LOT less than the polls say. LAB always underperform in the real vote.
You should qualify that. Labour always underperform in the real vote in local elections, compared to expectations based on national GE polling. But there's no similar pattern in general elections. In 2010 and 2017 Labour overperformed, while in 2015 and 2019 Labour underperformed. No obvious pattern in that.
On topic: I suspect the consensus will swing wildly in the next 18 months or so - local elections will probably throw the cards up on the air again.
Perversely after my previous subdued reports, this evening was easily the best Labour canvass yet - including an 86-year-old former Tory member who said, very quietly, "After their contempt for democracy in the last few years, including today's nonsense, I have resolved never to vote for them again."
But sweet-natured voters of all colours. One still-Tory elderly lady who had given me directions to a nearby road walked quickly down the steep hill outside her home to say "So sorry, I got it wrong, it's the second turning, not the first. I'm so glad I caught you."
Sounds to me like her conscience got the better of her after her initial plan to send that pesky Labour canvasser the wrong way
Clearly, she'd googled him, found his recent comment about - ahem - other activities and was mightily impressed by them.
On topic: I suspect the consensus will swing wildly in the next 18 months or so - local elections will probably throw the cards up on the air again.
Perversely after my previous subdued reports, this evening was easily the best Labour canvass yet - including an 86-year-old former Tory member who said, very quietly, "After their contempt for democracy in the last few years, including today's nonsense, I have resolved never to vote for them again."
But sweet-natured voters of all colours. One still-Tory elderly lady who had given me directions to a nearby road walked quickly down the steep hill outside her home to say "So sorry, I got it wrong, it's the second turning, not the first. I'm so glad I caught you."
Sounds to me like her conscience got the better of her after her initial plan to send that pesky Labour canvasser the wrong way
Perhaps she'd quickly logged on to PB and read confessions of an xmp from last night.
Nothing like a threesome anecdote to put a human face to a political opponent.
If Starmer fails to win the projected national vote at the local elections, would his position as leader come under pressure?
I think he is certain to win the projected adjusted national vote (IE once it's adjusted to take account of what areas are being contested and what aren't?). But it will be a LOT less than the polls say. LAB always underperform in the real vote.
Indeed. In 2022, the Techne poll immediately before the local elections had Labour on 40%, Conservatives on 34% and the LDs on 10% but the projected figures from the local elections themselves were Labour 35%, Conservatives 30% and LDs 19%.
Techne now has 44-31-10 so Labour a little higher and the Conservatives a little lower so you'd be thinking perhaps an 8-9 point notional lead as well.
2019 was a strange polling time - the last YouGov before that year's locals had Conservative and Labour on 29% each and the LDs on 13% but the projected vote shares from the local polls were 28-28-19.
So, on that basis you could see a small swing from LDs to the Conservatives but a much bigger move from Conservative to Labour - perhaps a swing of 6-7%.
In terms of actual votes cast, the Conservatives beat Labour by roughly five points - 31.5 to 26.5 with the LDs on 17%, Greens on 9%, UKIP on 4,5% and 11.5% split between various Independents, Residents and others.
That's not reliable because it's not an exact match of seats being contested.
Labour may need only a 5% lead in the popular vote to secure a GE majority.
eg. General election modelling using Electoral Calculus, using the new boundaries: GB: Con 35%, Lab 40%, LD 12%, Reform 3%, Green 3%. Assume a quarter of all electors are willing to vote tactically. Scotland: Con 20%, Lab 27%, LD 8%, SNP 37%.
Result: Labour overall majority of 2, with 326 seats.
Labour may need only a 5% lead in the popular vote to secure a GE majority.
eg. General election modelling using Electoral Calculus, using the new boundaries: GB: Con 35%, Lab 40%, LD 12%, Reform 3%, Green 3%. Assume a quarter of all electors are willing to vote tactically. Scotland: Con 20%, Lab 27%, LD 8%, SNP 37%.
Result: Labour overall majority of 2, with 326 seats.
That's not what I have read on PB before... sounds gilded lilly numbers.
Labour may need only a 5% lead in the popular vote to secure a GE majority.
eg. General election modelling using Electoral Calculus, using the new boundaries: GB: Con 35%, Lab 40%, LD 12%, Reform 3%, Green 3%. Assume a quarter of all electors are willing to vote tactically. Scotland: Con 20%, Lab 27%, LD 8%, SNP 37%.
Result: Labour overall majority of 2, with 326 seats.
That's not what I have read on PB before... sounds gilded lilly numbers.
Just noted the assume 25pc willing to vote tactically... nonsense.
Labour may need only a 5% lead in the popular vote to secure a GE majority.
eg. General election modelling using Electoral Calculus, using the new boundaries: GB: Con 35%, Lab 40%, LD 12%, Reform 3%, Green 3%. Assume a quarter of all electors are willing to vote tactically. Scotland: Con 20%, Lab 27%, LD 8%, SNP 37%.
Result: Labour overall majority of 2, with 326 seats.
I think the extent of voters voting tactically against the Tories is much less v a Sunak led Tories than it was against a Johnson or Truss led Tories
LAB no longer odds on to win a majority – politicalbetting.com
Comments
In fact, tbh, they barely pretend to. Starmer's offer is that he isn't the Conservatives (something that could have been said of his former boss and "friend" Jeremy Corbyn), and Sunak's is that he is doing a better job than his predecessor. Both true, but they'll hardly get the economy going again or sort out the public services.
If either come up with any good ideas, we can reassess.
DYOR
LabourySpursy?We had people who hadn't read the full report denying there was no appellate process whereas those of us who had read the report knew they were talking shite.
"The Guardians is a dystopian political thriller set in the 1980s. Following economic chaos, democratic government has been overthrown in a bloodless coup, the Royal Family fled into self-imposed exile and the United Kingdom is ruled autocratically by Prime Minister Sir Timothy Hobson. Hobson is initially a pawn of 'the General'; a military officer by the name of Roger, who later becomes the Minister of Defence. Hobson subscribes to an outwardly benevolent paternalistic fascism, based on the principle that "democracy is a form of group suicide.""
Some episodes are tosh, but some are really very good and the overall series is a good window into 1970s 'dystopian thought'.
'1990' is another 70s variation on the theme from an almost opposite viewpoint (left-wing authoritarian government & starring Edward Woodward).
As with Labour majority.
Labour short of a majority does lead to the next question: is the country going to vote for the crazy ride of a rainbow coalition?
It was a crazy move foisted on the country by a party jam packed with crazies... who are also still there.
So I would entirely separate the need for reasonably strong property rights from the question of wealth and its redistribution. Not least because whatever wealth accrues to property ownership is only theoretical until such times as it is actually sold. Forced redistribution of a theoretical wealth seems fundamentally wrong to me.
And the consequence of the Truss Interregnum is that Labour will have virtually no room to borrow. So if it is to move the dial at all, it will have to tax. Whether that sinks in before the next election rather dictates the outcome of that next election.
But, the last 50 years being what they are, the contingent case for redistribution at present seems strong. I guess I’d go so far as to say the system of property rights you’re defending has been allowed to be bent so far out of shape that it risks being broken entirely.
‘I don’t think he cares about people’: DeSantis struggles with former Hill colleagues
A growing string of anecdotes describes the Florida governor’s lack of a personal touch during his six years in the House.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/21/i-dont-think-he-cares-about-people-desantis-struggles-with-former-hill-colleagues-00093281
Either Trump is the nominee, or they’re trying to destroy the Florida autocrat before Trump succumbs to his legal travails.
There’s a (narrow and slightly unlikely) lane for one of the long shots.
‘Property rights’ certainly doesn’t apply only to land and buildings.
So anything you do on *your* land has effects on somebody else's.*
How does that feed in to property rights?
*Particularly if you damn a river and cause a section of it to dry up, as this dickhead did.
The absolutist case for property is just nonsense.
Completely off topic, but I thought what I saw on my walk to get groceries this morning would interest some of you:
I shop more at a local QFC (a subsidiary of Kroger) than anywhere else. The most direct walk there takes me 10 short blocks north, and then northeast across a large park.
In those 10 blocks I saw people gathering at the Iman Center for an EID* celebration, a Presbyterian church, which holds services in both English and Chinese, a Unitarian church that also hosts a Jewish meeting, behind that a Baptist church, and further along, a 100 year old Episcopalian Church.
And on the way back, I had a nice talk with two elderly Jehovah Witness ladies. (The Jehovah Witnesses regularly set up at the front of the local library, and I often chat with them, there.
I am mildly disappointed that there are no Hindu or Buddhist gathering places along the route. But the Unitarians do have a sign asking us to support the Duwamish tribe, who probably have a religion of their own.
(*Equity, Inclusion, and Diversity? Probably not, since they made no effort to include me.)
Eye-opening and horrifying.
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ideas/media/60928/how-fox-and-murdoch-are-destroying-us-democracy
"In the end, the Fox was more like the scorpion in the well-known fable, stinging the frog of democracy it was being carried on, sinking them both into a quagmire of dishonesty, disinformation and disorder. It was simply being true to its nature. It still is. "
This is wonderful news.
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2023/apr/20/fun-way-consume-music-why-sales-of-cassette-tapes-soaring
"‘Such a fun way to consume music’: why sales of the ‘obsolete’ cassette are soaring
With more cassette tapes being bought than since 2003, readers tell why they prefer them to modern music players"
Hi yourself, GOP. How's tricks?
Oh fine fine. But listen ... fancy 4 more years in the WH?
What, you're not actually going to pick HIM, are you?
Yup, reckon so.
Well blow me down. Much obliged.
However, if you look back at the odds, and then think forward, the only conclusion can be that we had no idea in the past how it would look now, now now we have no idea how it will look in 12 months time.
I think a Tory victory is nearer a 20% chance than 13%. NOM is nearer 45%-50%. Lab victory over rated.
But what do know? I recently dipped a toe in the water on Arsenal for the Premiership.
Florida prosecutor apologizes for memo that called for harsher penalties for Hispanic defendants
https://thehill.com/homenews/3963168-florida-prosecutor-apologizes-for-memo-that-called-for-harsher-penalties-for-hispanic-defendants/
Squeaky bum time for Arsenal
But City are being handed this on a plate.
But sweet-natured voters of all colours. One still-Tory elderly lady who had given me directions to a nearby road walked quickly down the steep hill outside her home to say "So sorry, I got it wrong, it's the second turning, not the first. I'm so glad I caught you."
Perhaps taken a bit too literally by some.
So what is the Tory strategy from here?
Arsenal 82% Southampton 18% and yet it remains 1 - 3 with 5 mins plus injury time to go
Robin ReliantStarshipIt's going to be interesting at both ends of the table these next couple of weeks.
Labour need to come out with some eye catching proposals and not just rely on “ its time for a change “.
Nothing like a threesome anecdote to put a human face to a political opponent.
Techne now has 44-31-10 so Labour a little higher and the Conservatives a little lower so you'd be thinking perhaps an 8-9 point notional lead as well.
2019 was a strange polling time - the last YouGov before that year's locals had Conservative and Labour on 29% each and the LDs on 13% but the projected vote shares from the local polls were 28-28-19.
So, on that basis you could see a small swing from LDs to the Conservatives but a much bigger move from Conservative to Labour - perhaps a swing of 6-7%.
In terms of actual votes cast, the Conservatives beat Labour by roughly five points - 31.5 to 26.5 with the LDs on 17%, Greens on 9%, UKIP on 4,5% and 11.5% split between various Independents, Residents and others.
That's not reliable because it's not an exact match of seats being contested.
Wait till the GE the liar that is SKS is going to be pulverised by the right wing press
eg. General election modelling using Electoral Calculus, using the new boundaries:
GB: Con 35%, Lab 40%, LD 12%, Reform 3%, Green 3%.
Assume a quarter of all electors are willing to vote tactically.
Scotland: Con 20%, Lab 27%, LD 8%, SNP 37%.
Result: Labour overall majority of 2, with 326 seats.