"... it goes without saying that if a venue discriminates against someone with views wholly opposed to Ms Cherry’s (a transgender writer, say) on the basis that some staff disapproved of their “beliefs” or thought them anti-women or felt “unsafe“, this would also be unlawful ..."
It's not just any old belief, though, is it?
According to the Equality Act, it's a "religious or philosophical belief."
Is there any such thing as a non-philosophical belief?
I believe it’s going to rain today. I believe that Austria was robbed in the Eurovision final. I believe this explanation of what constitutes a non-philosophical belief, while not being completely sound with respect to legal precedents, will get my point across.
Hume and Kuhn and Feyerabend might have things to say about your belief that it's going to rain ...
And they would (arguably) be right, but not with respect to the provisions of the Equality Act.
Feyeraband may also have had things to say about Austria at Eurovision.
It's also worth noting, given the general context of the Edinburgh venue case, [edit] though obviously not an issue in it, that a belief in Scottish independence is also a protected characteristic. That came out when HMG, in the form of MoD, tried to sack a SNP pol cos he might be disloyal or something.
I’m out here in Egypt with a bunch of journos. One of them is a young, quite well known Scottish journalist, and a passionate YES supporter
He said last night that “indy” is dead in the water. “Decades away”
An interesting perspective from a true believer. He certainly wasn’t deceiving anyone, including himself
Have you met any cabbies from Tirana out there?
It’s 90% Germans, so not yet
There are however two Instagram influencers from the UK here. Women, pretty, etc. One of them has 1m insta followers.
The PR girl who runs the trip says they travel the world taking photos and videos of themselves having a lovely time, and…. That’s it. They are famous if you are into this stuff. They get everything free, and make money from endorsing products
"... it goes without saying that if a venue discriminates against someone with views wholly opposed to Ms Cherry’s (a transgender writer, say) on the basis that some staff disapproved of their “beliefs” or thought them anti-women or felt “unsafe“, this would also be unlawful ..."
It's not just any old belief, though, is it?
According to the Equality Act, it's a "religious or philosophical belief."
Is there any such thing as a non-philosophical belief?
I believe it’s going to rain today. I believe that Austria was robbed in the Eurovision final. I believe this explanation of what constitutes a non-philosophical belief, while not being completely sound with respect to legal precedents, will get my point across.
Hume and Kuhn and Feyerabend might have things to say about your belief that it's going to rain ...
And they would (arguably) be right, but not with respect to the provisions of the Equality Act.
Feyeraband may also have had things to say about Austria at Eurovision.
It's also worth noting, given the general context of the Edinburgh venue case, [edit] though obviously not an issue in it, that a belief in Scottish independence is also a protected characteristic. That came out when HMG, in the form of MoD, tried to sack a SNP pol cos he might be disloyal or something.
I’m out here in Egypt with a bunch of journos. One of them is a young, quite well known Scottish journalist, and a passionate YES supporter
He said last night that “indy” is dead in the water. “Decades away”
An interesting perspective from a true believer. He certainly wasn’t deceiving anyone, including himself
Have you met any cabbies from Tirana out there?
It’s 90% Germans, so not yet
There are however two Instagram influencers from the UK here. Women, pretty, etc. One of them has 1m insta followers.
The PR girl who runs the trip says they travel the world taking photos and videos of themselves having a lovely time, and…. That’s it. They are famous if you are into this stuff. They get everything free, and make money from endorsing products
Fascinating
I really can’t get my head around that phenomenon, or the wider popular trend of people striking ridiculous pouty glamour poses everywhere they go then posting on Instagram. It seems so obviously vain and presumptuous. Quite alien.
A pose at a landmark, if it must happen, should involve looking somewhat uncomfortable or at most a cheery everyday smile.
The job they're doing is freelance advertising. Whatever gets punters' attention sells the space. Easy to get your head around when you call it what it is.
If you work in an hotel, you’ll get hundreds of messages a day from these parasites, all trying to blag a free room in exchange for a couple of photos, and many of them with fewer followers than the hotel’s own social media. They can be somewhat rude if you turn them down.
Forced smile as his team is relegated. That's quite the metaphor.
Starmer is an Arsenal fan.
He's getting practice at blowing a big lead and coming second.
Starmer’s certainly taking a right mauling in tomorrows papers with his plan to use EU citizens to rig future UK elections, that perhaps might even be an election to scrap Brexit.
Why is Starmer daft enough to announce a plan like that, he’s not remotely won an election yet. Constitional change is second term stuff if anything, once you’ve earned trust, and every second he is talking about votes for sixteen year old children and EU citizens and not talking about NHS waiting lists, he’s an idiot.
Meanwhile, I think this is a big moment in the race to be Conservative Party leader.
You can try to argue Braverman is not the Conservatives rising star, simply on basis you don’t like her at all, but you will utterly fail in that argument, the reality is: she’s rising if you like it all not, there’s no denying it. Observer had a big splash on her today, risen from family of immigrants to high office etc.
The UK Home Secretary is headline speaker at this Conservative conference, and she is going to say
“…because of the pressure it puts on housing supply, public services and community relations.”
And how many Conservative members and activists are going to disagree with that reasoning to limit immigration? Tory members will say at last, someone who tells it like it is.
You would use words like steadfast, tenacious, and determined to describe Braverman’s style - those are exactly the same words used to list Lady Thatcher’s strengths.
There’s your next leader of the Conservative Party. She’s got it “Suen-up” hasn’t she?
No as only 32 Tory MPs voted for her in the 2022 leadership election, she has no chance of reaching the final 2 to even to the Tory membership therefore if Rishi loses and the race to choose the Tory Leader of the Opposition begins
I knew you were lurking out there with something crazy like this to post 😆
32 was a bloody good start for “what’s she running for” candidate” You saying her fan club hasn’t “sue-welled” since then?
You saying she won’t go into the leadership election with more credibility than Lady Thatcher when she actually won leadership.
You are going to tell us the smug, full of themself woman child Badenoch knocks Braverman out the top two, when it’s so obvious Braverman is the only one of the candidates with determination and tenacity to deliver, focussed and steadfast enough to actually take a fight back to Labour? 😆
Now, most important question of all, when Braverman says we must limit immigration because of the pressure it puts on housing supply, public services and community relations - do you actually disagree with her?
No, the final 3 would be Barclay, Tugendhat and Mordaunt in my view, neither Braverman nor Badenoch make it
Where do we stand when Frosty is parachuted into the HoC like a chisel toned Marine?
From your original list. Mordaunt, too woke, Tugs, too normal, so it has to be Stevie B.
@HYUFD does have his finger on the pulse of the court battles of the Tories, so I have a few quid at good odds on Barclay.
The coming electoral tsunami could take out a lot of potential candidates, or their supporters.
Whereas Barclay represents Cambridgeshire NE and Fenland council was one of the few councils which remained majority Tory controlled in the local elections this month and with the Tories even gaining a net 2 seats
I agree completely with CycleFree's comments in this post. I had a letter published in the Guardian some years ago making points on a related issue (and also indicating where a line should be drawn still - essentially where violence is threatened). I'll post a version below in case anyone's interested:
I am concerned at the increasing number of criminal prosecutions for "offensive" speech. Susanna Rustin makes a valuable distinction: those who use social media to submit anonymous violent threats (such as those Caroline Criado-Perez recently had to endure) need and deserve to be treated as criminals. However, it now seems to be the rule that merely causing sufficient offence on social media can be enough to get the perpetrator a jail term.
One can thoroughly deplore the comments made (as I would), while still defending the right to make them. Freedom of speech must mean freedom to be offensive, otherwise we only have the dubious "freedom" to make socially approved comments. The former director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer, has rightly called for parliament to reassess this issue. I would suggest a clear distinction between serious threats to an individual (which should continue to be criminalised) and simply causing offence (which should not be). Blurring that line reduces the freedom of us all.
Coming to the conclusion that the UK is cooked. I'm fortunate to have done well in my early career, but London rents are getting ridiculous, to the point that I know three people paying £42k/yr for a bang average place in Tooting(!).
We then figured out that one of them was paying a marginal tax rate of 67% on every penny over £50k. (13.8% Employers NI on total - then 40% tax, 2% NI, 9% Undergrad tax, 6% Masters tax, 5% mandatory pension contribution).
Brutally high rents combined with crippling tax rates and public services that effectively just don't exist...
Every party bar Labour have an electoral incentive to not give the Housing theory of everything a look, and Labour are split down the middle in terms of who gets it and who doesn't. Personally I'm going through the steps with work to go fully remote abroad, and Barcelona seems nice, rent half the price, marginal tax rate on the nomad scheme only 1/3rd of what I pay here.
London is a great place to live whilst you are starting out in your career, but difficult to make work over the long term because of the cost of housing.
London is always going to be an expensive place to live because most the world's population would buy a property there if they could afford to. (It was fairly cheap in the 1970s because London wasn't regarded as a particularly attractive place to live at that time).
There is also an element of snobbishness with these complaints though... you can buy a new build flat at Barking Riverside for around £250k.
True but Barking and Dagenham is culturally closer to Hartlepool than central London. It had the 3rd strongest Leave vote in London after Havering and Bexley at 62%
"... it goes without saying that if a venue discriminates against someone with views wholly opposed to Ms Cherry’s (a transgender writer, say) on the basis that some staff disapproved of their “beliefs” or thought them anti-women or felt “unsafe“, this would also be unlawful ..."
It's not just any old belief, though, is it?
According to the Equality Act, it's a "religious or philosophical belief."
Is there any such thing as a non-philosophical belief?
I believe it’s going to rain today. I believe that Austria was robbed in the Eurovision final. I believe this explanation of what constitutes a non-philosophical belief, while not being completely sound with respect to legal precedents, will get my point across.
Hume and Kuhn and Feyerabend might have things to say about your belief that it's going to rain ...
And they would (arguably) be right, but not with respect to the provisions of the Equality Act.
Feyeraband may also have had things to say about Austria at Eurovision.
It's also worth noting, given the general context of the Edinburgh venue case, [edit] though obviously not an issue in it, that a belief in Scottish independence is also a protected characteristic. That came out when HMG, in the form of MoD, tried to sack a SNP pol cos he might be disloyal or something.
I’m out here in Egypt with a bunch of journos. One of them is a young, quite well known Scottish journalist, and a passionate YES supporter
He said last night that “indy” is dead in the water. “Decades away”
An interesting perspective from a true believer. He certainly wasn’t deceiving anyone, including himself
In the years running up to Indyref Salmond took the idea of independence seriously. He was very focused on Scotland having a viable economy that could deliver for its people after independence. Views will differ as to whether he succeeded or not but he was absolutely clear that this was an essential component of independence.
During the Sturgeon era all sight was lost of the importance of the economy. Her movement to the left, which in fairness was very successful in taking the central belt from Labour, was at the cost of a Statist, high tax, public sector dominated economy with highly critical views of those who had the audacity to make money or build a business.
Forbes offered a return to the Salmond viewpoint but lost out to continuity Yousless. Current policies are simply not designed to build a viable private sector tax base in Scotland, if anything they will continue to make Scotland a less attractive place to invest. So we pay more tax, have more state regulation, have a disproportionately large public sector that scoops up available talent by paying itself rather well, poorly performing schools, restrictions on the number of young Scots who can get a government subsidised university place, a lack of interest in essential infrastructure and policies such as the bottle scheme that are introduced with no thought as to their economic consequences.
Scotland is not fit to be an independent country at present. Its reliance on UK subsidy has increased. Independence now would mean substantial cuts in the public sector and even more tax rises. These problems need to be addressed in the Union or out of it. But they will indeed take decades to address. And the risk is we will continue on a path of blaming others for our failings and go even deeper into this hole before we come out the other side.
David, I agree with most of it , the subsidy part is moonshine though. We would not have to pay for England's baubles and foibles so could easily cut out the majority of the supposed borrowing. For sure though if the current bunch of useless grifting crooks are not removed soon we will be a real basket case. However another crooked London party, who care not a jot for Scotland is not the answer. It needs dumping of freeloaders , Independence and some cold porridge.
There is a lot of common ground between Unionists like me and Indy supporters like you who want Scotland to do well and provide opportunities and support for its people. Whether at Holyrood or Westminster, however, the focus remains on constitutional change as it has been for the last couple of decades.
I get that nationalists argue that this is chicken and egg: how do we improve the Scottish economy when some of the more important levers are held south of the border. But there is a hell of a lot that needs doing which is currently in our own control. I am really not confident that a Sarwar led Labour party taking over in Holyrood is going to be an answer to this.
For sure David, last thing we want si Labour back in Scotland. However none of the "major" parties are any good , all are full of dross and I would not vote for any of them. It is rather depressing.
Michael Gove was due to be knighted as part of Boris Johnson’s resignation honours list but the former prime minister removed him after blaming him for blocking his return to No 10 last autumn.
Johnson had intended to nominate Gove for a knighthood to recognise his longstanding service as a cabinet minister since the Tories entered power in 2010. It was also seen as a way to draw a line under the psychodrama between the pair since Gove stopped him from becoming prime minister following the 2016 Brexit referendum when he decided to stand himself. Sources said a number of other former ministers have been knighted, such as Gavin Williamson, Jake Berry and James Duddridge for serving in significantly fewer roles.
However, a source familiar with his list said Johnson changed his mind after blaming Gove for persuading Kemi Badenoch to endorse Rishi Sunak in the autumn Tory leadership contest.
Badenoch’s backing of Sunak effectively ended Johnson’s chances of returning to No 10 and led to a flurry of other prominent ministers and MPs, including Suella Braverman, formerly a leading supporter of Johnson, to endorse Sunak. Hours later, the former prime minister announced he was withdrawing from the race.
A source said Gove was subsequently taken off the list of people he had nominated for a knighthood. The claim was not denied by Johnson’s spokesman.
"... it goes without saying that if a venue discriminates against someone with views wholly opposed to Ms Cherry’s (a transgender writer, say) on the basis that some staff disapproved of their “beliefs” or thought them anti-women or felt “unsafe“, this would also be unlawful ..."
It's not just any old belief, though, is it?
According to the Equality Act, it's a "religious or philosophical belief."
Is there any such thing as a non-philosophical belief?
I believe it’s going to rain today. I believe that Austria was robbed in the Eurovision final. I believe this explanation of what constitutes a non-philosophical belief, while not being completely sound with respect to legal precedents, will get my point across.
Hume and Kuhn and Feyerabend might have things to say about your belief that it's going to rain ...
And they would (arguably) be right, but not with respect to the provisions of the Equality Act.
Feyeraband may also have had things to say about Austria at Eurovision.
It's also worth noting, given the general context of the Edinburgh venue case, [edit] though obviously not an issue in it, that a belief in Scottish independence is also a protected characteristic. That came out when HMG, in the form of MoD, tried to sack a SNP pol cos he might be disloyal or something.
I’m out here in Egypt with a bunch of journos. One of them is a young, quite well known Scottish journalist, and a passionate YES supporter
He said last night that “indy” is dead in the water. “Decades away”
An interesting perspective from a true believer. He certainly wasn’t deceiving anyone, including himself
In the years running up to Indyref Salmond took the idea of independence seriously. He was very focused on Scotland having a viable economy that could deliver for its people after independence. Views will differ as to whether he succeeded or not but he was absolutely clear that this was an essential component of independence.
During the Sturgeon era all sight was lost of the importance of the economy. Her movement to the left, which in fairness was very successful in taking the central belt from Labour, was at the cost of a Statist, high tax, public sector dominated economy with highly critical views of those who had the audacity to make money or build a business.
Forbes offered a return to the Salmond viewpoint but lost out to continuity Yousless. Current policies are simply not designed to build a viable private sector tax base in Scotland, if anything they will continue to make Scotland a less attractive place to invest. So we pay more tax, have more state regulation, have a disproportionately large public sector that scoops up available talent by paying itself rather well, poorly performing schools, restrictions on the number of young Scots who can get a government subsidised university place, a lack of interest in essential infrastructure and policies such as the bottle scheme that are introduced with no thought as to their economic consequences.
Scotland is not fit to be an independent country at present. Its reliance on UK subsidy has increased. Independence now would mean substantial cuts in the public sector and even more tax rises. These problems need to be addressed in the Union or out of it. But they will indeed take decades to address. And the risk is we will continue on a path of blaming others for our failings and go even deeper into this hole before we come out the other side.
The Scottish guy here is particularly exercised by the incompetence and corruption surrounding the ferries, the terrible drug problem, and the neglect of smaller Scottish towns. All of which is down to the SNP - and he’s a SNP supporter!
(Or was - I get the feeling he is so disenchanted he might abstain next time)
He also loathes English Tories, so conversations have been lively - but friendly
The ferry fiasco is having an enormously negative impact on the Scottish islands' economy which is very largely tourism based. A Green Scottish Minister had occasion to go to one of the islands recently and thought the solution was to hire her own boat! The consequences for jobs and the retention of young people in places with very few other opportunities are going to be dire indeed.
There is a row going on at the moment because the Oxford Union has invited Kathleen Stock to speak at the Union. The Student Union, a different body, disapproves of Ms Stock's views on gender and is applying pressure to the Oxford Union to withdraw the invitation. So far the Oxford Union has resisted that pressure on free speech grounds.
As @Cyclefree points out, the enthusiasm of those who wish to deplatform those whose views they do not agree with is strong indeed. The old ideas of I deplore your views but I will fight for your right to say them seems very last century.
There is a very large difference between defending a right to free speech, and offering a platform to those you disagree with, though.
The Union is a private society, and entitled to make its own choices about who speaks there. Equally, the OUSU is equally entitled to lobby them, and the Union to ignore them should it so choose.
None of that has really changed over many decades
My son has been dragged into this because he is currently the chair of the Debate Selection Committee. Despite its name it is largely focused on running the competitive debating competitions that he enjoys and takes part in but, at least notionally, the invites to speak go out in their name. He doesn't really play the politics game at Oxford but my word is it vicious.
Celebrity GOP pollster Frank Luntz said in When Boris Met Dave he's not seen the like of Oxford Union politics.
"... it goes without saying that if a venue discriminates against someone with views wholly opposed to Ms Cherry’s (a transgender writer, say) on the basis that some staff disapproved of their “beliefs” or thought them anti-women or felt “unsafe“, this would also be unlawful ..."
It's not just any old belief, though, is it?
According to the Equality Act, it's a "religious or philosophical belief."
Is there any such thing as a non-philosophical belief?
I believe it’s going to rain today. I believe that Austria was robbed in the Eurovision final. I believe this explanation of what constitutes a non-philosophical belief, while not being completely sound with respect to legal precedents, will get my point across.
Hume and Kuhn and Feyerabend might have things to say about your belief that it's going to rain ...
And they would (arguably) be right, but not with respect to the provisions of the Equality Act.
Feyeraband may also have had things to say about Austria at Eurovision.
It's also worth noting, given the general context of the Edinburgh venue case, [edit] though obviously not an issue in it, that a belief in Scottish independence is also a protected characteristic. That came out when HMG, in the form of MoD, tried to sack a SNP pol cos he might be disloyal or something.
I’m out here in Egypt with a bunch of journos. One of them is a young, quite well known Scottish journalist, and a passionate YES supporter
He said last night that “indy” is dead in the water. “Decades away”
An interesting perspective from a true believer. He certainly wasn’t deceiving anyone, including himself
Have you met any cabbies from Tirana out there?
It’s 90% Germans, so not yet
There are however two Instagram influencers from the UK here. Women, pretty, etc. One of them has 1m insta followers.
The PR girl who runs the trip says they travel the world taking photos and videos of themselves having a lovely time, and…. That’s it. They are famous if you are into this stuff. They get everything free, and make money from endorsing products
"... it goes without saying that if a venue discriminates against someone with views wholly opposed to Ms Cherry’s (a transgender writer, say) on the basis that some staff disapproved of their “beliefs” or thought them anti-women or felt “unsafe“, this would also be unlawful ..."
It's not just any old belief, though, is it?
According to the Equality Act, it's a "religious or philosophical belief."
Is there any such thing as a non-philosophical belief?
I believe it’s going to rain today. I believe that Austria was robbed in the Eurovision final. I believe this explanation of what constitutes a non-philosophical belief, while not being completely sound with respect to legal precedents, will get my point across.
Hume and Kuhn and Feyerabend might have things to say about your belief that it's going to rain ...
And they would (arguably) be right, but not with respect to the provisions of the Equality Act.
Feyeraband may also have had things to say about Austria at Eurovision.
It's also worth noting, given the general context of the Edinburgh venue case, [edit] though obviously not an issue in it, that a belief in Scottish independence is also a protected characteristic. That came out when HMG, in the form of MoD, tried to sack a SNP pol cos he might be disloyal or something.
I’m out here in Egypt with a bunch of journos. One of them is a young, quite well known Scottish journalist, and a passionate YES supporter
He said last night that “indy” is dead in the water. “Decades away”
An interesting perspective from a true believer. He certainly wasn’t deceiving anyone, including himself
Have you met any cabbies from Tirana out there?
It’s 90% Germans, so not yet
There are however two Instagram influencers from the UK here. Women, pretty, etc. One of them has 1m insta followers.
The PR girl who runs the trip says they travel the world taking photos and videos of themselves having a lovely time, and…. That’s it. They are famous if you are into this stuff. They get everything free, and make money from endorsing products
Fascinating
I really can’t get my head around that phenomenon, or the wider popular trend of people striking ridiculous pouty glamour poses everywhere they go then posting on Instagram. It seems so obviously vain and presumptuous. Quite alien.
A pose at a landmark, if it must happen, should involve looking somewhat uncomfortable or at most a cheery everyday smile.
The job they're doing is freelance advertising. Whatever gets punters' attention sells the space. Easy to get your head around when you call it what it is.
I get the economics of it. But perhaps 1% or fewer of the people you see pouting on Instagram are getting any money for it. The rest are doing it purely for personal vanity/neediness it seems. Most have no desire to be influencers. There are members of my extended family who do it too.
You see it with tourists in places like Tower Bridge too. Where once they would ask a passerby to snap them smiling with the towers in the background, now one is puckering up the lips and trying to look smouldering (with the towers in the background), with the other taking the photo.
It’s interesting to see it in action, and to see how it can be done very successfully - generating lots of money
But as you say that is surely 0.1% of people who TRY to do it
There is a row going on at the moment because the Oxford Union has invited Kathleen Stock to speak at the Union. The Student Union, a different body, disapproves of Ms Stock's views on gender and is applying pressure to the Oxford Union to withdraw the invitation. So far the Oxford Union has resisted that pressure on free speech grounds.
As @Cyclefree points out, the enthusiasm of those who wish to deplatform those whose views they do not agree with is strong indeed. The old ideas of I deplore your views but I will fight for your right to say them seems very last century.
There is a very large difference between defending a right to free speech, and offering a platform to those you disagree with, though.
The Union is a private society, and entitled to make its own choices about who speaks there. Equally, the OUSU is equally entitled to lobby them, and the Union to ignore them should it so choose.
None of that has really changed over many decades
The point Cyclefree seems to be arguing is that Joanna Cherry's beliefs about gender are protected against discrimination by the Equality Act 2010. That legislation applies to private societies just as much as it applies to commercial companies and public bodies. The Oxford Union would have to ensure that its choices about who speaks there comply with anti-discrimination law, and if Cyclefree is right its freedom to choose would be severely curtailed.
That sounds a load of cobblers. (Though I'm not a lawyer.)
It's true, of course, that they could not so discriminate in whom they allow to be members (or how they treat those members) - which is how the Act applies to them.
Forced smile as his team is relegated. That's quite the metaphor.
Starmer is an Arsenal fan.
He's getting practice at blowing a big lead and coming second.
Starmer’s certainly taking a right mauling in tomorrows papers with his plan to use EU citizens to rig future UK elections, that perhaps might even be an election to scrap Brexit.
Why is Starmer daft enough to announce a plan like that, he’s not remotely won an election yet. Constitional change is second term stuff if anything, once you’ve earned trust, and every second he is talking about votes for sixteen year old children and EU citizens and not talking about NHS waiting lists, he’s an idiot.
Meanwhile, I think this is a big moment in the race to be Conservative Party leader.
You can try to argue Braverman is not the Conservatives rising star, simply on basis you don’t like her at all, but you will utterly fail in that argument, the reality is: she’s rising if you like it all not, there’s no denying it. Observer had a big splash on her today, risen from family of immigrants to high office etc.
The UK Home Secretary is headline speaker at this Conservative conference, and she is going to say
“…because of the pressure it puts on housing supply, public services and community relations.”
And how many Conservative members and activists are going to disagree with that reasoning to limit immigration? Tory members will say at last, someone who tells it like it is.
You would use words like steadfast, tenacious, and determined to describe Braverman’s style - those are exactly the same words used to list Lady Thatcher’s strengths.
There’s your next leader of the Conservative Party. She’s got it “Suen-up” hasn’t she?
No as only 32 Tory MPs voted for her in the 2022 leadership election, she has no chance of reaching the final 2 to even to the Tory membership therefore if Rishi loses and the race to choose the Tory Leader of the Opposition begins
I knew you were lurking out there with something crazy like this to post 😆
32 was a bloody good start for “what’s she running for” candidate” You saying her fan club hasn’t “sue-welled” since then?
You saying she won’t go into the leadership election with more credibility than Lady Thatcher when she actually won leadership.
You are going to tell us the smug, full of themself woman child Badenoch knocks Braverman out the top two, when it’s so obvious Braverman is the only one of the candidates with determination and tenacity to deliver, focussed and steadfast enough to actually take a fight back to Labour? 😆
Now, most important question of all, when Braverman says we must limit immigration because of the pressure it puts on housing supply, public services and community relations - do you actually disagree with her?
No, the final 3 would be Barclay, Tugendhat and Mordaunt in my view, neither Braverman nor Badenoch make it
That’s what you most want isn’t it? But not wanting Braverman as leader doesn’t make her disappear. For example, if on the hustings she says, we must limit immigration because of the pressure it puts on housing supply, public services and community relations - will any of the three you mentioned challenge that, instantly flashing up a huge gulf of difference between Braverman and themselves? Braverman and her supporters bring the differentials into the coming leadership election, this is what gets her into the last two, and with these differentials she beats all three of your suggestions easily in Phase 2 doesn’t she?
Are you taking into account how the MP phase can change dramatically from the last one after 100 seat losses?
Most of the Tory seat losses will be redwall MPs on current polls, so the remaining Tory party would be even more southern than it is now with some patches from ex industrial areas of the Midlands.
The next Tory leader will likely be a Leaver but a sane Leaver like Barclay. It would probably take a second heavy general election defeat for the Conservatives to go all out for the pure ideologue as leader and in my view that would be more likely to be Rees Mogg than Braverman or Badenoch. Remember Corbyn and IDS weren't elected when Labour and the Tories first lost power, only after a second defeat. The first Opposition leaders they elected were more from the centre of the party ie Ed Miliband and Hague
There’s no such thing as a sane Leaver. Not totally sane, anyway.
In spite of that sentiment, Good Morning to everyone.
"... it goes without saying that if a venue discriminates against someone with views wholly opposed to Ms Cherry’s (a transgender writer, say) on the basis that some staff disapproved of their “beliefs” or thought them anti-women or felt “unsafe“, this would also be unlawful ..."
It's not just any old belief, though, is it?
According to the Equality Act, it's a "religious or philosophical belief."
Is there any such thing as a non-philosophical belief?
I believe it’s going to rain today. I believe that Austria was robbed in the Eurovision final. I believe this explanation of what constitutes a non-philosophical belief, while not being completely sound with respect to legal precedents, will get my point across.
Hume and Kuhn and Feyerabend might have things to say about your belief that it's going to rain ...
And they would (arguably) be right, but not with respect to the provisions of the Equality Act.
Feyeraband may also have had things to say about Austria at Eurovision.
It's also worth noting, given the general context of the Edinburgh venue case, [edit] though obviously not an issue in it, that a belief in Scottish independence is also a protected characteristic. That came out when HMG, in the form of MoD, tried to sack a SNP pol cos he might be disloyal or something.
I’m out here in Egypt with a bunch of journos. One of them is a young, quite well known Scottish journalist, and a passionate YES supporter
He said last night that “indy” is dead in the water. “Decades away”
An interesting perspective from a true believer. He certainly wasn’t deceiving anyone, including himself
In the years running up to Indyref Salmond took the idea of independence seriously. He was very focused on Scotland having a viable economy that could deliver for its people after independence. Views will differ as to whether he succeeded or not but he was absolutely clear that this was an essential component of independence.
During the Sturgeon era all sight was lost of the importance of the economy. Her movement to the left, which in fairness was very successful in taking the central belt from Labour, was at the cost of a Statist, high tax, public sector dominated economy with highly critical views of those who had the audacity to make money or build a business.
Forbes offered a return to the Salmond viewpoint but lost out to continuity Yousless. Current policies are simply not designed to build a viable private sector tax base in Scotland, if anything they will continue to make Scotland a less attractive place to invest. So we pay more tax, have more state regulation, have a disproportionately large public sector that scoops up available talent by paying itself rather well, poorly performing schools, restrictions on the number of young Scots who can get a government subsidised university place, a lack of interest in essential infrastructure and policies such as the bottle scheme that are introduced with no thought as to their economic consequences.
Scotland is not fit to be an independent country at present. Its reliance on UK subsidy has increased. Independence now would mean substantial cuts in the public sector and even more tax rises. These problems need to be addressed in the Union or out of it. But they will indeed take decades to address. And the risk is we will continue on a path of blaming others for our failings and go even deeper into this hole before we come out the other side.
The Scottish guy here is particularly exercised by the incompetence and corruption surrounding the ferries, the terrible drug problem, and the neglect of smaller Scottish towns. All of which is down to the SNP - and he’s a SNP supporter!
(Or was - I get the feeling he is so disenchanted he might abstain next time)
He also loathes English Tories, so conversations have been lively - but friendly
The ferry fiasco is having an enormously negative impact on the Scottish islands' economy which is very largely tourism based. A Green Scottish Minister had occasion to go to one of the islands recently and thought the solution was to hire her own boat! The consequences for jobs and the retention of young people in places with very few other opportunities are going to be dire indeed.
Yes, he mentioned all that. I had no idea the ferries clusterfuck was SO bad
Anyway that’s my Egyptian sitrep. I shall now retire to my cabana and do some actual WORK
"India's main opposition Congress party has defeated Prime Minister's Narendra Modi's governing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in a crucial election in the southern state of Karnataka."
Labour rising star and deep thinker, Nadia Whittome, is demanding a 4 day working week for all public sector staff without loss of pay.
Could this be effective ?
Would it work ?
Would they need to recruit more staff to cover periods where staff were not in the office or at work or would they just split the days.
This could be a way of giving the private sector a large pay increase without actually giving them any money, however they are probably going to want both.
"... it goes without saying that if a venue discriminates against someone with views wholly opposed to Ms Cherry’s (a transgender writer, say) on the basis that some staff disapproved of their “beliefs” or thought them anti-women or felt “unsafe“, this would also be unlawful ..."
It's not just any old belief, though, is it?
According to the Equality Act, it's a "religious or philosophical belief."
Is there any such thing as a non-philosophical belief?
I believe it’s going to rain today. I believe that Austria was robbed in the Eurovision final. I believe this explanation of what constitutes a non-philosophical belief, while not being completely sound with respect to legal precedents, will get my point across.
Hume and Kuhn and Feyerabend might have things to say about your belief that it's going to rain ...
And they would (arguably) be right, but not with respect to the provisions of the Equality Act.
Feyeraband may also have had things to say about Austria at Eurovision.
It's also worth noting, given the general context of the Edinburgh venue case, [edit] though obviously not an issue in it, that a belief in Scottish independence is also a protected characteristic. That came out when HMG, in the form of MoD, tried to sack a SNP pol cos he might be disloyal or something.
I’m out here in Egypt with a bunch of journos. One of them is a young, quite well known Scottish journalist, and a passionate YES supporter
He said last night that “indy” is dead in the water. “Decades away”
An interesting perspective from a true believer. He certainly wasn’t deceiving anyone, including himself
Have you met any cabbies from Tirana out there?
It’s 90% Germans, so not yet
There are however two Instagram influencers from the UK here. Women, pretty, etc. One of them has 1m insta followers.
The PR girl who runs the trip says they travel the world taking photos and videos of themselves having a lovely time, and…. That’s it. They are famous if you are into this stuff. They get everything free, and make money from endorsing products
"... it goes without saying that if a venue discriminates against someone with views wholly opposed to Ms Cherry’s (a transgender writer, say) on the basis that some staff disapproved of their “beliefs” or thought them anti-women or felt “unsafe“, this would also be unlawful ..."
It's not just any old belief, though, is it?
According to the Equality Act, it's a "religious or philosophical belief."
Is there any such thing as a non-philosophical belief?
I believe it’s going to rain today. I believe that Austria was robbed in the Eurovision final. I believe this explanation of what constitutes a non-philosophical belief, while not being completely sound with respect to legal precedents, will get my point across.
Hume and Kuhn and Feyerabend might have things to say about your belief that it's going to rain ...
And they would (arguably) be right, but not with respect to the provisions of the Equality Act.
Feyeraband may also have had things to say about Austria at Eurovision.
It's also worth noting, given the general context of the Edinburgh venue case, [edit] though obviously not an issue in it, that a belief in Scottish independence is also a protected characteristic. That came out when HMG, in the form of MoD, tried to sack a SNP pol cos he might be disloyal or something.
I’m out here in Egypt with a bunch of journos. One of them is a young, quite well known Scottish journalist, and a passionate YES supporter
He said last night that “indy” is dead in the water. “Decades away”
An interesting perspective from a true believer. He certainly wasn’t deceiving anyone, including himself
Have you met any cabbies from Tirana out there?
It’s 90% Germans, so not yet
There are however two Instagram influencers from the UK here. Women, pretty, etc. One of them has 1m insta followers.
The PR girl who runs the trip says they travel the world taking photos and videos of themselves having a lovely time, and…. That’s it. They are famous if you are into this stuff. They get everything free, and make money from endorsing products
Fascinating
I really can’t get my head around that phenomenon, or the wider popular trend of people striking ridiculous pouty glamour poses everywhere they go then posting on Instagram. It seems so obviously vain and presumptuous. Quite alien.
A pose at a landmark, if it must happen, should involve looking somewhat uncomfortable or at most a cheery everyday smile.
The job they're doing is freelance advertising. Whatever gets punters' attention sells the space. Easy to get your head around when you call it what it is.
I get the economics of it. But perhaps 1% or fewer of the people you see pouting on Instagram are getting any money for it. The rest are doing it purely for personal vanity/neediness it seems. Most have no desire to be influencers. There are members of my extended family who do it too.
You see it with tourists in places like Tower Bridge too. Where once they would ask a passerby to snap them smiling with the towers in the background, now one is puckering up the lips and trying to look smouldering (with the towers in the background), with the other taking the photo.
It’s interesting to see it in action, and to see how it can be done very successfully - generating lots of money
But as you say that is surely 0.1% of people who TRY to do it
Yes, in the same was as the median income for an OnlyFans ‘creator’ is $100 per month, 1% of the creators make more than half the money, and 0.1% make serious bank - most of whom are already famous. The rest just put their nudes online forever and for almost free.
Just seen this graph on Paul Mason's twitter, "proving" how bad Brexit is
Two points..
- Don't trend lines usually have points above and below them? This one has ZERO points above it on the 2009-2015 section that sets the "trend"
- Aren't they usually straight lines? This one is curving upwards
Looks like utter horseshit to me
The curve is probably valid- growth is exponential, after all. Compound interest, wealth begets wealth and all that.
Agree about the exact best fit curve they've used- it should be slightly lower. But not enough to change the conclusion of the graph that something bad happened to investment in 2016, and hasn't stopped happening since.
A not uncommon mistake when working a trend from a moving average, used to smooth the variation, is to plot the curve using the final X-value for the moving average, rather than the middle of range. That could be why the trend line appears higher than the base data.
Coming to the conclusion that the UK is cooked. I'm fortunate to have done well in my early career, but London rents are getting ridiculous, to the point that I know three people paying £42k/yr for a bang average place in Tooting(!).
We then figured out that one of them was paying a marginal tax rate of 67% on every penny over £50k. (13.8% Employers NI on total - then 40% tax, 2% NI, 9% Undergrad tax, 6% Masters tax, 5% mandatory pension contribution).
Brutally high rents combined with crippling tax rates and public services that effectively just don't exist...
Every party bar Labour have an electoral incentive to not give the Housing theory of everything a look, and Labour are split down the middle in terms of who gets it and who doesn't. Personally I'm going through the steps with work to go fully remote abroad, and Barcelona seems nice, rent half the price, marginal tax rate on the nomad scheme only 1/3rd of what I pay here.
London is a great place to live whilst you are starting out in your career, but difficult to make work over the long term because of the cost of housing.
London is always going to be an expensive place to live because most the world's population would buy a property there if they could afford to. (It was fairly cheap in the 1970s because London wasn't regarded as a particularly attractive place to live at that time).
There is also an element of snobbishness with these complaints though... you can buy a new build flat at Barking Riverside for around £250k.
True but Barking and Dagenham is culturally closer to Hartlepool than central London. It had the 3rd strongest Leave vote in London after Havering and Bexley at 62%
I don't think this is correct anymore. The area is changing (and diversifying) rapidly. But my point is that it is an area you can live in London where housing is cheap. People choose instead to live in places like Tooting and then complain about the rent, presenting it as a social problem that requires intervention.
There is a row going on at the moment because the Oxford Union has invited Kathleen Stock to speak at the Union. The Student Union, a different body, disapproves of Ms Stock's views on gender and is applying pressure to the Oxford Union to withdraw the invitation. So far the Oxford Union has resisted that pressure on free speech grounds.
As @Cyclefree points out, the enthusiasm of those who wish to deplatform those whose views they do not agree with is strong indeed. The old ideas of I deplore your views but I will fight for your right to say them seems very last century.
There is a very large difference between defending a right to free speech, and offering a platform to those you disagree with, though.
The Union is a private society, and entitled to make its own choices about who speaks there. Equally, the OUSU is equally entitled to lobby them, and the Union to ignore them should it so choose.
None of that has really changed over many decades
The point Cyclefree seems to be arguing is that Joanna Cherry's beliefs about gender are protected against discrimination by the Equality Act 2010. That legislation applies to private societies just as much as it applies to commercial companies and public bodies. The Oxford Union would have to ensure that its choices about who speaks there comply with anti-discrimination law, and if Cyclefree is right its freedom to choose would be severely curtailed.
That sounds a load of cobblers. (Though I'm not a lawyer.)
What do you mean? You don't think Cyclefree is arguing that Cherry's beliefs are protected by the Equality Act? You don't think the Equality Act applies to private societies? Or what?
What's the point of saying something sounds like "a load of cobblers" if you can't explain why you think that?
There is a row going on at the moment because the Oxford Union has invited Kathleen Stock to speak at the Union. The Student Union, a different body, disapproves of Ms Stock's views on gender and is applying pressure to the Oxford Union to withdraw the invitation. So far the Oxford Union has resisted that pressure on free speech grounds.
As @Cyclefree points out, the enthusiasm of those who wish to deplatform those whose views they do not agree with is strong indeed. The old ideas of I deplore your views but I will fight for your right to say them seems very last century.
There is a very large difference between defending a right to free speech, and offering a platform to those you disagree with, though.
The Union is a private society, and entitled to make its own choices about who speaks there. Equally, the OUSU is equally entitled to lobby them, and the Union to ignore them should it so choose.
None of that has really changed over many decades
The point Cyclefree seems to be arguing is that Joanna Cherry's beliefs about gender are protected against discrimination by the Equality Act 2010. That legislation applies to private societies just as much as it applies to commercial companies and public bodies. The Oxford Union would have to ensure that its choices about who speaks there comply with anti-discrimination law, and if Cyclefree is right its freedom to choose would be severely curtailed.
That sounds a load of cobblers. (Though I'm not a lawyer.)
It's true, of course, that they could not so discriminate in whom they allow to be members (or how they treat those members) - which is how the Act applies to them.
I see you just added another bit.
That's not right. It doesn't only relate to membership.
"... it goes without saying that if a venue discriminates against someone with views wholly opposed to Ms Cherry’s (a transgender writer, say) on the basis that some staff disapproved of their “beliefs” or thought them anti-women or felt “unsafe“, this would also be unlawful ..."
It's not just any old belief, though, is it?
According to the Equality Act, it's a "religious or philosophical belief."
Is there any such thing as a non-philosophical belief?
I believe it’s going to rain today. I believe that Austria was robbed in the Eurovision final. I believe this explanation of what constitutes a non-philosophical belief, while not being completely sound with respect to legal precedents, will get my point across.
Hume and Kuhn and Feyerabend might have things to say about your belief that it's going to rain ...
And they would (arguably) be right, but not with respect to the provisions of the Equality Act.
Feyeraband may also have had things to say about Austria at Eurovision.
It's also worth noting, given the general context of the Edinburgh venue case, [edit] though obviously not an issue in it, that a belief in Scottish independence is also a protected characteristic. That came out when HMG, in the form of MoD, tried to sack a SNP pol cos he might be disloyal or something.
I’m out here in Egypt with a bunch of journos. One of them is a young, quite well known Scottish journalist, and a passionate YES supporter
He said last night that “indy” is dead in the water. “Decades away”
An interesting perspective from a true believer. He certainly wasn’t deceiving anyone, including himself
In the years running up to Indyref Salmond took the idea of independence seriously. He was very focused on Scotland having a viable economy that could deliver for its people after independence. Views will differ as to whether he succeeded or not but he was absolutely clear that this was an essential component of independence.
During the Sturgeon era all sight was lost of the importance of the economy. Her movement to the left, which in fairness was very successful in taking the central belt from Labour, was at the cost of a Statist, high tax, public sector dominated economy with highly critical views of those who had the audacity to make money or build a business.
Forbes offered a return to the Salmond viewpoint but lost out to continuity Yousless. Current policies are simply not designed to build a viable private sector tax base in Scotland, if anything they will continue to make Scotland a less attractive place to invest. So we pay more tax, have more state regulation, have a disproportionately large public sector that scoops up available talent by paying itself rather well, poorly performing schools, restrictions on the number of young Scots who can get a government subsidised university place, a lack of interest in essential infrastructure and policies such as the bottle scheme that are introduced with no thought as to their economic consequences.
Scotland is not fit to be an independent country at present. Its reliance on UK subsidy has increased. Independence now would mean substantial cuts in the public sector and even more tax rises. These problems need to be addressed in the Union or out of it. But they will indeed take decades to address. And the risk is we will continue on a path of blaming others for our failings and go even deeper into this hole before we come out the other side.
The Scottish guy here is particularly exercised by the incompetence and corruption surrounding the ferries, the terrible drug problem, and the neglect of smaller Scottish towns. All of which is down to the SNP - and he’s a SNP supporter!
(Or was - I get the feeling he is so disenchanted he might abstain next time)
He also loathes English Tories, so conversations have been lively - but friendly
The ferry fiasco is having an enormously negative impact on the Scottish islands' economy which is very largely tourism based. A Green Scottish Minister had occasion to go to one of the islands recently and thought the solution was to hire her own boat! The consequences for jobs and the retention of young people in places with very few other opportunities are going to be dire indeed.
These Greens need tarring and feathering , the clown also went 350 miles in a chaffeur driven limousine to palnt a tree for the environment. They are shameless grifters of the worst kind, sh egot 36 votes at the election and she is a Government Minister , absolutely shocking and shows what a state we are in.
Wagner mercenary boss Prigozhin has raged against Russian military leadership. But this is different: He also offered to give Russian troop locations to Ukraine in return for Bakhmut retreat, classified documents say. https://twitter.com/OKnox/status/1657907636916895744
Hilarious, if true. More so if it's not, but Putin believes it.
"India's main opposition Congress party has defeated Prime Minister's Narendra Modi's governing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in a crucial election in the southern state of Karnataka."
A good result for Congress but it remains unclear it will do them a great deal of help in the next GE. Anti-incumbency is a big factor in Indian state elections from what I can tell, and a number of states regularly switch backwards and forwards between two parties on a regular basis. It does however give some cheer that they are not completely moribund, and can mount some sort of challenge next year - though in the current climate it doesn’t seem likely that Modi will lose.
Coming to the conclusion that the UK is cooked. I'm fortunate to have done well in my early career, but London rents are getting ridiculous, to the point that I know three people paying £42k/yr for a bang average place in Tooting(!).
We then figured out that one of them was paying a marginal tax rate of 67% on every penny over £50k. (13.8% Employers NI on total - then 40% tax, 2% NI, 9% Undergrad tax, 6% Masters tax, 5% mandatory pension contribution).
Brutally high rents combined with crippling tax rates and public services that effectively just don't exist...
Every party bar Labour have an electoral incentive to not give the Housing theory of everything a look, and Labour are split down the middle in terms of who gets it and who doesn't. Personally I'm going through the steps with work to go fully remote abroad, and Barcelona seems nice, rent half the price, marginal tax rate on the nomad scheme only 1/3rd of what I pay here.
London is a great place to live whilst you are starting out in your career, but difficult to make work over the long term because of the cost of housing.
London is always going to be an expensive place to live because most the world's population would buy a property there if they could afford to. (It was fairly cheap in the 1970s because London wasn't regarded as a particularly attractive place to live at that time).
There is also an element of snobbishness with these complaints though... you can buy a new build flat at Barking Riverside for around £250k.
Buy? You can lease it for 100 years, with all the attendant uncapped service charges, major works bills, and general lack of consumer protection for leaseholders (see: Grenfell).
There's a reason flat prices have flatlined in the last five years while house prices have rocketed.
It may be irrational (in fact, it almost certainly is) but one thing that's always at the back of my mind when looking at leasehold is what happened to Hong Kong over the New Territories.
Buying a lease, even if long-term, is never the same as outright ownership.
Seems to be an England thing , next to none if any leasehold in Scotland. Most if not all of the feudal rights similar were dumped long ago.
One of those subtle but powerful ingredients in making England dysfunctional. Give Gove his due, he worked that out but not that his party would prefer to conserve the current system;
Whilst abolishing leasehold might well help, you're still left with what replaces it. And at the moment, the only obvious thing is that for a block of flats you have a communal say in how the place is run. It could be Commonhold or whatever was introduced 20 years ago that wasn't really taken up.
But whilst getting rid of leasehold gets rid of third party freeholders, with their ground rent escalators and high service charges, it doesn't solve all problems.
When I had a flat (of seven) I still had: Lessee who didn't pay their service charge Lessees who are effectively absent (renting out) and so care little about the building Sub let tenants who wouldn't care about the place because they were 'just renting' Allocated parking, but said sub let tenant bought three cars and parked two of them in other peoples bays. When approached, just said, "First come, first served."
None of the above problems will go away by abolishing leasehold.
The Japanese system is that when you buy a car, you have to give the police proof that you have somewhere to park it. When our slightly mad neighbours wouldn't pay their service charge for a year, the building association refused to stamp the document showing that they were renting the space, at which point they finally coughed up.
So many cities could do with following the Japanese “Kei Car” system. Cars in general have got so much bigger in the past couple of decades.
“Parking Full. If you all drove a Mini there would be loads of space!” - sign outside a high-end restaurant complex here in the sandpit, that usually appears by about 7pm at the weekend.
As the proud owner of a 1982 Subaru Sambar kei truck (aka "the Porsche of the farm track") I've been reading the American kei truck reddit. This is fun because they're only allowed to drive cars on the road if they're old enough to be classified as classic cars. So they're getting all excited about the new features in each new generation of kei trucks, except with a 25 year time lag.
This phenomenon is almost over in my opinion as the Japanese OEMs started to do global product ranges in the early 2000s. The R34 GT-R was the last of the "hero" cars that were never available in the US. They will be US legal in 2024 and were only in production for three years. What's left after that? Evo VIII and IX, maybe.
Forced smile as his team is relegated. That's quite the metaphor.
Starmer is an Arsenal fan.
He's getting practice at blowing a big lead and coming second.
Starmer’s certainly taking a right mauling in tomorrows papers with his plan to use EU citizens to rig future UK elections, that perhaps might even be an election to scrap Brexit.
Why is Starmer daft enough to announce a plan like that, he’s not remotely won an election yet. Constitional change is second term stuff if anything, once you’ve earned trust, and every second he is talking about votes for sixteen year old children and EU citizens and not talking about NHS waiting lists, he’s an idiot.
It’s bizarre to say the least for Labour to go down this road . Votes for 16 and 17 year olds is less controversial, the proposal would be though for all residents to have the vote so basically those from the EU and the rest of the world , commonwealth citizens already have the vote although I doubt many Brits realize this . The right wing papers have gone down the EU nationals route so basically continuing where they left off during the ref campaign , more despicable scapegoating .
I think an issue with this possible proposal is it risks causing a lot of divisiveness and blowback against EU nationals. The right wing will go into overdrive .
I personally have no problem with EU nationals voting in general elections but think this policy proposal if it happens could damage Labours chances in 2024 .
Starmer has a responsibility not to offer up own goals to the Tories and should be avoiding missteps . It would be unforgivable to subject us to 5 more years of this cesspit government !
Giving the vote in national elections to non-citizen residents is fairly unusual. I think New Zealand does this, I guess there must be a few others. The UK is already unusual in giving voting rights at the national level to citizens of quite a few other countries - Ireland and Commonwealth. But Greg Hands is lying when he says 'The right to vote in parliamentary elections and choose the next UK government is rightly restricted to British citizens and those with the closest historical links to our country'. Unless he is enough of a moron to think that Mozambique and Rwanda have closer historical links to the UK than European neighbours or the US.
There was a referendum in Luxemburg in 2015 on giving voting rights in national elections to minimum 10-year resident non-citizens. No won 78% to 22%. Lowering the voting age to 16 lost 80% to 20% in the same referendum.
Not sure if there's been much polling on these, but I would guess both proposals would be vote-losers for Labour, and look suspiciously like fiddling with the voting system for party advantage.
We could make getting citizenship for long-term residents and spouses less onerous than it is currently. But I do struggle with the idea that, say, conservative Catholic Poles are going to be a slam dunk demographic for Labour forever. The only reason I can think of that they would not be natural Tory voters is that they feel the Tories are not on their side.
My view is that we are all in favour of integration. What provides greater incentive to integrate than feeling you have a stake in the future of the country?
Labour rising star and deep thinker, Nadia Whittome, is demanding a 4 day working week for all public sector staff without loss of pay.
Could this be effective ?
Would it work ?
Would they need to recruit more staff to cover periods where staff were not in the office or at work or would they just split the days.
This could be a way of giving the private sector a large pay increase without actually giving them any money, however they are probably going to want both.
Just seen this graph on Paul Mason's twitter, "proving" how bad Brexit is
Two points..
- Don't trend lines usually have points above and below them? This one has ZERO points above it on the 2009-2015 section that sets the "trend"
- Aren't they usually straight lines? This one is curving upwards
Looks like utter horseshit to me
If a trend is at a constant rate of increase - such as 1% growth per year - then you will get an upwards curve rather than a straight line.
The trend curve is anchored to be equal to the 2009 figure, which is a little naughty, and creates an offset. It would have been better to set the average of the trend equal to the average of the years 2009-2015 (i.e. the years it has been calculated for), though the offset isn't that large and doesn't really change the point being made.
In many ways this is a classic example of how over-egging the pudding undermines the point.
If the author had just got Excel to plot a simple trend line through the data, the point would have been made and "horseshit" counter arguments would have been difficult to come by.
There is a row going on at the moment because the Oxford Union has invited Kathleen Stock to speak at the Union. The Student Union, a different body, disapproves of Ms Stock's views on gender and is applying pressure to the Oxford Union to withdraw the invitation. So far the Oxford Union has resisted that pressure on free speech grounds.
As @Cyclefree points out, the enthusiasm of those who wish to deplatform those whose views they do not agree with is strong indeed. The old ideas of I deplore your views but I will fight for your right to say them seems very last century.
There is a very large difference between defending a right to free speech, and offering a platform to those you disagree with, though.
The Union is a private society, and entitled to make its own choices about who speaks there. Equally, the OUSU is equally entitled to lobby them, and the Union to ignore them should it so choose.
None of that has really changed over many decades
The point Cyclefree seems to be arguing is that Joanna Cherry's beliefs about gender are protected against discrimination by the Equality Act 2010. That legislation applies to private societies just as much as it applies to commercial companies and public bodies. The Oxford Union would have to ensure that its choices about who speaks there comply with anti-discrimination law, and if Cyclefree is right its freedom to choose would be severely curtailed.
That sounds a load of cobblers. (Though I'm not a lawyer.)
It's true, of course, that they could not so discriminate in whom they allow to be members (or how they treat those members) - which is how the Act applies to them.
I see you just added another bit.
That's not right. It doesn't only relate to membership.
How does it relate to their choice of speakers ? I don't see that it does at all.
Labour rising star and deep thinker, Nadia Whittome, is demanding a 4 day working week for all public sector staff without loss of pay.
Could this be effective ?
Would it work ?
Would they need to recruit more staff to cover periods where staff were not in the office or at work or would they just split the days.
This could be a way of giving the private sector a large pay increase without actually giving them any money, however they are probably going to want both.
From your link: "She cited a recent six-month trial by 61 companies that found revenue increased along with staff wellbeing when they tried out the four-day week."
Many private sector shift workers already work three or four day weeks but with more than eight hours in a day. I do not think that is what is advocated here but details are scarce.
Labour rising star and deep thinker, Nadia Whittome, is demanding a 4 day working week for all public sector staff without loss of pay.
Could this be effective ?
Would it work ?
Would they need to recruit more staff to cover periods where staff were not in the office or at work or would they just split the days.
This could be a way of giving the private sector a large pay increase without actually giving them any money, however they are probably going to want both.
if that is the deep thinking then she is just another thick idiot who has likely never done a day's work in her life. Seems only to prove that they could get shot of 20% and cut real workers taxes.
"... it goes without saying that if a venue discriminates against someone with views wholly opposed to Ms Cherry’s (a transgender writer, say) on the basis that some staff disapproved of their “beliefs” or thought them anti-women or felt “unsafe“, this would also be unlawful ..."
It's not just any old belief, though, is it?
According to the Equality Act, it's a "religious or philosophical belief."
Is there any such thing as a non-philosophical belief?
I believe it’s going to rain today. I believe that Austria was robbed in the Eurovision final. I believe this explanation of what constitutes a non-philosophical belief, while not being completely sound with respect to legal precedents, will get my point across.
Hume and Kuhn and Feyerabend might have things to say about your belief that it's going to rain ...
And they would (arguably) be right, but not with respect to the provisions of the Equality Act.
Feyeraband may also have had things to say about Austria at Eurovision.
It's also worth noting, given the general context of the Edinburgh venue case, [edit] though obviously not an issue in it, that a belief in Scottish independence is also a protected characteristic. That came out when HMG, in the form of MoD, tried to sack a SNP pol cos he might be disloyal or something.
I’m out here in Egypt with a bunch of journos. One of them is a young, quite well known Scottish journalist, and a passionate YES supporter
He said last night that “indy” is dead in the water. “Decades away”
An interesting perspective from a true believer. He certainly wasn’t deceiving anyone, including himself
Have you met any cabbies from Tirana out there?
It’s 90% Germans, so not yet
There are however two Instagram influencers from the UK here. Women, pretty, etc. One of them has 1m insta followers.
The PR girl who runs the trip says they travel the world taking photos and videos of themselves having a lovely time, and…. That’s it. They are famous if you are into this stuff. They get everything free, and make money from endorsing products
"... it goes without saying that if a venue discriminates against someone with views wholly opposed to Ms Cherry’s (a transgender writer, say) on the basis that some staff disapproved of their “beliefs” or thought them anti-women or felt “unsafe“, this would also be unlawful ..."
It's not just any old belief, though, is it?
According to the Equality Act, it's a "religious or philosophical belief."
Is there any such thing as a non-philosophical belief?
I believe it’s going to rain today. I believe that Austria was robbed in the Eurovision final. I believe this explanation of what constitutes a non-philosophical belief, while not being completely sound with respect to legal precedents, will get my point across.
Hume and Kuhn and Feyerabend might have things to say about your belief that it's going to rain ...
And they would (arguably) be right, but not with respect to the provisions of the Equality Act.
Feyeraband may also have had things to say about Austria at Eurovision.
It's also worth noting, given the general context of the Edinburgh venue case, [edit] though obviously not an issue in it, that a belief in Scottish independence is also a protected characteristic. That came out when HMG, in the form of MoD, tried to sack a SNP pol cos he might be disloyal or something.
I’m out here in Egypt with a bunch of journos. One of them is a young, quite well known Scottish journalist, and a passionate YES supporter
He said last night that “indy” is dead in the water. “Decades away”
An interesting perspective from a true believer. He certainly wasn’t deceiving anyone, including himself
Have you met any cabbies from Tirana out there?
It’s 90% Germans, so not yet
There are however two Instagram influencers from the UK here. Women, pretty, etc. One of them has 1m insta followers.
The PR girl who runs the trip says they travel the world taking photos and videos of themselves having a lovely time, and…. That’s it. They are famous if you are into this stuff. They get everything free, and make money from endorsing products
Fascinating
I really can’t get my head around that phenomenon, or the wider popular trend of people striking ridiculous pouty glamour poses everywhere they go then posting on Instagram. It seems so obviously vain and presumptuous. Quite alien.
A pose at a landmark, if it must happen, should involve looking somewhat uncomfortable or at most a cheery everyday smile.
The job they're doing is freelance advertising. Whatever gets punters' attention sells the space. Easy to get your head around when you call it what it is.
I get the economics of it. But perhaps 1% or fewer of the people you see pouting on Instagram are getting any money for it. The rest are doing it purely for personal vanity/neediness it seems. Most have no desire to be influencers. There are members of my extended family who do it too.
You see it with tourists in places like Tower Bridge too. Where once they would ask a passerby to snap them smiling with the towers in the background, now one is puckering up the lips and trying to look smouldering (with the towers in the background), with the other taking the photo.
It’s interesting to see it in action, and to see how it can be done very successfully - generating lots of money
But as you say that is surely 0.1% of people who TRY to do it
Yes, in the same was as the median income for an OnlyFans ‘creator’ is $100 per month, 1% of the creators make more than half the money, and 0.1% make serious bank - most of whom are already famous. The rest just put their nudes online forever and for almost free.
While this is true, what continues to amaze is that each niche of society now has people who can make a living in vaguely ways via the internet. History podcasts, knitting vlogs, tabletop wargames videos, shooting arrows at stuff and filming the consequences, trainspotting, etc.
For all that I might complain about the social media giants, the great disintermediation of media has been of great benefit too.
There is a row going on at the moment because the Oxford Union has invited Kathleen Stock to speak at the Union. The Student Union, a different body, disapproves of Ms Stock's views on gender and is applying pressure to the Oxford Union to withdraw the invitation. So far the Oxford Union has resisted that pressure on free speech grounds.
As @Cyclefree points out, the enthusiasm of those who wish to deplatform those whose views they do not agree with is strong indeed. The old ideas of I deplore your views but I will fight for your right to say them seems very last century.
There is a very large difference between defending a right to free speech, and offering a platform to those you disagree with, though.
The Union is a private society, and entitled to make its own choices about who speaks there. Equally, the OUSU is equally entitled to lobby them, and the Union to ignore them should it so choose.
None of that has really changed over many decades
The point Cyclefree seems to be arguing is that Joanna Cherry's beliefs about gender are protected against discrimination by the Equality Act 2010. That legislation applies to private societies just as much as it applies to commercial companies and public bodies. The Oxford Union would have to ensure that its choices about who speaks there comply with anti-discrimination law, and if Cyclefree is right its freedom to choose would be severely curtailed.
That sounds a load of cobblers. (Though I'm not a lawyer.)
It's true, of course, that they could not so discriminate in whom they allow to be members (or how they treat those members) - which is how the Act applies to them.
I see you just added another bit.
That's not right. It doesn't only relate to membership.
How does it relate to their choice of speakers ? I don't see that it does at all.
Cyclefree's article is all about an invitation to a speaker. What I'm saying is that it doesn't make any legal difference whether the organisation concerned is a private club or a commercial concern.
“The Court’s supervisory functions oblige it to pay the utmost attention to the principles characterising a “democratic society”. Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of such a society, one of the basic conditions for its progress and for the development of every man. Subject to paragraph 2 of Article 10 (art. 10-2), it is applicable not only to “information” or “ideas that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population. Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no “democratic society”.” [Emphasis added]
Does it follow from this that, say, a church hall that made itself available for organisations to hire for public events would be obligated to accept a booking from an organisation that wanted to hold a public meeting to advocate for greater access to abortion? Or that a temperance hall that rented itself out as an event space would be obliged to accept a booking from an alcohol drinks trade body? Trade Union conference centre and a booking for the BNP conference?
Or a Church for a Satanist ritual. Or Muslim prayer? It's always presented as easy and straightforward. But rights often conflict. That's why "free speech absolutists" find themselves in knots quickly.
The Asher’s Bakery case established, pretty much, that equality law does not require people, societies, or companies to promote beliefs that are in conflict with their own.
That was almost entirely decided on the basis of law applicable to Northern Ireland and not the rest of the UK, though.
The law is pretty similar, though, and the rulings in relation to the HRA would be the same across the UK.
Labour rising star and deep thinker, Nadia Whittome, is demanding a 4 day working week for all public sector staff without loss of pay.
Could this be effective ?
Would it work ?
Would they need to recruit more staff to cover periods where staff were not in the office or at work or would they just split the days.
This could be a way of giving the private sector a large pay increase without actually giving them any money, however they are probably going to want both.
I think Max has previously opined on something similar to this, and said that going to four and a half days has increased his office's productivity ?
The thinking is that this can work well for the management grades, who can organise themselves to have fewer meetings, and appreciate a few hours to run errands during the week.
It doesn’t work for the front line though, where staff in call centres, many of whom are outsourced in the public sector, work shifts already and have productivity monitored very closely.
Introducing the Labour proposal in the public sector would create an apartheid situation, between the civil service employees and contractors, and between higher-paid and lower-paid staff.
There is a row going on at the moment because the Oxford Union has invited Kathleen Stock to speak at the Union. The Student Union, a different body, disapproves of Ms Stock's views on gender and is applying pressure to the Oxford Union to withdraw the invitation. So far the Oxford Union has resisted that pressure on free speech grounds.
As @Cyclefree points out, the enthusiasm of those who wish to deplatform those whose views they do not agree with is strong indeed. The old ideas of I deplore your views but I will fight for your right to say them seems very last century.
There is a very large difference between defending a right to free speech, and offering a platform to those you disagree with, though.
The Union is a private society, and entitled to make its own choices about who speaks there. Equally, the OUSU is equally entitled to lobby them, and the Union to ignore them should it so choose.
None of that has really changed over many decades
My son has been dragged into this because he is currently the chair of the Debate Selection Committee. Despite its name it is largely focused on running the competitive debating competitions that he enjoys and takes part in but, at least notionally, the invites to speak go out in their name. He doesn't really play the politics game at Oxford but my word is it vicious.
I steered clear of the Union at Cambridge because I couldn't afford the fees and also because it just seemed to have an incredibly high concentration of awful people. I did get a bit involved in student politics through the Labour club and that put me off politics for a while. Student politicians are mostly the kind of people you wouldn't want to put in charge of a tombola, yet they go on to run the country, and we wonder why we are so fucked.
There is a row going on at the moment because the Oxford Union has invited Kathleen Stock to speak at the Union. The Student Union, a different body, disapproves of Ms Stock's views on gender and is applying pressure to the Oxford Union to withdraw the invitation. So far the Oxford Union has resisted that pressure on free speech grounds.
As @Cyclefree points out, the enthusiasm of those who wish to deplatform those whose views they do not agree with is strong indeed. The old ideas of I deplore your views but I will fight for your right to say them seems very last century.
There is a very large difference between defending a right to free speech, and offering a platform to those you disagree with, though.
The Union is a private society, and entitled to make its own choices about who speaks there. Equally, the OUSU is equally entitled to lobby them, and the Union to ignore them should it so choose.
None of that has really changed over many decades
The point Cyclefree seems to be arguing is that Joanna Cherry's beliefs about gender are protected against discrimination by the Equality Act 2010. That legislation applies to private societies just as much as it applies to commercial companies and public bodies. The Oxford Union would have to ensure that its choices about who speaks there comply with anti-discrimination law, and if Cyclefree is right its freedom to choose would be severely curtailed.
That sounds a load of cobblers. (Though I'm not a lawyer.)
It's true, of course, that they could not so discriminate in whom they allow to be members (or how they treat those members) - which is how the Act applies to them.
I see you just added another bit.
That's not right. It doesn't only relate to membership.
How does it relate to their choice of speakers ? I don't see that it does at all.
Cyclefree's article is all about an invitation to a speaker. What I'm saying is that it doesn't make any legal difference whether the organisation concerned is a private club or a commercial concern.
Only to the extent that they are offering a venue for hire. Which for most of their activities is not the case; certainly not for their debates.
"... it goes without saying that if a venue discriminates against someone with views wholly opposed to Ms Cherry’s (a transgender writer, say) on the basis that some staff disapproved of their “beliefs” or thought them anti-women or felt “unsafe“, this would also be unlawful ..."
It's not just any old belief, though, is it?
According to the Equality Act, it's a "religious or philosophical belief."
Is there any such thing as a non-philosophical belief?
I believe it’s going to rain today. I believe that Austria was robbed in the Eurovision final. I believe this explanation of what constitutes a non-philosophical belief, while not being completely sound with respect to legal precedents, will get my point across.
Hume and Kuhn and Feyerabend might have things to say about your belief that it's going to rain ...
And they would (arguably) be right, but not with respect to the provisions of the Equality Act.
Feyeraband may also have had things to say about Austria at Eurovision.
It's also worth noting, given the general context of the Edinburgh venue case, [edit] though obviously not an issue in it, that a belief in Scottish independence is also a protected characteristic. That came out when HMG, in the form of MoD, tried to sack a SNP pol cos he might be disloyal or something.
I’m out here in Egypt with a bunch of journos. One of them is a young, quite well known Scottish journalist, and a passionate YES supporter
He said last night that “indy” is dead in the water. “Decades away”
An interesting perspective from a true believer. He certainly wasn’t deceiving anyone, including himself
Have you met any cabbies from Tirana out there?
It’s 90% Germans, so not yet
There are however two Instagram influencers from the UK here. Women, pretty, etc. One of them has 1m insta followers.
The PR girl who runs the trip says they travel the world taking photos and videos of themselves having a lovely time, and…. That’s it. They are famous if you are into this stuff. They get everything free, and make money from endorsing products
"... it goes without saying that if a venue discriminates against someone with views wholly opposed to Ms Cherry’s (a transgender writer, say) on the basis that some staff disapproved of their “beliefs” or thought them anti-women or felt “unsafe“, this would also be unlawful ..."
It's not just any old belief, though, is it?
According to the Equality Act, it's a "religious or philosophical belief."
Is there any such thing as a non-philosophical belief?
I believe it’s going to rain today. I believe that Austria was robbed in the Eurovision final. I believe this explanation of what constitutes a non-philosophical belief, while not being completely sound with respect to legal precedents, will get my point across.
Hume and Kuhn and Feyerabend might have things to say about your belief that it's going to rain ...
And they would (arguably) be right, but not with respect to the provisions of the Equality Act.
Feyeraband may also have had things to say about Austria at Eurovision.
It's also worth noting, given the general context of the Edinburgh venue case, [edit] though obviously not an issue in it, that a belief in Scottish independence is also a protected characteristic. That came out when HMG, in the form of MoD, tried to sack a SNP pol cos he might be disloyal or something.
I’m out here in Egypt with a bunch of journos. One of them is a young, quite well known Scottish journalist, and a passionate YES supporter
He said last night that “indy” is dead in the water. “Decades away”
An interesting perspective from a true believer. He certainly wasn’t deceiving anyone, including himself
Have you met any cabbies from Tirana out there?
It’s 90% Germans, so not yet
There are however two Instagram influencers from the UK here. Women, pretty, etc. One of them has 1m insta followers.
The PR girl who runs the trip says they travel the world taking photos and videos of themselves having a lovely time, and…. That’s it. They are famous if you are into this stuff. They get everything free, and make money from endorsing products
Fascinating
I really can’t get my head around that phenomenon, or the wider popular trend of people striking ridiculous pouty glamour poses everywhere they go then posting on Instagram. It seems so obviously vain and presumptuous. Quite alien.
A pose at a landmark, if it must happen, should involve looking somewhat uncomfortable or at most a cheery everyday smile.
The job they're doing is freelance advertising. Whatever gets punters' attention sells the space. Easy to get your head around when you call it what it is.
I get the economics of it. But perhaps 1% or fewer of the people you see pouting on Instagram are getting any money for it. The rest are doing it purely for personal vanity/neediness it seems. Most have no desire to be influencers. There are members of my extended family who do it too.
You see it with tourists in places like Tower Bridge too. Where once they would ask a passerby to snap them smiling with the towers in the background, now one is puckering up the lips and trying to look smouldering (with the towers in the background), with the other taking the photo.
I don't use Instagram.
What it isn't is people doing what they've always done, only now using different technology. Use of the technology is associated in the large majority of cases with stupidity, and with mindless copying in particular, and in a small minority of cases with activity that isn't stupid but is successful advertising work.
The reach of it all is staggering. I've found that when I point out to people that Google through for example its Youtube arm advertises a huge amount of snake oil, that's an idea that's completely new to them. They've never dared think about their experience with the big G so unsubmissively before. They're grateful for the "access to information" or porn or whatever.
"... it goes without saying that if a venue discriminates against someone with views wholly opposed to Ms Cherry’s (a transgender writer, say) on the basis that some staff disapproved of their “beliefs” or thought them anti-women or felt “unsafe“, this would also be unlawful ..."
It's not just any old belief, though, is it?
According to the Equality Act, it's a "religious or philosophical belief."
Is there any such thing as a non-philosophical belief?
I believe it’s going to rain today. I believe that Austria was robbed in the Eurovision final. I believe this explanation of what constitutes a non-philosophical belief, while not being completely sound with respect to legal precedents, will get my point across.
Hume and Kuhn and Feyerabend might have things to say about your belief that it's going to rain ...
And they would (arguably) be right, but not with respect to the provisions of the Equality Act.
Feyeraband may also have had things to say about Austria at Eurovision.
It's also worth noting, given the general context of the Edinburgh venue case, [edit] though obviously not an issue in it, that a belief in Scottish independence is also a protected characteristic. That came out when HMG, in the form of MoD, tried to sack a SNP pol cos he might be disloyal or something.
I’m out here in Egypt with a bunch of journos. One of them is a young, quite well known Scottish journalist, and a passionate YES supporter
He said last night that “indy” is dead in the water. “Decades away”
An interesting perspective from a true believer. He certainly wasn’t deceiving anyone, including himself
Have you met any cabbies from Tirana out there?
It’s 90% Germans, so not yet
There are however two Instagram influencers from the UK here. Women, pretty, etc. One of them has 1m insta followers.
The PR girl who runs the trip says they travel the world taking photos and videos of themselves having a lovely time, and…. That’s it. They are famous if you are into this stuff. They get everything free, and make money from endorsing products
"... it goes without saying that if a venue discriminates against someone with views wholly opposed to Ms Cherry’s (a transgender writer, say) on the basis that some staff disapproved of their “beliefs” or thought them anti-women or felt “unsafe“, this would also be unlawful ..."
It's not just any old belief, though, is it?
According to the Equality Act, it's a "religious or philosophical belief."
Is there any such thing as a non-philosophical belief?
I believe it’s going to rain today. I believe that Austria was robbed in the Eurovision final. I believe this explanation of what constitutes a non-philosophical belief, while not being completely sound with respect to legal precedents, will get my point across.
Hume and Kuhn and Feyerabend might have things to say about your belief that it's going to rain ...
And they would (arguably) be right, but not with respect to the provisions of the Equality Act.
Feyeraband may also have had things to say about Austria at Eurovision.
It's also worth noting, given the general context of the Edinburgh venue case, [edit] though obviously not an issue in it, that a belief in Scottish independence is also a protected characteristic. That came out when HMG, in the form of MoD, tried to sack a SNP pol cos he might be disloyal or something.
I’m out here in Egypt with a bunch of journos. One of them is a young, quite well known Scottish journalist, and a passionate YES supporter
He said last night that “indy” is dead in the water. “Decades away”
An interesting perspective from a true believer. He certainly wasn’t deceiving anyone, including himself
Have you met any cabbies from Tirana out there?
It’s 90% Germans, so not yet
There are however two Instagram influencers from the UK here. Women, pretty, etc. One of them has 1m insta followers.
The PR girl who runs the trip says they travel the world taking photos and videos of themselves having a lovely time, and…. That’s it. They are famous if you are into this stuff. They get everything free, and make money from endorsing products
Fascinating
I really can’t get my head around that phenomenon, or the wider popular trend of people striking ridiculous pouty glamour poses everywhere they go then posting on Instagram. It seems so obviously vain and presumptuous. Quite alien.
A pose at a landmark, if it must happen, should involve looking somewhat uncomfortable or at most a cheery everyday smile.
The job they're doing is freelance advertising. Whatever gets punters' attention sells the space. Easy to get your head around when you call it what it is.
I get the economics of it. But perhaps 1% or fewer of the people you see pouting on Instagram are getting any money for it. The rest are doing it purely for personal vanity/neediness it seems. Most have no desire to be influencers. There are members of my extended family who do it too.
You see it with tourists in places like Tower Bridge too. Where once they would ask a passerby to snap them smiling with the towers in the background, now one is puckering up the lips and trying to look smouldering (with the towers in the background), with the other taking the photo.
It’s interesting to see it in action, and to see how it can be done very successfully - generating lots of money
But as you say that is surely 0.1% of people who TRY to do it
Yes, in the same was as the median income for an OnlyFans ‘creator’ is $100 per month, 1% of the creators make more than half the money, and 0.1% make serious bank - most of whom are already famous. The rest just put their nudes online forever and for almost free.
While this is true, what continues to amaze is that each niche of society now has people who can make a living in vaguely ways via the internet. History podcasts, knitting vlogs, tabletop wargames videos, shooting arrows at stuff and filming the consequences, trainspotting, etc.
For all that I might complain about the social media giants, the great disintermediation of media has been of great benefit too.
Yes, very much so. There’s a lot of people making good money from podcasts, Youtube, and a lot of other internet-based ‘new media’ outlets.
Twitter is now trying to do something similar to Youtube, hosting long-form content and sharing revenue with creators. Their first exclusive creator is probably going to be Tucker Carlson. Like him or not, Carlson is probably second to Joe Rogan in terms of attracting an American audience for his show. To balance things politically, Twitter has also reached out to recently-fired CNN host Don Lemon.
Labour rising star and deep thinker, Nadia Whittome, is demanding a 4 day working week for all public sector staff without loss of pay.
Could this be effective ?
Would it work ?
Would they need to recruit more staff to cover periods where staff were not in the office or at work or would they just split the days.
This could be a way of giving the private sector a large pay increase without actually giving them any money, however they are probably going to want both.
I think Max has previously opined on something similar to this, and said that going to four and a half days has increased his office's productivity ?
The thinking is that this can work well for the management grades, who can organise themselves to have fewer meetings, and appreciate a few hours to run errands during the week.
It doesn’t work for the front line though, where staff in call centres, many of whom are outsourced in the public sector, work shifts already and have productivity monitored very closely.
Introducing the Labour proposal in the public sector would create an apartheid situation, between the civil service employees and contractors, and between higher-paid and lower-paid staff.
It an open question, I think. The French appear to do OK with a four day week - and the experience of Heath's three days week in the seventies suggested something similar.
As far as public services are concerned, it might actually lead to an improvement in what happens at weekends ?
Just seen this graph on Paul Mason's twitter, "proving" how bad Brexit is
Two points..
- Don't trend lines usually have points above and below them? This one has ZERO points above it on the 2009-2015 section that sets the "trend"
- Aren't they usually straight lines? This one is curving upwards
Looks like utter horseshit to me
The curve is probably valid- growth is exponential, after all. Compound interest, wealth begets wealth and all that.
Agree about the exact best fit curve they've used- it should be slightly lower. But not enough to change the conclusion of the graph that something bad happened to investment in 2016, and hasn't stopped happening since.
The ONS has somewhat different data,
Gross Fixed Capital Formation, in fact hit a peak in the last quarter of 2022
Labour rising star and deep thinker, Nadia Whittome, is demanding a 4 day working week for all public sector staff without loss of pay.
Could this be effective ?
Would it work ?
Would they need to recruit more staff to cover periods where staff were not in the office or at work or would they just split the days.
This could be a way of giving the private sector a large pay increase without actually giving them any money, however they are probably going to want both.
From your link: "She cited a recent six-month trial by 61 companies that found revenue increased along with staff wellbeing when they tried out the four-day week."
Many private sector shift workers already work three or four day weeks but with more than eight hours in a day. I do not think that is what is advocated here but details are scarce.
In the private sector the trend, I have seen for certain, is a shorter working week but longer hours to make up for it. So, for example, 4 x 10 hour days rather than 5 x 8 hour days.
This advocates a 32 hour week with no loss of pay.
Wagner mercenary boss Prigozhin has raged against Russian military leadership. But this is different: He also offered to give Russian troop locations to Ukraine in return for Bakhmut retreat, classified documents say. https://twitter.com/OKnox/status/1657907636916895744
Hilarious, if true. More so if it's not, but Putin believes it.
The war in Ukraine is increasingly becoming a sideshow for the main power brokers in Russia compared to the looming power struggle that defeat in the war will trigger. I see that Girkin is also agitating with a "Club of Angry Patriots".
This is one way in which Russia's nuclear weapons genuinely make this war different to other conflicts. There is zero prospect of Ukraine marching on Moscow, or of making an attempt to seize Russia's Black Sea coast. This means that Russia can lose the war and yet still remain secure within its own borders, and this reduces the necessity for the Russian elite to maintain unity to defend themselves.
Rishi Sunak will be joined by ministers from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) as well as farmers and industry leaders at the meeting at No 10 on Tuesday.
The Guardian understands there is a battle between the home secretary, Suella Braverman, and Defra over immigration.
Fruit and vegetables have been rotting in the fields, and some farmers have gone out of business, as there are not enough people willing to pick them.
Farmers and Defra ministers have been lobbying the Home Office to increase the number of temporary visas for agricultural workers, but a senior Defra source said Braverman was “ideologically opposed” to such a move...
There is a row going on at the moment because the Oxford Union has invited Kathleen Stock to speak at the Union. The Student Union, a different body, disapproves of Ms Stock's views on gender and is applying pressure to the Oxford Union to withdraw the invitation. So far the Oxford Union has resisted that pressure on free speech grounds.
As @Cyclefree points out, the enthusiasm of those who wish to deplatform those whose views they do not agree with is strong indeed. The old ideas of I deplore your views but I will fight for your right to say them seems very last century.
There is a very large difference between defending a right to free speech, and offering a platform to those you disagree with, though.
The Union is a private society, and entitled to make its own choices about who speaks there. Equally, the OUSU is equally entitled to lobby them, and the Union to ignore them should it so choose.
None of that has really changed over many decades
My son has been dragged into this because he is currently the chair of the Debate Selection Committee. Despite its name it is largely focused on running the competitive debating competitions that he enjoys and takes part in but, at least notionally, the invites to speak go out in their name. He doesn't really play the politics game at Oxford but my word is it vicious.
I steered clear of the Union at Cambridge because I couldn't afford the fees and also because it just seemed to have an incredibly high concentration of awful people. I did get a bit involved in student politics through the Labour club and that put me off politics for a while. Student politicians are mostly the kind of people you wouldn't want to put in charge of a tombola, yet they go on to run the country, and we wonder why we are so fucked.
Yes. University of Sheffield had various comedic rows. There was a "Women's Safety Bus" after a spate of female students getting raped. Some male students complained this was a free taxi for pissed girls and where's ours? A basic lack or comprehension that women were being raped without it.
And then Labour students. Never mind some of the nutters at our uni, it was when we went to wider meetings that it got really ansty. I remember the regional students group being in our faces angry about something which had happened at our student union. The main issue being that some issue they decided was Bad having prompted the first quorate Union meeting in ages. 'How dare you vote on that' was essentially the rant.
At least one of the headbangers ended up on Labour's NEC, and was even more of a headbanger than I remember.
I agree completely with CycleFree's comments in this post. I had a letter published in the Guardian some years ago making points on a related issue (and also indicating where a line should be drawn still - essentially where violence is threatened). I'll post a version below in case anyone's interested:
I am concerned at the increasing number of criminal prosecutions for "offensive" speech. Susanna Rustin makes a valuable distinction: those who use social media to submit anonymous violent threats (such as those Caroline Criado-Perez recently had to endure) need and deserve to be treated as criminals. However, it now seems to be the rule that merely causing sufficient offence on social media can be enough to get the perpetrator a jail term.
One can thoroughly deplore the comments made (as I would), while still defending the right to make them. Freedom of speech must mean freedom to be offensive, otherwise we only have the dubious "freedom" to make socially approved comments. The former director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer, has rightly called for parliament to reassess this issue. I would suggest a clear distinction between serious threats to an individual (which should continue to be criminalised) and simply causing offence (which should not be). Blurring that line reduces the freedom of us all.
I support our Hate Speech laws. There are things it ought to be illegal to say regardless of whether there's an overt threat of physical violence. Eg stirring up racial hatred. Free speech is not some absolutist 'good' it has to take its place alongside other 'goods' such as fostering a society free of identity-based discrimination. We don't want untrammelled freedom of expression. Neither do we want it curtailed except in limited and defined circumstances. It's a balance and we have it about right imo.
Wagner mercenary boss Prigozhin has raged against Russian military leadership. But this is different: He also offered to give Russian troop locations to Ukraine in return for Bakhmut retreat, classified documents say. https://twitter.com/OKnox/status/1657907636916895744
Hilarious, if true. More so if it's not, but Putin believes it.
The war in Ukraine is increasingly becoming a sideshow for the main power brokers in Russia compared to the looming power struggle that defeat in the war will trigger. I see that Girkin is also agitating with a "Club of Angry Patriots".
This is one way in which Russia's nuclear weapons genuinely make this war different to other conflicts. There is zero prospect of Ukraine marching on Moscow, or of making an attempt to seize Russia's Black Sea coast. This means that Russia can lose the war and yet still remain secure within its own borders, and this reduces the necessity for the Russian elite to maintain unity to defend themselves.
Watching Russians turn on each other in public, is as good a sign of the war not going well, as the videos of their army running backwards from Bakhmut.
Labour rising star and deep thinker, Nadia Whittome, is demanding a 4 day working week for all public sector staff without loss of pay.
Could this be effective ?
Would it work ?
Would they need to recruit more staff to cover periods where staff were not in the office or at work or would they just split the days.
This could be a way of giving the private sector a large pay increase without actually giving them any money, however they are probably going to want both.
I think Max has previously opined on something similar to this, and said that going to four and a half days has increased his office's productivity ?
I have worked 4 1/2 day weeks for many years now. Indeed I have turned down jobs/interview where the insistence is to work Friday PM. I do not know if it has made me more efficienct but I do value an early finish on a Friday.
I just cannot see how it works for jobs on production lines, for example, that are limited by cycle times of equipment. You cannot just increase the speed of the machinery. She talks about increased automation. That will end up simply displacing the very workers she is wanting to have extra time off.
I was offered an interview at Land Rover over a decade ago but they made it clear it was 3.30 finish on Friday and if you don't like it don't go for the interview. So I didn't go for the interview.
The exchange of solicitors' letters is also there.
This, I think, answers Chris's point.
The In Conversation With ... strand is not booked directly by The Stand. It is produced by independent Glasgow-based producer Fair Pley.
So The Stand had contracted with Fair Pley Ltd to provide a venue for their event. There is no real comparison with the activities of the Oxford Union - unless it is letting its premises to outsiders to hold events there.
The United Kingdom will start basic training for Ukrainian pilots on different kind of aircrafts in the summer and is working with other countries on a possible shipment of F-16s to Ukraine, the UK government reports. https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1658020215878213632
The United Kingdom will start basic training for Ukrainian pilots on different kind of aircrafts in the summer and is working with other countries on a possible shipment of F-16s to Ukraine, the UK government reports. https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1658020215878213632
“Sunak will confirm further provision of hundreds of air-defence missiles and more unmanned aerial systems, including hundreds of new long-range attack drones with a range of more than 200km, Downing Street said.” https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1658022892125265921
Michael Gove cut from honours list for leadership ‘betrayal’
Michael Gove was due to be knighted as part of Boris Johnson’s resignation honours list but the former prime minister removed him after blaming him for blocking his return to No 10 last autumn.
Just seen this graph on Paul Mason's twitter, "proving" how bad Brexit is
Two points..
- Don't trend lines usually have points above and below them? This one has ZERO points above it on the 2009-2015 section that sets the "trend"
- Aren't they usually straight lines? This one is curving upwards
Looks like utter horseshit to me
Isn't that what Mason speaks anyway?.I seem to recall that tim, late of this parish tried to suggest he was some kind of middle of the road commentator when in fact he is a Corbynista
The United Kingdom will start basic training for Ukrainian pilots on different kind of aircrafts in the summer and is working with other countries on a possible shipment of F-16s to Ukraine, the UK government reports. https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1658020215878213632
“Sunak will confirm further provision of hundreds of air-defence missiles and more unmanned aerial systems, including hundreds of new long-range attack drones with a range of more than 200km, Downing Street said.” https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1658022892125265921
This is the war where small drones have really come into their own.
Training pilots is all well and good, but it takes years and costs millions per pilot, from basic training to combat-ready. You will need a steady supply of them, but so much of the work can now be done with relatively inexpensive unmanned aircraft.
Labour rising star and deep thinker, Nadia Whittome, is demanding a 4 day working week for all public sector staff without loss of pay.
Could this be effective ?
Would it work ?
Would they need to recruit more staff to cover periods where staff were not in the office or at work or would they just split the days.
This could be a way of giving the private sector a large pay increase without actually giving them any money, however they are probably going to want both.
I think Max has previously opined on something similar to this, and said that going to four and a half days has increased his office's productivity ?
I have worked 4 1/2 day weeks for many years now. Indeed I have turned down jobs/interview where the insistence is to work Friday PM. I do not know if it has made me more efficienct but I do value an early finish on a Friday.
I just cannot see how it works for jobs on production lines, for example, that are limited by cycle times of equipment. You cannot just increase the speed of the machinery. She talks about increased automation. That will end up simply displacing the very workers she is wanting to have extra time off.
I was offered an interview at Land Rover over a decade ago but they made it clear it was 3.30 finish on Friday and if you don't like it don't go for the interview. So I didn't go for the interview.
Indeed. But it's also possible that 7 day operation of plant might just as well be facilitated without 5 day working weeks ?
If you've ever been in a hospital over a weekend, you'll know just how much some of the services drop off. True seven day operation of service might be far more efficient that what we have now is dealing with patient demand ? A five day week isn't necessarily the best way to facilitate that.
There are complicated matters. Obviously an overnight change would be seriously disruptive. But historically, we managed the transition from six to five days weeks well enough.
Rishi Sunak will be joined by ministers from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) as well as farmers and industry leaders at the meeting at No 10 on Tuesday.
The Guardian understands there is a battle between the home secretary, Suella Braverman, and Defra over immigration.
Fruit and vegetables have been rotting in the fields, and some farmers have gone out of business, as there are not enough people willing to pick them.
Farmers and Defra ministers have been lobbying the Home Office to increase the number of temporary visas for agricultural workers, but a senior Defra source said Braverman was “ideologically opposed” to such a move...
if we imported 700,000 people last year and that still wasn't enough, what is the right number?
I know it is meant to be 'temporary', but they still have to live somewhere.
If labour is getting too expensive then some investment is needed.
Michael Gove cut from honours list for leadership ‘betrayal’
Michael Gove was due to be knighted as part of Boris Johnson’s resignation honours list but the former prime minister removed him after blaming him for blocking his return to No 10 last autumn.
"... it goes without saying that if a venue discriminates against someone with views wholly opposed to Ms Cherry’s (a transgender writer, say) on the basis that some staff disapproved of their “beliefs” or thought them anti-women or felt “unsafe“, this would also be unlawful ..."
It's not just any old belief, though, is it?
According to the Equality Act, it's a "religious or philosophical belief."
Is there any such thing as a non-philosophical belief?
I believe it’s going to rain today. I believe that Austria was robbed in the Eurovision final. I believe this explanation of what constitutes a non-philosophical belief, while not being completely sound with respect to legal precedents, will get my point across.
Hume and Kuhn and Feyerabend might have things to say about your belief that it's going to rain ...
And they would (arguably) be right, but not with respect to the provisions of the Equality Act.
Feyeraband may also have had things to say about Austria at Eurovision.
It's also worth noting, given the general context of the Edinburgh venue case, [edit] though obviously not an issue in it, that a belief in Scottish independence is also a protected characteristic. That came out when HMG, in the form of MoD, tried to sack a SNP pol cos he might be disloyal or something.
I’m out here in Egypt with a bunch of journos. One of them is a young, quite well known Scottish journalist, and a passionate YES supporter
He said last night that “indy” is dead in the water. “Decades away”
An interesting perspective from a true believer. He certainly wasn’t deceiving anyone, including himself
Have you met any cabbies from Tirana out there?
It’s 90% Germans, so not yet
There are however two Instagram influencers from the UK here. Women, pretty, etc. One of them has 1m insta followers.
The PR girl who runs the trip says they travel the world taking photos and videos of themselves having a lovely time, and…. That’s it. They are famous if you are into this stuff. They get everything free, and make money from endorsing products
"... it goes without saying that if a venue discriminates against someone with views wholly opposed to Ms Cherry’s (a transgender writer, say) on the basis that some staff disapproved of their “beliefs” or thought them anti-women or felt “unsafe“, this would also be unlawful ..."
It's not just any old belief, though, is it?
According to the Equality Act, it's a "religious or philosophical belief."
Is there any such thing as a non-philosophical belief?
I believe it’s going to rain today. I believe that Austria was robbed in the Eurovision final. I believe this explanation of what constitutes a non-philosophical belief, while not being completely sound with respect to legal precedents, will get my point across.
Hume and Kuhn and Feyerabend might have things to say about your belief that it's going to rain ...
And they would (arguably) be right, but not with respect to the provisions of the Equality Act.
Feyeraband may also have had things to say about Austria at Eurovision.
It's also worth noting, given the general context of the Edinburgh venue case, [edit] though obviously not an issue in it, that a belief in Scottish independence is also a protected characteristic. That came out when HMG, in the form of MoD, tried to sack a SNP pol cos he might be disloyal or something.
I’m out here in Egypt with a bunch of journos. One of them is a young, quite well known Scottish journalist, and a passionate YES supporter
He said last night that “indy” is dead in the water. “Decades away”
An interesting perspective from a true believer. He certainly wasn’t deceiving anyone, including himself
Have you met any cabbies from Tirana out there?
It’s 90% Germans, so not yet
There are however two Instagram influencers from the UK here. Women, pretty, etc. One of them has 1m insta followers.
The PR girl who runs the trip says they travel the world taking photos and videos of themselves having a lovely time, and…. That’s it. They are famous if you are into this stuff. They get everything free, and make money from endorsing products
Fascinating
I really can’t get my head around that phenomenon, or the wider popular trend of people striking ridiculous pouty glamour poses everywhere they go then posting on Instagram. It seems so obviously vain and presumptuous. Quite alien.
A pose at a landmark, if it must happen, should involve looking somewhat uncomfortable or at most a cheery everyday smile.
The job they're doing is freelance advertising. Whatever gets punters' attention sells the space. Easy to get your head around when you call it what it is.
I get the economics of it. But perhaps 1% or fewer of the people you see pouting on Instagram are getting any money for it. The rest are doing it purely for personal vanity/neediness it seems. Most have no desire to be influencers. There are members of my extended family who do it too.
You see it with tourists in places like Tower Bridge too. Where once they would ask a passerby to snap them smiling with the towers in the background, now one is puckering up the lips and trying to look smouldering (with the towers in the background), with the other taking the photo.
It’s interesting to see it in action, and to see how it can be done very successfully - generating lots of money
But as you say that is surely 0.1% of people who TRY to do it
Yes, in the same was as the median income for an OnlyFans ‘creator’ is $100 per month, 1% of the creators make more than half the money, and 0.1% make serious bank - most of whom are already famous. The rest just put their nudes online forever and for almost free.
While this is true, what continues to amaze is that each niche of society now has people who can make a living in vaguely ways via the internet. History podcasts, knitting vlogs, tabletop wargames videos, shooting arrows at stuff and filming the consequences, trainspotting, etc.
For all that I might complain about the social media giants, the great disintermediation of media has been of great benefit too.
Yes, very much so. There’s a lot of people making good money from podcasts, Youtube, and a lot of other internet-based ‘new media’ outlets.
Twitter is now trying to do something similar to Youtube, hosting long-form content and sharing revenue with creators. Their first exclusive creator is probably going to be Tucker Carlson. Like him or not, Carlson is probably second to Joe Rogan in terms of attracting an American audience for his show. To balance things politically, Twitter has also reached out to recently-fired CNN host Don Lemon.
It's a fraction of a percent who actually make a good living. For every Logan Paul, there are ten million others you've never heard of, failing to scratch a few quid together. And it's telling that people who are successful via social tend only to make serious money when they cross over into more mainstream, traditional things (to take Logan Paul as an example - moving into sport PPV appearances and making an endorsed energy drink) - not least because there really isn't *that* much money to be made, and the social giants take a vast chunk of the money that these creators are making for them.
You'll note how basically every channel creator, podcaster etc. has a very diversified begging bowl plea - patreon, discord community, merch, the like-comment-share-subscribe mantra etc. - then the sponsored reads, the ads, the endorsements etc.
It *is* possible to scratch a living from it, but it's a constant hustle. Over a decade ago I used to write a film review blog with vague thoughts of one day doing more with it. The best thing it actually did was get me a foot in the door professionally in social media marketing in a proper actual job. If I'd gone down some sort of creator route instead, I'd be a husk of a person, stuck watching endless soul-crushing superhero films, hating the subject and myself.
Just seen this graph on Paul Mason's twitter, "proving" how bad Brexit is
Two points..
- Don't trend lines usually have points above and below them? This one has ZERO points above it on the 2009-2015 section that sets the "trend"
- Aren't they usually straight lines? This one is curving upwards
Looks like utter horseshit to me
Isn't that what Mason speaks anyway?.I seem to recall that tim, late of this parish tried to suggest he was some kind of middle of the road commentator when in fact he is a Corbynista
The investment numbers were revised hugely upwards by the ONS (which will also result in growth for 2021 and 2022 being revised upwards in due course). Paul Mason is using out of date figures.
Rishi Sunak will be joined by ministers from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) as well as farmers and industry leaders at the meeting at No 10 on Tuesday.
The Guardian understands there is a battle between the home secretary, Suella Braverman, and Defra over immigration.
Fruit and vegetables have been rotting in the fields, and some farmers have gone out of business, as there are not enough people willing to pick them.
Farmers and Defra ministers have been lobbying the Home Office to increase the number of temporary visas for agricultural workers, but a senior Defra source said Braverman was “ideologically opposed” to such a move...
if we imported 700,000 people last year and that still wasn't enough, what is the right number?
I know it is meant to be 'temporary', but they still have to live somewhere.
If labour is getting too expensive then some investment is needed.
Clearly something has gone badly wrong. Government doesn't seem to have a clue what that might be.
Just seen this graph on Paul Mason's twitter, "proving" how bad Brexit is
Two points..
- Don't trend lines usually have points above and below them? This one has ZERO points above it on the 2009-2015 section that sets the "trend"
- Aren't they usually straight lines? This one is curving upwards
Looks like utter horseshit to me
Isn't that what Mason speaks anyway?.I seem to recall that tim, late of this parish tried to suggest he was some kind of middle of the road commentator when in fact he is a Corbynista
Surprising as Tim hates the ground Corbyn walked on. And let's face it Mason has never hidden his dickheadery.
Forced smile as his team is relegated. That's quite the metaphor.
Starmer is an Arsenal fan.
He's getting practice at blowing a big lead and coming second.
Starmer’s certainly taking a right mauling in tomorrows papers with his plan to use EU citizens to rig future UK elections, that perhaps might even be an election to scrap Brexit.
Why is Starmer daft enough to announce a plan like that, he’s not remotely won an election yet. Constitional change is second term stuff if anything, once you’ve earned trust, and every second he is talking about votes for sixteen year old children and EU citizens and not talking about NHS waiting lists, he’s an idiot.
Meanwhile, I think this is a big moment in the race to be Conservative Party leader.
You can try to argue Braverman is not the Conservatives rising star, simply on basis you don’t like her at all, but you will utterly fail in that argument, the reality is: she’s rising if you like it all not, there’s no denying it. Observer had a big splash on her today, risen from family of immigrants to high office etc.
The UK Home Secretary is headline speaker at this Conservative conference, and she is going to say
“…because of the pressure it puts on housing supply, public services and community relations.”
And how many Conservative members and activists are going to disagree with that reasoning to limit immigration? Tory members will say at last, someone who tells it like it is.
You would use words like steadfast, tenacious, and determined to describe Braverman’s style - those are exactly the same words used to list Lady Thatcher’s strengths.
There’s your next leader of the Conservative Party. She’s got it “Suen-up” hasn’t she?
No as only 32 Tory MPs voted for her in the 2022 leadership election, she has no chance of reaching the final 2 to even to the Tory membership therefore if Rishi loses and the race to choose the Tory Leader of the Opposition begins
I knew you were lurking out there with something crazy like this to post 😆
32 was a bloody good start for “what’s she running for” candidate” You saying her fan club hasn’t “sue-welled” since then?
You saying she won’t go into the leadership election with more credibility than Lady Thatcher when she actually won leadership.
You are going to tell us the smug, full of themself woman child Badenoch knocks Braverman out the top two, when it’s so obvious Braverman is the only one of the candidates with determination and tenacity to deliver, focussed and steadfast enough to actually take a fight back to Labour? 😆
Now, most important question of all, when Braverman says we must limit immigration because of the pressure it puts on housing supply, public services and community relations - do you actually disagree with her?
No, the final 3 would be Barclay, Tugendhat and Mordaunt in my view, neither Braverman nor Badenoch make it
That’s what you most want isn’t it? But not wanting Braverman as leader doesn’t make her disappear. For example, if on the hustings she says, we must limit immigration because of the pressure it puts on housing supply, public services and community relations - will any of the three you mentioned challenge that, instantly flashing up a huge gulf of difference between Braverman and themselves? Braverman and her supporters bring the differentials into the coming leadership election, this is what gets her into the last two, and with these differentials she beats all three of your suggestions easily in Phase 2 doesn’t she?
Are you taking into account how the MP phase can change dramatically from the last one after 100 seat losses?
Most of the Tory seat losses will be redwall MPs on current polls, so the remaining Tory party would be even more southern than it is now with some patches from ex industrial areas of the Midlands.
The next Tory leader will likely be a Leaver but a sane Leaver like Barclay. It would probably take a second heavy general election defeat for the Conservatives to go all out for the pure ideologue as leader and in my view that would be more likely to be Rees Mogg than Braverman or Badenoch. Remember Corbyn and IDS weren't elected when Labour and the Tories first lost power, only after a second defeat. The first Opposition leaders they elected were more from the centre of the party ie Ed Miliband and Hague
Another post that’s a definite keeper, if you still rate Bravermans chances of the leadership, and yourself rowing in behind her, so lowly.
There’s clearly been a huge bun fight in government and cabinet, pro immigration Rishi versus tough on immigration tough on all causes of immigration Braverman. And now both sides are taking fight outside the walls into public.
One thing you haven’t admitted in all these discussions, if Braverman makes the top 2 against anyone, including Barclay, she wins. You do at least admit that much?
Just seen this graph on Paul Mason's twitter, "proving" how bad Brexit is
Two points..
- Don't trend lines usually have points above and below them? This one has ZERO points above it on the 2009-2015 section that sets the "trend"
- Aren't they usually straight lines? This one is curving upwards
Looks like utter horseshit to me
It's an odd fit. But eyeballing it, I can't help thinking a better fit would be even more unfavourable to Brexit (e.g. if you start from 2010, you can argue to remove 2009 due to GFC).
No reason to fit a straight line unless your believe the trend is linear, which seems unlikely here - i.e. if you grow the investment by 3% each year, say, that gives you a non-linear line due to compounding (3 years out from now, your investment is 1.03*1.03*1.03 * today's not today's plus 9%. You do need to be careful about that though, as that's exponential growth, which can lead to some interesting conclusions down the line as we saw during Covid.
This is a crude interrupted time series - you take your interruption (Brexit vote) and see whether there was a change in measured thing at the same time, looks convincing enough. Other approaches include diff-in-diff, where you compare to trends in e.g. other countries that did not Brexit or add controls for other things.
But you also have to think about interpretation. Brexit was a shock, the vote leading to uncertainty (what kind of Brexit?) which lasted years, so you expect growth to stall a bit, even if the final Brexit was a good thing. Then we have Covid, then not enough data to see what is coming next. Brexit good looks like this with stronger growth from 2020-2030; Brexit bad looks like this with weak growth from 2020-2030 (and 'strong' and 'weak' growth need to be compared to other countries, not just pre-Brexit as there will also be other things going on).
ETA: And even all that is irrelevant if you voted Brexit for reasons other than fast entry into sunlit economic uplands, e.g. sovereignty or hatred of the French
"... it goes without saying that if a venue discriminates against someone with views wholly opposed to Ms Cherry’s (a transgender writer, say) on the basis that some staff disapproved of their “beliefs” or thought them anti-women or felt “unsafe“, this would also be unlawful ..."
It's not just any old belief, though, is it?
According to the Equality Act, it's a "religious or philosophical belief."
Is there any such thing as a non-philosophical belief?
I believe it’s going to rain today. I believe that Austria was robbed in the Eurovision final. I believe this explanation of what constitutes a non-philosophical belief, while not being completely sound with respect to legal precedents, will get my point across.
Hume and Kuhn and Feyerabend might have things to say about your belief that it's going to rain ...
And they would (arguably) be right, but not with respect to the provisions of the Equality Act.
Feyeraband may also have had things to say about Austria at Eurovision.
It's also worth noting, given the general context of the Edinburgh venue case, [edit] though obviously not an issue in it, that a belief in Scottish independence is also a protected characteristic. That came out when HMG, in the form of MoD, tried to sack a SNP pol cos he might be disloyal or something.
I’m out here in Egypt with a bunch of journos. One of them is a young, quite well known Scottish journalist, and a passionate YES supporter
He said last night that “indy” is dead in the water. “Decades away”
An interesting perspective from a true believer. He certainly wasn’t deceiving anyone, including himself
Have you met any cabbies from Tirana out there?
It’s 90% Germans, so not yet
There are however two Instagram influencers from the UK here. Women, pretty, etc. One of them has 1m insta followers.
The PR girl who runs the trip says they travel the world taking photos and videos of themselves having a lovely time, and…. That’s it. They are famous if you are into this stuff. They get everything free, and make money from endorsing products
Fascinating
Basically what you do, but for far less effort ?
Leon spends two hours a morning primping and preening and making up?
Disappointing result in Turkey. A 2nd round was always likely, but there was hope that Erdoğan would at least be behind in the first round. I'm surprised that the results show voters in Germany giving exactly the same vote share to Erdoğan as in 2018 (65% of the vote with 79% of ballot boxes opened), as the mood music around here (where there are a lot of Turks) has definitely moved against Erdoğan over the last 5 years among the people I talk to.
I support our Hate Speech laws. There are things it ought to be illegal to say regardless of whether there's an overt threat of physical violence. Eg stirring up racial hatred. Free speech is not some absolutist 'good' it has to take its place alongside other 'goods' such as fostering a society free of identity-based discrimination. We don't want untrammelled freedom of expression. Neither do we want it curtailed except in limited and defined circumstances. It's a balance and we have it about right imo.
I think that's right. In fact, it's easier to champion the right to freedom to say anything legal, if speeches clearly intended to incite hatred or cause fear are illegal.
There was a BNP event in my constituency when I was an MP, and a big demo denouncing them. I supported the right of both the BNP and the demonstrators to express any legal opinions, although I was obviously closer to the latter.
The "10 Pound Poms" series that started last night was pretty good, I thought, and a useful illustration of what it's like to be a victim of discrimination even if one's white.
Rishi Sunak will be joined by ministers from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) as well as farmers and industry leaders at the meeting at No 10 on Tuesday.
The Guardian understands there is a battle between the home secretary, Suella Braverman, and Defra over immigration.
Fruit and vegetables have been rotting in the fields, and some farmers have gone out of business, as there are not enough people willing to pick them.
Farmers and Defra ministers have been lobbying the Home Office to increase the number of temporary visas for agricultural workers, but a senior Defra source said Braverman was “ideologically opposed” to such a move...
if we imported 700,000 people last year and that still wasn't enough, what is the right number?
I know it is meant to be 'temporary', but they still have to live somewhere.
If labour is getting too expensive then some investment is needed.
Clearly something has gone badly wrong. Government doesn't seem to have a clue what that might be.
Just seen this graph on Paul Mason's twitter, "proving" how bad Brexit is
Two points..
- Don't trend lines usually have points above and below them? This one has ZERO points above it on the 2009-2015 section that sets the "trend"
- Aren't they usually straight lines? This one is curving upwards
Looks like utter horseshit to me
It's an odd fit. But eyeballing it, I can't help thinking a better fit would be even more unfavourable to Brexit (e.g. if you start from 2010, you can argue to remove 2009 due to GFC).
No reason to fit a straight line unless your believe the trend is linear, which seems unlikely here - i.e. if you grow the investment by 3% each year, say, that gives you a non-linear line due to compounding (3 years out from now, your investment is 1.03*1.03*1.03 * today's not today's plus 9%. You do need to be careful about that though, as that's exponential growth, which can lead to some interesting conclusions down the line as we saw during Covid.
This is a crude interrupted time series - you take your interruption (Brexit vote) and see whether there was a change in measured thing at the same time, looks convincing enough. Other approaches include diff-in-diff, where you compare to trends in e.g. other countries that did not Brexit or add controls for other things.
But you also have to think about interpretation. Brexit was a shock, the vote leading to uncertainty (what kind of Brexit?) which lasted years, so you expect growth to stall a bit, even if the final Brexit was a good thing. Then we have Covid, then not enough data to see what is coming next. Brexit good looks like this with stronger growth from 2020-2030; Brexit bad looks like this with weak growth from 2020-2030 (and 'strong' and 'weak' growth need to be compared to other countries, not just pre-Brexit as there will also be other things going on).
ETA: And even all that is irrelevant if you voted Brexit for reasons other than fast entry into sunlit economic uplands, e.g. sovereignty or hatred of the French
AIUI the promised upside from Brexit starts to accrue in about 2150, so a bit harsh to only look til 2030.
Forced smile as his team is relegated. That's quite the metaphor.
Starmer is an Arsenal fan.
He's getting practice at blowing a big lead and coming second.
Starmer’s certainly taking a right mauling in tomorrows papers with his plan to use EU citizens to rig future UK elections, that perhaps might even be an election to scrap Brexit.
Why is Starmer daft enough to announce a plan like that, he’s not remotely won an election yet. Constitional change is second term stuff if anything, once you’ve earned trust, and every second he is talking about votes for sixteen year old children and EU citizens and not talking about NHS waiting lists, he’s an idiot.
Meanwhile, I think this is a big moment in the race to be Conservative Party leader.
You can try to argue Braverman is not the Conservatives rising star, simply on basis you don’t like her at all, but you will utterly fail in that argument, the reality is: she’s rising if you like it all not, there’s no denying it. Observer had a big splash on her today, risen from family of immigrants to high office etc.
The UK Home Secretary is headline speaker at this Conservative conference, and she is going to say
“…because of the pressure it puts on housing supply, public services and community relations.”
And how many Conservative members and activists are going to disagree with that reasoning to limit immigration? Tory members will say at last, someone who tells it like it is.
You would use words like steadfast, tenacious, and determined to describe Braverman’s style - those are exactly the same words used to list Lady Thatcher’s strengths.
There’s your next leader of the Conservative Party. She’s got it “Suen-up” hasn’t she?
No as only 32 Tory MPs voted for her in the 2022 leadership election, she has no chance of reaching the final 2 to even to the Tory membership therefore if Rishi loses and the race to choose the Tory Leader of the Opposition begins
I knew you were lurking out there with something crazy like this to post 😆
32 was a bloody good start for “what’s she running for” candidate” You saying her fan club hasn’t “sue-welled” since then?
You saying she won’t go into the leadership election with more credibility than Lady Thatcher when she actually won leadership.
You are going to tell us the smug, full of themself woman child Badenoch knocks Braverman out the top two, when it’s so obvious Braverman is the only one of the candidates with determination and tenacity to deliver, focussed and steadfast enough to actually take a fight back to Labour? 😆
Now, most important question of all, when Braverman says we must limit immigration because of the pressure it puts on housing supply, public services and community relations - do you actually disagree with her?
No, the final 3 would be Barclay, Tugendhat and Mordaunt in my view, neither Braverman nor Badenoch make it
That’s what you most want isn’t it? But not wanting Braverman as leader doesn’t make her disappear. For example, if on the hustings she says, we must limit immigration because of the pressure it puts on housing supply, public services and community relations - will any of the three you mentioned challenge that, instantly flashing up a huge gulf of difference between Braverman and themselves? Braverman and her supporters bring the differentials into the coming leadership election, this is what gets her into the last two, and with these differentials she beats all three of your suggestions easily in Phase 2 doesn’t she?
Are you taking into account how the MP phase can change dramatically from the last one after 100 seat losses?
Most of the Tory seat losses will be redwall MPs on current polls, so the remaining Tory party would be even more southern than it is now with some patches from ex industrial areas of the Midlands.
The next Tory leader will likely be a Leaver but a sane Leaver like Barclay. It would probably take a second heavy general election defeat for the Conservatives to go all out for the pure ideologue as leader and in my view that would be more likely to be Rees Mogg than Braverman or Badenoch. Remember Corbyn and IDS weren't elected when Labour and the Tories first lost power, only after a second defeat. The first Opposition leaders they elected were more from the centre of the party ie Ed Miliband and Hague
Another post that’s a definite keeper, if you still rate Bravermans chances of the leadership, and yourself rowing in behind her, so lowly.
There’s clearly been a huge bun fight in government and cabinet, pro immigration Rishi versus tough on immigration tough on all causes of immigration Braverman. And now both sides are taking fight outside the walls into public.
One thing you haven’t admitted in all these discussions, if Braverman makes the top 2 against anyone, including Barclay, she wins. You do at least admit that much?
Braverman's profile has far more exposure than it did prior to the Truss debacle. And she is pulling all the right plonkers' plonkers. I could see her making the cut and then winning the party leadership contest. That is a scary prospect for anyone in the UK cheering on KK today.
Just seen this graph on Paul Mason's twitter, "proving" how bad Brexit is
Two points..
- Don't trend lines usually have points above and below them? This one has ZERO points above it on the 2009-2015 section that sets the "trend"
- Aren't they usually straight lines? This one is curving upwards
Looks like utter horseshit to me
It's an odd fit. But eyeballing it, I can't help thinking a better fit would be even more unfavourable to Brexit (e.g. if you start from 2010, you can argue to remove 2009 due to GFC).
No reason to fit a straight line unless your believe the trend is linear, which seems unlikely here - i.e. if you grow the investment by 3% each year, say, that gives you a non-linear line due to compounding (3 years out from now, your investment is 1.03*1.03*1.03 * today's not today's plus 9%. You do need to be careful about that though, as that's exponential growth, which can lead to some interesting conclusions down the line as we saw during Covid.
This is a crude interrupted time series - you take your interruption (Brexit vote) and see whether there was a change in measured thing at the same time, looks convincing enough. Other approaches include diff-in-diff, where you compare to trends in e.g. other countries that did not Brexit or add controls for other things.
But you also have to think about interpretation. Brexit was a shock, the vote leading to uncertainty (what kind of Brexit?) which lasted years, so you expect growth to stall a bit, even if the final Brexit was a good thing. Then we have Covid, then not enough data to see what is coming next. Brexit good looks like this with stronger growth from 2020-2030; Brexit bad looks like this with weak growth from 2020-2030 (and 'strong' and 'weak' growth need to be compared to other countries, not just pre-Brexit as there will also be other things going on).
ETA: And even all that is irrelevant if you voted Brexit for reasons other than fast entry into sunlit economic uplands, e.g. sovereignty or hatred of the French
AIUI the promised upside from Brexit starts to accrue in about 2150, so a bit harsh to only look til 2030.
Well, you know... This remoaner wants to moan and wants to make sure he gets to do while he's still got some marbles left
Cyclefree is correct -of course. This is obvious to PB contributors, all of whom thrive on the multiplicity of assertion and multi sided argument.
However there are real difficulties in the actual world.
The genuine defence of free speech hits several obstacles.
1) It is for many counter intuitive. Like the law of comparative advantage, the invisible hand or Monty Hall's paradox. Why, many will say, go to great lengths to sustain the platform of racists, holocaust deniers, Soviet fellow travellers etc.
2) The loudest voices and sharpest elbows belong to noisy assertive people for whom it is obvious they are right, and opposition is just a tedious nuisance. Other people's freedoms come way down the list.
3) Power automatically has no interest in scrutiny except on their own terms.
4) Few believe in free speech in an absolute way. (The N word, the glorification of child abuse or the holocaust). So there are always reasons for making your opponents an exception. Since exceptions exist.
Just seen this graph on Paul Mason's twitter, "proving" how bad Brexit is
Two points..
- Don't trend lines usually have points above and below them? This one has ZERO points above it on the 2009-2015 section that sets the "trend"
- Aren't they usually straight lines? This one is curving upwards
Looks like utter horseshit to me
It's an odd fit. But eyeballing it, I can't help thinking a better fit would be even more unfavourable to Brexit (e.g. if you start from 2010, you can argue to remove 2009 due to GFC).
No reason to fit a straight line unless your believe the trend is linear, which seems unlikely here - i.e. if you grow the investment by 3% each year, say, that gives you a non-linear line due to compounding (3 years out from now, your investment is 1.03*1.03*1.03 * today's not today's plus 9%. You do need to be careful about that though, as that's exponential growth, which can lead to some interesting conclusions down the line as we saw during Covid.
This is a crude interrupted time series - you take your interruption (Brexit vote) and see whether there was a change in measured thing at the same time, looks convincing enough. Other approaches include diff-in-diff, where you compare to trends in e.g. other countries that did not Brexit or add controls for other things.
But you also have to think about interpretation. Brexit was a shock, the vote leading to uncertainty (what kind of Brexit?) which lasted years, so you expect growth to stall a bit, even if the final Brexit was a good thing. Then we have Covid, then not enough data to see what is coming next. Brexit good looks like this with stronger growth from 2020-2030; Brexit bad looks like this with weak growth from 2020-2030 (and 'strong' and 'weak' growth need to be compared to other countries, not just pre-Brexit as there will also be other things going on).
ETA: And even all that is irrelevant if you voted Brexit for reasons other than fast entry into sunlit economic uplands, e.g. sovereignty or hatred of the French
AIUI the promised upside from Brexit starts to accrue in about 2150, so a bit harsh to only look til 2030.
Well, you know... This remoaner wants to moan and wants to make sure he gets to do while he's still got some marbles left
In other news, I see the EU have slightly upgraded their growth forecasts for this year and 2024.
Just seen this graph on Paul Mason's twitter, "proving" how bad Brexit is
Two points..
- Don't trend lines usually have points above and below them? This one has ZERO points above it on the 2009-2015 section that sets the "trend"
- Aren't they usually straight lines? This one is curving upwards
Looks like utter horseshit to me
It's an odd fit. But eyeballing it, I can't help thinking a better fit would be even more unfavourable to Brexit (e.g. if you start from 2010, you can argue to remove 2009 due to GFC).
No reason to fit a straight line unless your believe the trend is linear, which seems unlikely here - i.e. if you grow the investment by 3% each year, say, that gives you a non-linear line due to compounding (3 years out from now, your investment is 1.03*1.03*1.03 * today's not today's plus 9%. You do need to be careful about that though, as that's exponential growth, which can lead to some interesting conclusions down the line as we saw during Covid.
This is a crude interrupted time series - you take your interruption (Brexit vote) and see whether there was a change in measured thing at the same time, looks convincing enough. Other approaches include diff-in-diff, where you compare to trends in e.g. other countries that did not Brexit or add controls for other things.
But you also have to think about interpretation. Brexit was a shock, the vote leading to uncertainty (what kind of Brexit?) which lasted years, so you expect growth to stall a bit, even if the final Brexit was a good thing. Then we have Covid, then not enough data to see what is coming next. Brexit good looks like this with stronger growth from 2020-2030; Brexit bad looks like this with weak growth from 2020-2030 (and 'strong' and 'weak' growth need to be compared to other countries, not just pre-Brexit as there will also be other things going on).
ETA: And even all that is irrelevant if you voted Brexit for reasons other than fast entry into sunlit economic uplands, e.g. sovereignty or hatred of the French
AIUI the promised upside from Brexit starts to accrue in about 2150, so a bit harsh to only look til 2030.
Well, you know... This remoaner wants to moan and wants to make sure he gets to do while he's still got some marbles left
For some reason this reminds me the school-era song..
Rishi Sunak will be joined by ministers from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) as well as farmers and industry leaders at the meeting at No 10 on Tuesday.
The Guardian understands there is a battle between the home secretary, Suella Braverman, and Defra over immigration.
Fruit and vegetables have been rotting in the fields, and some farmers have gone out of business, as there are not enough people willing to pick them.
Farmers and Defra ministers have been lobbying the Home Office to increase the number of temporary visas for agricultural workers, but a senior Defra source said Braverman was “ideologically opposed” to such a move...
if we imported 700,000 people last year and that still wasn't enough, what is the right number?
I know it is meant to be 'temporary', but they still have to live somewhere.
If labour is getting too expensive then some investment is needed.
Clearly something has gone badly wrong. Government doesn't seem to have a clue what that might be.
Or agree on what to do about it.
Absolute shower.
Is this just a UK phenomenon? I don't believe so.
The solution is to either invest in automation or not grow things that require cheap labour to make a profit.
I don't think that's entirely down to the government to solve.
Cyclefree is correct -of course. This is obvious to PB contributors, all of whom thrive on the multiplicity of assertion and multi sided argument.
However there are real difficulties in the actual world.
The genuine defence of free speech hits several obstacles.
1) It is for many counter intuitive. Like the law of comparative advantage, the invisible hand or Monty Hall's paradox. Why, many will say, go to great lengths to sustain the platform of racists, holocaust deniers, Soviet fellow travellers etc.
2) The loudest voices and sharpest elbows belong to noisy assertive people for whom it is obvious they are right, and opposition is just a tedious nuisance. Other people's freedoms come way down the list.
3) Power automatically has no interest in scrutiny except on their own terms.
4) Few believe in free speech in an absolute way. (The N word, the glorification of child abuse or the holocaust). So there are always reasons for making your opponents an exception. Since exceptions exist.
I agree completely with CycleFree's comments in this post. I had a letter published in the Guardian some years ago making points on a related issue (and also indicating where a line should be drawn still - essentially where violence is threatened). I'll post a version below in case anyone's interested:
I am concerned at the increasing number of criminal prosecutions for "offensive" speech. Susanna Rustin makes a valuable distinction: those who use social media to submit anonymous violent threats (such as those Caroline Criado-Perez recently had to endure) need and deserve to be treated as criminals. However, it now seems to be the rule that merely causing sufficient offence on social media can be enough to get the perpetrator a jail term.
One can thoroughly deplore the comments made (as I would), while still defending the right to make them. Freedom of speech must mean freedom to be offensive, otherwise we only have the dubious "freedom" to make socially approved comments. The former director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer, has rightly called for parliament to reassess this issue. I would suggest a clear distinction between serious threats to an individual (which should continue to be criminalised) and simply causing offence (which should not be). Blurring that line reduces the freedom of us all.
I support our Hate Speech laws. There are things it ought to be illegal to say regardless of whether there's an overt threat of physical violence. Eg stirring up racial hatred. Free speech is not some absolutist 'good' it has to take its place alongside other 'goods' such as fostering a society free of identity-based discrimination. We don't want untrammelled freedom of expression. Neither do we want it curtailed except in limited and defined circumstances. It's a balance and we have it about right imo.
And what if someone got into power and decided to include the rich, or businessmen or the State of Israel amongst things you are not allowed to criticise? Free speech is not just important because it is some 'absolutist good' as you put it but because once you open the door to banning criticism or scorn for one section of society (no matter how stupid or wrong that criticism might be) then it can be taken as an excuse to ban other criticism as well.
What happens when politicians decide that criticising politicians is hate speech?
Racists are stupid and ignorant. But as long as they do not actually advocate violence or damage to others they should be allowed to be stupid and ignorant.
Thoughts and prayers for Everton fans today who will be enthusiastically cheering for Liverpool this evening.
I've never had any problems cheering for Tottenham when needed.
Evertonians are a weird bunch.
Some of them hate Liverpool more than they love Everton.
I follow all the midland clubs after the Baggies, although save for Trevor Francis in his heyday I have an aversion to anything BlueNose. Although I'll be cheering them on against Leeds next season too.
I agree completely with CycleFree's comments in this post. I had a letter published in the Guardian some years ago making points on a related issue (and also indicating where a line should be drawn still - essentially where violence is threatened). I'll post a version below in case anyone's interested:
I am concerned at the increasing number of criminal prosecutions for "offensive" speech. Susanna Rustin makes a valuable distinction: those who use social media to submit anonymous violent threats (such as those Caroline Criado-Perez recently had to endure) need and deserve to be treated as criminals. However, it now seems to be the rule that merely causing sufficient offence on social media can be enough to get the perpetrator a jail term.
One can thoroughly deplore the comments made (as I would), while still defending the right to make them. Freedom of speech must mean freedom to be offensive, otherwise we only have the dubious "freedom" to make socially approved comments. The former director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer, has rightly called for parliament to reassess this issue. I would suggest a clear distinction between serious threats to an individual (which should continue to be criminalised) and simply causing offence (which should not be). Blurring that line reduces the freedom of us all.
I support our Hate Speech laws. There are things it ought to be illegal to say regardless of whether there's an overt threat of physical violence. Eg stirring up racial hatred. Free speech is not some absolutist 'good' it has to take its place alongside other 'goods' such as fostering a society free of identity-based discrimination. We don't want untrammelled freedom of expression. Neither do we want it curtailed except in limited and defined circumstances. It's a balance and we have it about right imo.
Forced smile as his team is relegated. That's quite the metaphor.
Starmer is an Arsenal fan.
He's getting practice at blowing a big lead and coming second.
Starmer’s certainly taking a right mauling in tomorrows papers with his plan to use EU citizens to rig future UK elections, that perhaps might even be an election to scrap Brexit.
Why is Starmer daft enough to announce a plan like that, he’s not remotely won an election yet. Constitional change is second term stuff if anything, once you’ve earned trust, and every second he is talking about votes for sixteen year old children and EU citizens and not talking about NHS waiting lists, he’s an idiot.
Meanwhile, I think this is a big moment in the race to be Conservative Party leader.
You can try to argue Braverman is not the Conservatives rising star, simply on basis you don’t like her at all, but you will utterly fail in that argument, the reality is: she’s rising if you like it all not, there’s no denying it. Observer had a big splash on her today, risen from family of immigrants to high office etc.
The UK Home Secretary is headline speaker at this Conservative conference, and she is going to say
“…because of the pressure it puts on housing supply, public services and community relations.”
And how many Conservative members and activists are going to disagree with that reasoning to limit immigration? Tory members will say at last, someone who tells it like it is.
You would use words like steadfast, tenacious, and determined to describe Braverman’s style - those are exactly the same words used to list Lady Thatcher’s strengths.
There’s your next leader of the Conservative Party. She’s got it “Suen-up” hasn’t she?
No as only 32 Tory MPs voted for her in the 2022 leadership election, she has no chance of reaching the final 2 to even to the Tory membership therefore if Rishi loses and the race to choose the Tory Leader of the Opposition begins
I knew you were lurking out there with something crazy like this to post 😆
32 was a bloody good start for “what’s she running for” candidate” You saying her fan club hasn’t “sue-welled” since then?
You saying she won’t go into the leadership election with more credibility than Lady Thatcher when she actually won leadership.
You are going to tell us the smug, full of themself woman child Badenoch knocks Braverman out the top two, when it’s so obvious Braverman is the only one of the candidates with determination and tenacity to deliver, focussed and steadfast enough to actually take a fight back to Labour? 😆
Now, most important question of all, when Braverman says we must limit immigration because of the pressure it puts on housing supply, public services and community relations - do you actually disagree with her?
No, the final 3 would be Barclay, Tugendhat and Mordaunt in my view, neither Braverman nor Badenoch make it
That’s what you most want isn’t it? But not wanting Braverman as leader doesn’t make her disappear. For example, if on the hustings she says, we must limit immigration because of the pressure it puts on housing supply, public services and community relations - will any of the three you mentioned challenge that, instantly flashing up a huge gulf of difference between Braverman and themselves? Braverman and her supporters bring the differentials into the coming leadership election, this is what gets her into the last two, and with these differentials she beats all three of your suggestions easily in Phase 2 doesn’t she?
Are you taking into account how the MP phase can change dramatically from the last one after 100 seat losses?
Most of the Tory seat losses will be redwall MPs on current polls, so the remaining Tory party would be even more southern than it is now with some patches from ex industrial areas of the Midlands.
The next Tory leader will likely be a Leaver but a sane Leaver like Barclay. It would probably take a second heavy general election defeat for the Conservatives to go all out for the pure ideologue as leader and in my view that would be more likely to be Rees Mogg than Braverman or Badenoch. Remember Corbyn and IDS weren't elected when Labour and the Tories first lost power, only after a second defeat. The first Opposition leaders they elected were more from the centre of the party ie Ed Miliband and Hague
Another post that’s a definite keeper, if you still rate Bravermans chances of the leadership, and yourself rowing in behind her, so lowly.
There’s clearly been a huge bun fight in government and cabinet, pro immigration Rishi versus tough on immigration tough on all causes of immigration Braverman. And now both sides are taking fight outside the walls into public.
One thing you haven’t admitted in all these discussions, if Braverman makes the top 2 against anyone, including Barclay, she wins. You do at least admit that much?
Barclay is a decent shout for the "pragmatic right, steady as she goes" lane, though not if the NHS remains unfixed.
But the big picture is that pragmatic right really struggles against batso right in the current Conservative party. It takes a coronation (Sunak, May, Howard) or despair of ever winning (Cameron) to alter that. Given a chance, the membership goes for a candidate who tickles their fancy, no matter how unsuitable (IDS, Johnson, Truss).
And unless the parliamentary batso right is below one third of the party, they get their candidate on the membership ballot. It might not be clear who that will be, but there will be one.
Disappointing result in Turkey. A 2nd round was always likely, but there was hope that Erdoğan would at least be behind in the first round. I'm surprised that the results show voters in Germany giving exactly the same vote share to Erdoğan as in 2018 (65% of the vote with 79% of ballot boxes opened), as the mood music around here (where there are a lot of Turks) has definitely moved against Erdoğan over the last 5 years among the people I talk to.
I’ve traveled quite widely in Turkey, and quite recently
The plain fact is, Erdogan remains seriously popular with a lot of people, and not just religious conservatives
In his 20 year reign, many Turks have gone from outright poverty to a decent middle class life
"... it goes without saying that if a venue discriminates against someone with views wholly opposed to Ms Cherry’s (a transgender writer, say) on the basis that some staff disapproved of their “beliefs” or thought them anti-women or felt “unsafe“, this would also be unlawful ..."
It's not just any old belief, though, is it?
According to the Equality Act, it's a "religious or philosophical belief."
Is there any such thing as a non-philosophical belief?
I believe it’s going to rain today. I believe that Austria was robbed in the Eurovision final. I believe this explanation of what constitutes a non-philosophical belief, while not being completely sound with respect to legal precedents, will get my point across.
Hume and Kuhn and Feyerabend might have things to say about your belief that it's going to rain ...
And they would (arguably) be right, but not with respect to the provisions of the Equality Act.
Feyeraband may also have had things to say about Austria at Eurovision.
It's also worth noting, given the general context of the Edinburgh venue case, [edit] though obviously not an issue in it, that a belief in Scottish independence is also a protected characteristic. That came out when HMG, in the form of MoD, tried to sack a SNP pol cos he might be disloyal or something.
I’m out here in Egypt with a bunch of journos. One of them is a young, quite well known Scottish journalist, and a passionate YES supporter
He said last night that “indy” is dead in the water. “Decades away”
An interesting perspective from a true believer. He certainly wasn’t deceiving anyone, including himself
In the years running up to Indyref Salmond took the idea of independence seriously. He was very focused on Scotland having a viable economy that could deliver for its people after independence. Views will differ as to whether he succeeded or not but he was absolutely clear that this was an essential component of independence.
During the Sturgeon era all sight was lost of the importance of the economy. Her movement to the left, which in fairness was very successful in taking the central belt from Labour, was at the cost of a Statist, high tax, public sector dominated economy with highly critical views of those who had the audacity to make money or build a business.
Forbes offered a return to the Salmond viewpoint but lost out to continuity Yousless. Current policies are simply not designed to build a viable private sector tax base in Scotland, if anything they will continue to make Scotland a less attractive place to invest. So we pay more tax, have more state regulation, have a disproportionately large public sector that scoops up available talent by paying itself rather well, poorly performing schools, restrictions on the number of young Scots who can get a government subsidised university place, a lack of interest in essential infrastructure and policies such as the bottle scheme that are introduced with no thought as to their economic consequences.
Scotland is not fit to be an independent country at present. Its reliance on UK subsidy has increased. Independence now would mean substantial cuts in the public sector and even more tax rises. These problems need to be addressed in the Union or out of it. But they will indeed take decades to address. And the risk is we will continue on a path of blaming others for our failings and go even deeper into this hole before we come out the other side.
The Scottish guy here is particularly exercised by the incompetence and corruption surrounding the ferries, the terrible drug problem, and the neglect of smaller Scottish towns. All of which is down to the SNP - and he’s a SNP supporter!
(Or was - I get the feeling he is so disenchanted he might abstain next time)
He also loathes English Tories, so conversations have been lively - but friendly
The ferry fiasco is having an enormously negative impact on the Scottish islands' economy which is very largely tourism based. A Green Scottish Minister had occasion to go to one of the islands recently and thought the solution was to hire her own boat! The consequences for jobs and the retention of young people in places with very few other opportunities are going to be dire indeed.
A few islanders are starting to use their boats (wildlife trip type things) to do short hops like Coll to Tiree, or Arisaig to Eigg. This is basically what Slater did.
Expensive, but the market is starting to fill the gap for foot/cycle passengers. I think that tourism in the inner hebs and smaller islands could adapt and survive on that basis - and actually inject some cash into the islanders running the services.
The problem is getting vehicles across to the Outer hebs.
"... it goes without saying that if a venue discriminates against someone with views wholly opposed to Ms Cherry’s (a transgender writer, say) on the basis that some staff disapproved of their “beliefs” or thought them anti-women or felt “unsafe“, this would also be unlawful ..."
It's not just any old belief, though, is it?
According to the Equality Act, it's a "religious or philosophical belief."
Is there any such thing as a non-philosophical belief?
I believe it’s going to rain today. I believe that Austria was robbed in the Eurovision final. I believe this explanation of what constitutes a non-philosophical belief, while not being completely sound with respect to legal precedents, will get my point across.
Hume and Kuhn and Feyerabend might have things to say about your belief that it's going to rain ...
And they would (arguably) be right, but not with respect to the provisions of the Equality Act.
Feyeraband may also have had things to say about Austria at Eurovision.
It's also worth noting, given the general context of the Edinburgh venue case, [edit] though obviously not an issue in it, that a belief in Scottish independence is also a protected characteristic. That came out when HMG, in the form of MoD, tried to sack a SNP pol cos he might be disloyal or something.
I’m out here in Egypt with a bunch of journos. One of them is a young, quite well known Scottish journalist, and a passionate YES supporter
He said last night that “indy” is dead in the water. “Decades away”
An interesting perspective from a true believer. He certainly wasn’t deceiving anyone, including himself
Have you met any cabbies from Tirana out there?
It’s 90% Germans, so not yet
There are however two Instagram influencers from the UK here. Women, pretty, etc. One of them has 1m insta followers.
The PR girl who runs the trip says they travel the world taking photos and videos of themselves having a lovely time, and…. That’s it. They are famous if you are into this stuff. They get everything free, and make money from endorsing products
"... it goes without saying that if a venue discriminates against someone with views wholly opposed to Ms Cherry’s (a transgender writer, say) on the basis that some staff disapproved of their “beliefs” or thought them anti-women or felt “unsafe“, this would also be unlawful ..."
It's not just any old belief, though, is it?
According to the Equality Act, it's a "religious or philosophical belief."
Is there any such thing as a non-philosophical belief?
I believe it’s going to rain today. I believe that Austria was robbed in the Eurovision final. I believe this explanation of what constitutes a non-philosophical belief, while not being completely sound with respect to legal precedents, will get my point across.
Hume and Kuhn and Feyerabend might have things to say about your belief that it's going to rain ...
And they would (arguably) be right, but not with respect to the provisions of the Equality Act.
Feyeraband may also have had things to say about Austria at Eurovision.
It's also worth noting, given the general context of the Edinburgh venue case, [edit] though obviously not an issue in it, that a belief in Scottish independence is also a protected characteristic. That came out when HMG, in the form of MoD, tried to sack a SNP pol cos he might be disloyal or something.
I’m out here in Egypt with a bunch of journos. One of them is a young, quite well known Scottish journalist, and a passionate YES supporter
He said last night that “indy” is dead in the water. “Decades away”
An interesting perspective from a true believer. He certainly wasn’t deceiving anyone, including himself
Have you met any cabbies from Tirana out there?
It’s 90% Germans, so not yet
There are however two Instagram influencers from the UK here. Women, pretty, etc. One of them has 1m insta followers.
The PR girl who runs the trip says they travel the world taking photos and videos of themselves having a lovely time, and…. That’s it. They are famous if you are into this stuff. They get everything free, and make money from endorsing products
Fascinating
I really can’t get my head around that phenomenon, or the wider popular trend of people striking ridiculous pouty glamour poses everywhere they go then posting on Instagram. It seems so obviously vain and presumptuous. Quite alien.
A pose at a landmark, if it must happen, should involve looking somewhat uncomfortable or at most a cheery everyday smile.
The job they're doing is freelance advertising. Whatever gets punters' attention sells the space. Easy to get your head around when you call it what it is.
I get the economics of it. But perhaps 1% or fewer of the people you see pouting on Instagram are getting any money for it. The rest are doing it purely for personal vanity/neediness it seems. Most have no desire to be influencers. There are members of my extended family who do it too.
You see it with tourists in places like Tower Bridge too. Where once they would ask a passerby to snap them smiling with the towers in the background, now one is puckering up the lips and trying to look smouldering (with the towers in the background), with the other taking the photo.
It’s interesting to see it in action, and to see how it can be done very successfully - generating lots of money
But as you say that is surely 0.1% of people who TRY to do it
Yes, in the same was as the median income for an OnlyFans ‘creator’ is $100 per month, 1% of the creators make more than half the money, and 0.1% make serious bank - most of whom are already famous. The rest just put their nudes online forever and for almost free.
While this is true, what continues to amaze is that each niche of society now has people who can make a living in vaguely ways via the internet. History podcasts, knitting vlogs, tabletop wargames videos, shooting arrows at stuff and filming the consequences, trainspotting, etc.
For all that I might complain about the social media giants, the great disintermediation of media has been of great benefit too.
Yes, very much so. There’s a lot of people making good money from podcasts, Youtube, and a lot of other internet-based ‘new media’ outlets.
Twitter is now trying to do something similar to Youtube, hosting long-form content and sharing revenue with creators. Their first exclusive creator is probably going to be Tucker Carlson. Like him or not, Carlson is probably second to Joe Rogan in terms of attracting an American audience for his show. To balance things politically, Twitter has also reached out to recently-fired CNN host Don Lemon.
It's a fraction of a percent who actually make a good living. For every Logan Paul, there are ten million others you've never heard of, failing to scratch a few quid together. And it's telling that people who are successful via social tend only to make serious money when they cross over into more mainstream, traditional things (to take Logan Paul as an example - moving into sport PPV appearances and making an endorsed energy drink) - not least because there really isn't *that* much money to be made, and the social giants take a vast chunk of the money that these creators are making for them.
You'll note how basically every channel creator, podcaster etc. has a very diversified begging bowl plea - patreon, discord community, merch, the like-comment-share-subscribe mantra etc. - then the sponsored reads, the ads, the endorsements etc.
It *is* possible to scratch a living from it, but it's a constant hustle. Over a decade ago I used to write a film review blog with vague thoughts of one day doing more with it. The best thing it actually did was get me a foot in the door professionally in social media marketing in a proper actual job. If I'd gone down some sort of creator route instead, I'd be a husk of a person, stuck watching endless soul-crushing superhero films, hating the subject and myself.
There are lots of people who go into it with high expectations which they don't meet. Same as with all creators at all points in history.
The people in my various interest areas who seem to do best out of this are the people who would be doing it as much as possible in their spare time even if it didn't make them any money. And then when it becomes unexpectedly successful they're able to devote more time to it.
And some of them become so successful that they can expand to become a company which employs a whole team, who all manage to scratch a living from it.
The difference now is that the process of finding success is no longer mediated by a group of gatekeepers - producers, promoters, casting agents, etc - it's mediated by an algorithm, and whether people want to consume more of what you create.
Thoughts and prayers for Everton fans today who will be enthusiastically cheering for Liverpool this evening.
I've never had any problems cheering for Tottenham when needed.
Evertonians are a weird bunch.
Some of them hate Liverpool more than they love Everton.
Sounds like most football fans.....
No, Everton fans are weird.
Ronald Koeman changed the colour of his Christmas tree decorations after Everton fans argued it was too red.
Everton boss Koeman, 53, had tweeted a picture of his Christmas tree on Thursday with the caption: "Almost Christmas time, busy football period."
He was soon met with a barrage of comments due to the majority of the tree containing a distinctly red colour, to which the former Netherlands international later replied with a picture of the same tree featuring far more white with the humorous message, "Better colour?"
The comical exchange ended when the Premier League manager tweeted: "I think there are more serious problems in the world, than making a big story out of a Christmas tree!"
Forced smile as his team is relegated. That's quite the metaphor.
Starmer is an Arsenal fan.
He's getting practice at blowing a big lead and coming second.
Starmer’s certainly taking a right mauling in tomorrows papers with his plan to use EU citizens to rig future UK elections, that perhaps might even be an election to scrap Brexit.
Why is Starmer daft enough to announce a plan like that, he’s not remotely won an election yet. Constitional change is second term stuff if anything, once you’ve earned trust, and every second he is talking about votes for sixteen year old children and EU citizens and not talking about NHS waiting lists, he’s an idiot.
Meanwhile, I think this is a big moment in the race to be Conservative Party leader.
You can try to argue Braverman is not the Conservatives rising star, simply on basis you don’t like her at all, but you will utterly fail in that argument, the reality is: she’s rising if you like it all not, there’s no denying it. Observer had a big splash on her today, risen from family of immigrants to high office etc.
The UK Home Secretary is headline speaker at this Conservative conference, and she is going to say
“…because of the pressure it puts on housing supply, public services and community relations.”
And how many Conservative members and activists are going to disagree with that reasoning to limit immigration? Tory members will say at last, someone who tells it like it is.
You would use words like steadfast, tenacious, and determined to describe Braverman’s style - those are exactly the same words used to list Lady Thatcher’s strengths.
There’s your next leader of the Conservative Party. She’s got it “Suen-up” hasn’t she?
No as only 32 Tory MPs voted for her in the 2022 leadership election, she has no chance of reaching the final 2 to even to the Tory membership therefore if Rishi loses and the race to choose the Tory Leader of the Opposition begins
I knew you were lurking out there with something crazy like this to post 😆
32 was a bloody good start for “what’s she running for” candidate” You saying her fan club hasn’t “sue-welled” since then?
You saying she won’t go into the leadership election with more credibility than Lady Thatcher when she actually won leadership.
You are going to tell us the smug, full of themself woman child Badenoch knocks Braverman out the top two, when it’s so obvious Braverman is the only one of the candidates with determination and tenacity to deliver, focussed and steadfast enough to actually take a fight back to Labour? 😆
Now, most important question of all, when Braverman says we must limit immigration because of the pressure it puts on housing supply, public services and community relations - do you actually disagree with her?
No, the final 3 would be Barclay, Tugendhat and Mordaunt in my view, neither Braverman nor Badenoch make it
That’s what you most want isn’t it? But not wanting Braverman as leader doesn’t make her disappear. For example, if on the hustings she says, we must limit immigration because of the pressure it puts on housing supply, public services and community relations - will any of the three you mentioned challenge that, instantly flashing up a huge gulf of difference between Braverman and themselves? Braverman and her supporters bring the differentials into the coming leadership election, this is what gets her into the last two, and with these differentials she beats all three of your suggestions easily in Phase 2 doesn’t she?
Are you taking into account how the MP phase can change dramatically from the last one after 100 seat losses?
Most of the Tory seat losses will be redwall MPs on current polls, so the remaining Tory party would be even more southern than it is now with some patches from ex industrial areas of the Midlands.
The next Tory leader will likely be a Leaver but a sane Leaver like Barclay. It would probably take a second heavy general election defeat for the Conservatives to go all out for the pure ideologue as leader and in my view that would be more likely to be Rees Mogg than Braverman or Badenoch. Remember Corbyn and IDS weren't elected when Labour and the Tories first lost power, only after a second defeat. The first Opposition leaders they elected were more from the centre of the party ie Ed Miliband and Hague
Another post that’s a definite keeper, if you still rate Bravermans chances of the leadership, and yourself rowing in behind her, so lowly.
There’s clearly been a huge bun fight in government and cabinet, pro immigration Rishi versus tough on immigration tough on all causes of immigration Braverman. And now both sides are taking fight outside the walls into public.
One thing you haven’t admitted in all these discussions, if Braverman makes the top 2 against anyone, including Barclay, she wins. You do at least admit that much?
Braverman's profile has far more exposure than it did prior to the Truss debacle. And she is pulling all the right plonkers' plonkers. I could see her making the cut and then winning the party leadership contest. That is a scary prospect for anyone in the UK cheering on KK today.
You’ve put it so well, in your inimitable style - we all agree, for winning the next members vote she is pulling the right plonkers, but can she pull this off?
I agree completely with CycleFree's comments in this post. I had a letter published in the Guardian some years ago making points on a related issue (and also indicating where a line should be drawn still - essentially where violence is threatened). I'll post a version below in case anyone's interested:
I am concerned at the increasing number of criminal prosecutions for "offensive" speech. Susanna Rustin makes a valuable distinction: those who use social media to submit anonymous violent threats (such as those Caroline Criado-Perez recently had to endure) need and deserve to be treated as criminals. However, it now seems to be the rule that merely causing sufficient offence on social media can be enough to get the perpetrator a jail term.
One can thoroughly deplore the comments made (as I would), while still defending the right to make them. Freedom of speech must mean freedom to be offensive, otherwise we only have the dubious "freedom" to make socially approved comments. The former director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer, has rightly called for parliament to reassess this issue. I would suggest a clear distinction between serious threats to an individual (which should continue to be criminalised) and simply causing offence (which should not be). Blurring that line reduces the freedom of us all.
I support our Hate Speech laws. There are things it ought to be illegal to say regardless of whether there's an overt threat of physical violence. Eg stirring up racial hatred. Free speech is not some absolutist 'good' it has to take its place alongside other 'goods' such as fostering a society free of identity-based discrimination. We don't want untrammelled freedom of expression. Neither do we want it curtailed except in limited and defined circumstances. It's a balance and we have it about right imo.
I think we should judge actions not words.
What does that mean?
Abu Hamza didn't directly do any physical damage to his adversaries personally, but his hate speech invited plenty of others to do so.
Rishi Sunak will be joined by ministers from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) as well as farmers and industry leaders at the meeting at No 10 on Tuesday.
The Guardian understands there is a battle between the home secretary, Suella Braverman, and Defra over immigration.
Fruit and vegetables have been rotting in the fields, and some farmers have gone out of business, as there are not enough people willing to pick them.
Farmers and Defra ministers have been lobbying the Home Office to increase the number of temporary visas for agricultural workers, but a senior Defra source said Braverman was “ideologically opposed” to such a move...
if we imported 700,000 people last year and that still wasn't enough, what is the right number?
I know it is meant to be 'temporary', but they still have to live somewhere.
If labour is getting too expensive then some investment is needed.
Clearly something has gone badly wrong. Government doesn't seem to have a clue what that might be.
Well I doubt many of the Ukrainian women and children or the mostly fairly affluent Hong Kongers are going fruit picking. If we want people to help pick fruit, it kind of needs to be the people who are willing to do that particular job.
Forced smile as his team is relegated. That's quite the metaphor.
Starmer is an Arsenal fan.
He's getting practice at blowing a big lead and coming second.
Starmer’s certainly taking a right mauling in tomorrows papers with his plan to use EU citizens to rig future UK elections, that perhaps might even be an election to scrap Brexit.
Why is Starmer daft enough to announce a plan like that, he’s not remotely won an election yet. Constitional change is second term stuff if anything, once you’ve earned trust, and every second he is talking about votes for sixteen year old children and EU citizens and not talking about NHS waiting lists, he’s an idiot.
Meanwhile, I think this is a big moment in the race to be Conservative Party leader.
You can try to argue Braverman is not the Conservatives rising star, simply on basis you don’t like her at all, but you will utterly fail in that argument, the reality is: she’s rising if you like it all not, there’s no denying it. Observer had a big splash on her today, risen from family of immigrants to high office etc.
The UK Home Secretary is headline speaker at this Conservative conference, and she is going to say
“…because of the pressure it puts on housing supply, public services and community relations.”
And how many Conservative members and activists are going to disagree with that reasoning to limit immigration? Tory members will say at last, someone who tells it like it is.
You would use words like steadfast, tenacious, and determined to describe Braverman’s style - those are exactly the same words used to list Lady Thatcher’s strengths.
There’s your next leader of the Conservative Party. She’s got it “Suen-up” hasn’t she?
No as only 32 Tory MPs voted for her in the 2022 leadership election, she has no chance of reaching the final 2 to even to the Tory membership therefore if Rishi loses and the race to choose the Tory Leader of the Opposition begins
I knew you were lurking out there with something crazy like this to post 😆
32 was a bloody good start for “what’s she running for” candidate” You saying her fan club hasn’t “sue-welled” since then?
You saying she won’t go into the leadership election with more credibility than Lady Thatcher when she actually won leadership.
You are going to tell us the smug, full of themself woman child Badenoch knocks Braverman out the top two, when it’s so obvious Braverman is the only one of the candidates with determination and tenacity to deliver, focussed and steadfast enough to actually take a fight back to Labour? 😆
Now, most important question of all, when Braverman says we must limit immigration because of the pressure it puts on housing supply, public services and community relations - do you actually disagree with her?
No, the final 3 would be Barclay, Tugendhat and Mordaunt in my view, neither Braverman nor Badenoch make it
That’s what you most want isn’t it? But not wanting Braverman as leader doesn’t make her disappear. For example, if on the hustings she says, we must limit immigration because of the pressure it puts on housing supply, public services and community relations - will any of the three you mentioned challenge that, instantly flashing up a huge gulf of difference between Braverman and themselves? Braverman and her supporters bring the differentials into the coming leadership election, this is what gets her into the last two, and with these differentials she beats all three of your suggestions easily in Phase 2 doesn’t she?
Are you taking into account how the MP phase can change dramatically from the last one after 100 seat losses?
Most of the Tory seat losses will be redwall MPs on current polls, so the remaining Tory party would be even more southern than it is now with some patches from ex industrial areas of the Midlands.
The next Tory leader will likely be a Leaver but a sane Leaver like Barclay. It would probably take a second heavy general election defeat for the Conservatives to go all out for the pure ideologue as leader and in my view that would be more likely to be Rees Mogg than Braverman or Badenoch. Remember Corbyn and IDS weren't elected when Labour and the Tories first lost power, only after a second defeat. The first Opposition leaders they elected were more from the centre of the party ie Ed Miliband and Hague
Another post that’s a definite keeper, if you still rate Bravermans chances of the leadership, and yourself rowing in behind her, so lowly.
There’s clearly been a huge bun fight in government and cabinet, pro immigration Rishi versus tough on immigration tough on all causes of immigration Braverman. And now both sides are taking fight outside the walls into public.
One thing you haven’t admitted in all these discussions, if Braverman makes the top 2 against anyone, including Barclay, she wins. You do at least admit that much?
Braverman's profile has far more exposure than it did prior to the Truss debacle. And she is pulling all the right plonkers' plonkers. I could see her making the cut and then winning the party leadership contest. That is a scary prospect for anyone in the UK cheering on KK today.
You’ve put it so well, in your inimitable style - we all agree, for winning the next members vote she is pulling the right plonkers, but can she pull this off?
I have it on good authority that many of the ERG are already d***less.
Nick Hawker of First Light Fusion is currently writing a set of blog posts about the physics around Fusion - worth a read if anyone finds it interesting
I agree completely with CycleFree's comments in this post. I had a letter published in the Guardian some years ago making points on a related issue (and also indicating where a line should be drawn still - essentially where violence is threatened). I'll post a version below in case anyone's interested:
I am concerned at the increasing number of criminal prosecutions for "offensive" speech. Susanna Rustin makes a valuable distinction: those who use social media to submit anonymous violent threats (such as those Caroline Criado-Perez recently had to endure) need and deserve to be treated as criminals. However, it now seems to be the rule that merely causing sufficient offence on social media can be enough to get the perpetrator a jail term.
One can thoroughly deplore the comments made (as I would), while still defending the right to make them. Freedom of speech must mean freedom to be offensive, otherwise we only have the dubious "freedom" to make socially approved comments. The former director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer, has rightly called for parliament to reassess this issue. I would suggest a clear distinction between serious threats to an individual (which should continue to be criminalised) and simply causing offence (which should not be). Blurring that line reduces the freedom of us all.
I support our Hate Speech laws. There are things it ought to be illegal to say regardless of whether there's an overt threat of physical violence. Eg stirring up racial hatred. Free speech is not some absolutist 'good' it has to take its place alongside other 'goods' such as fostering a society free of identity-based discrimination. We don't want untrammelled freedom of expression. Neither do we want it curtailed except in limited and defined circumstances. It's a balance and we have it about right imo.
I think we should judge actions not words.
What does that mean?
Abu Hamza didn't directly do any physical damage to his adversaries personally, but his hate speech invited plenty of others to do so.
Quite.
I find it hard to believe that anyone can have heard of Radio des Milles Collines and still write, with a straight face, "Above all, what those objecting to [insert villain of choice] want is one set of approved opinions, those they agree with. Free speech for me but not for thee. But what this will soon become is free speech for no-one, not even me." The victims of the Rwandan genocide don't have much free speech from the comfort of their mass graves.
Forced smile as his team is relegated. That's quite the metaphor.
Starmer is an Arsenal fan.
He's getting practice at blowing a big lead and coming second.
Starmer’s certainly taking a right mauling in tomorrows papers with his plan to use EU citizens to rig future UK elections, that perhaps might even be an election to scrap Brexit.
Why is Starmer daft enough to announce a plan like that, he’s not remotely won an election yet. Constitional change is second term stuff if anything, once you’ve earned trust, and every second he is talking about votes for sixteen year old children and EU citizens and not talking about NHS waiting lists, he’s an idiot.
Meanwhile, I think this is a big moment in the race to be Conservative Party leader.
You can try to argue Braverman is not the Conservatives rising star, simply on basis you don’t like her at all, but you will utterly fail in that argument, the reality is: she’s rising if you like it all not, there’s no denying it. Observer had a big splash on her today, risen from family of immigrants to high office etc.
The UK Home Secretary is headline speaker at this Conservative conference, and she is going to say
“…because of the pressure it puts on housing supply, public services and community relations.”
And how many Conservative members and activists are going to disagree with that reasoning to limit immigration? Tory members will say at last, someone who tells it like it is.
You would use words like steadfast, tenacious, and determined to describe Braverman’s style - those are exactly the same words used to list Lady Thatcher’s strengths.
There’s your next leader of the Conservative Party. She’s got it “Suen-up” hasn’t she?
No as only 32 Tory MPs voted for her in the 2022 leadership election, she has no chance of reaching the final 2 to even to the Tory membership therefore if Rishi loses and the race to choose the Tory Leader of the Opposition begins
I knew you were lurking out there with something crazy like this to post 😆
32 was a bloody good start for “what’s she running for” candidate” You saying her fan club hasn’t “sue-welled” since then?
You saying she won’t go into the leadership election with more credibility than Lady Thatcher when she actually won leadership.
You are going to tell us the smug, full of themself woman child Badenoch knocks Braverman out the top two, when it’s so obvious Braverman is the only one of the candidates with determination and tenacity to deliver, focussed and steadfast enough to actually take a fight back to Labour? 😆
Now, most important question of all, when Braverman says we must limit immigration because of the pressure it puts on housing supply, public services and community relations - do you actually disagree with her?
No, the final 3 would be Barclay, Tugendhat and Mordaunt in my view, neither Braverman nor Badenoch make it
That’s what you most want isn’t it? But not wanting Braverman as leader doesn’t make her disappear. For example, if on the hustings she says, we must limit immigration because of the pressure it puts on housing supply, public services and community relations - will any of the three you mentioned challenge that, instantly flashing up a huge gulf of difference between Braverman and themselves? Braverman and her supporters bring the differentials into the coming leadership election, this is what gets her into the last two, and with these differentials she beats all three of your suggestions easily in Phase 2 doesn’t she?
Are you taking into account how the MP phase can change dramatically from the last one after 100 seat losses?
Most of the Tory seat losses will be redwall MPs on current polls, so the remaining Tory party would be even more southern than it is now with some patches from ex industrial areas of the Midlands.
The next Tory leader will likely be a Leaver but a sane Leaver like Barclay. It would probably take a second heavy general election defeat for the Conservatives to go all out for the pure ideologue as leader and in my view that would be more likely to be Rees Mogg than Braverman or Badenoch. Remember Corbyn and IDS weren't elected when Labour and the Tories first lost power, only after a second defeat. The first Opposition leaders they elected were more from the centre of the party ie Ed Miliband and Hague
Another post that’s a definite keeper, if you still rate Bravermans chances of the leadership, and yourself rowing in behind her, so lowly.
There’s clearly been a huge bun fight in government and cabinet, pro immigration Rishi versus tough on immigration tough on all causes of immigration Braverman. And now both sides are taking fight outside the walls into public.
One thing you haven’t admitted in all these discussions, if Braverman makes the top 2 against anyone, including Barclay, she wins. You do at least admit that much?
Barclay is a decent shout for the "pragmatic right, steady as she goes" lane, though not if the NHS remains unfixed.
But the big picture is that pragmatic right really struggles against batso right in the current Conservative party. It takes a coronation (Sunak, May, Howard) or despair of ever winning (Cameron) to alter that. Given a chance, the membership goes for a candidate who tickles their fancy, no matter how unsuitable (IDS, Johnson, Truss).
And unless the parliamentary batso right is below one third of the party, they get their candidate on the membership ballot. It might not be clear who that will be, but there will be one.
It's being so cheerful that keeps me going.
You are spot on Stu. Against Tug, Penny and Barclay, they are all so similar, pragmatic, looking to the centre, whilst Suella has differentials. And elections like this are about those differentials, she mops up members and MPs both for what her positions are and her thatcher-like characteristics of clarity, steadfast, tenacious, looking like she can deliver, leaves the others competing in same pool of votes to be in top two with her.
In a betting sense, HY should be our SME for the coming Tory leadership election. But is in denial about how her stock is shooting up and how the differences in her platform helps her in leadership election.
"... it goes without saying that if a venue discriminates against someone with views wholly opposed to Ms Cherry’s (a transgender writer, say) on the basis that some staff disapproved of their “beliefs” or thought them anti-women or felt “unsafe“, this would also be unlawful ..."
It's not just any old belief, though, is it?
According to the Equality Act, it's a "religious or philosophical belief."
Is there any such thing as a non-philosophical belief?
I believe it’s going to rain today. I believe that Austria was robbed in the Eurovision final. I believe this explanation of what constitutes a non-philosophical belief, while not being completely sound with respect to legal precedents, will get my point across.
Hume and Kuhn and Feyerabend might have things to say about your belief that it's going to rain ...
And they would (arguably) be right, but not with respect to the provisions of the Equality Act.
Feyeraband may also have had things to say about Austria at Eurovision.
It's also worth noting, given the general context of the Edinburgh venue case, [edit] though obviously not an issue in it, that a belief in Scottish independence is also a protected characteristic. That came out when HMG, in the form of MoD, tried to sack a SNP pol cos he might be disloyal or something.
I’m out here in Egypt with a bunch of journos. One of them is a young, quite well known Scottish journalist, and a passionate YES supporter
He said last night that “indy” is dead in the water. “Decades away”
An interesting perspective from a true believer. He certainly wasn’t deceiving anyone, including himself
In the years running up to Indyref Salmond took the idea of independence seriously. He was very focused on Scotland having a viable economy that could deliver for its people after independence. Views will differ as to whether he succeeded or not but he was absolutely clear that this was an essential component of independence.
During the Sturgeon era all sight was lost of the importance of the economy. Her movement to the left, which in fairness was very successful in taking the central belt from Labour, was at the cost of a Statist, high tax, public sector dominated economy with highly critical views of those who had the audacity to make money or build a business.
Forbes offered a return to the Salmond viewpoint but lost out to continuity Yousless. Current policies are simply not designed to build a viable private sector tax base in Scotland, if anything they will continue to make Scotland a less attractive place to invest. So we pay more tax, have more state regulation, have a disproportionately large public sector that scoops up available talent by paying itself rather well, poorly performing schools, restrictions on the number of young Scots who can get a government subsidised university place, a lack of interest in essential infrastructure and policies such as the bottle scheme that are introduced with no thought as to their economic consequences.
Scotland is not fit to be an independent country at present. Its reliance on UK subsidy has increased. Independence now would mean substantial cuts in the public sector and even more tax rises. These problems need to be addressed in the Union or out of it. But they will indeed take decades to address. And the risk is we will continue on a path of blaming others for our failings and go even deeper into this hole before we come out the other side.
The Scottish guy here is particularly exercised by the incompetence and corruption surrounding the ferries, the terrible drug problem, and the neglect of smaller Scottish towns. All of which is down to the SNP - and he’s a SNP supporter!
(Or was - I get the feeling he is so disenchanted he might abstain next time)
He also loathes English Tories, so conversations have been lively - but friendly
The ferry fiasco is having an enormously negative impact on the Scottish islands' economy which is very largely tourism based. A Green Scottish Minister had occasion to go to one of the islands recently and thought the solution was to hire her own boat! The consequences for jobs and the retention of young people in places with very few other opportunities are going to be dire indeed.
A few islanders are starting to use their boats (wildlife trip type things) to do short hops like Coll to Tiree, or Arisaig to Eigg. This is basically what Slater did.
Expensive, but the market is starting to fill the gap for foot/cycle passengers. I think that tourism in the inner hebs and smaller islands could adapt and survive on that basis - and actually inject some cash into the islanders running the services.
The problem is getting vehicles across to the Outer hebs.
And coaches, which bring a large number of the tourists, anywhere. A friend of a friend who operates a coach business out of Glasgow is tearing her hair out as the number of cancellations is threatening the very existence of her business.
Comments
Re The people who travel and get paid for posting stuff on instagram...
I suppose it is best thought of as a job, a bit like being in a band and going on tour, or a commercial photographer.
I am concerned at the increasing number of criminal prosecutions for "offensive" speech. Susanna Rustin makes a valuable distinction: those who use social media to submit anonymous violent threats (such as those Caroline Criado-Perez recently had to endure) need and deserve to be treated as criminals. However, it now seems to be the rule that merely causing sufficient offence on social media can be enough to get the perpetrator a jail term.
One can thoroughly deplore the comments made (as I would), while still defending the right to make them. Freedom of speech must mean freedom to be offensive, otherwise we only have the dubious "freedom" to make socially approved comments. The former director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer, has rightly called for parliament to reassess this issue. I would suggest a clear distinction between serious threats to an individual (which should continue to be criminalised) and simply causing offence (which should not be). Blurring that line reduces the freedom of us all.
But as you say that is surely 0.1% of people who TRY to do it
(Though I'm not a lawyer.)
It's true, of course, that they could not so discriminate in whom they allow to be members (or how they treat those members) - which is how the Act applies to them.
In spite of that sentiment, Good Morning to everyone.
Anyway that’s my Egyptian sitrep. I shall now retire to my cabana and do some actual WORK
Salaam
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-65580765
"India's main opposition Congress party has defeated Prime Minister's Narendra Modi's governing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in a crucial election in the southern state of Karnataka."
Could this be effective ?
Would it work ?
Would they need to recruit more staff to cover periods where staff were not in the office or at work or would they just split the days.
This could be a way of giving the private sector a large pay increase without actually giving them any money, however they are probably going to want both.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/labour-mp-demands-public-sector-workers-receive-a-four-day-week/ar-AA1bbgKr?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=617b6fd2c0874635b66558ec4b451511&ei=16
What's the point of saying something sounds like "a load of cobblers" if you can't explain why you think that?
That's not right. It doesn't only relate to membership.
Wagner mercenary boss Prigozhin has raged against Russian military leadership. But this is different: He also offered to give Russian troop locations to Ukraine in return for Bakhmut retreat, classified documents say.
https://twitter.com/OKnox/status/1657907636916895744
Hilarious, if true. More so if it's not, but Putin believes it.
My view is that we are all in favour of integration. What provides greater incentive to integrate than feeling you have a stake in the future of the country?
If the author had just got Excel to plot a simple trend line through the data, the point would have been made and "horseshit" counter arguments would have been difficult to come by.
I don't see that it does at all.
Many private sector shift workers already work three or four day weeks but with more than eight hours in a day. I do not think that is what is advocated here but details are scarce.
For all that I might complain about the social media giants, the great disintermediation of media has been of great benefit too.
It doesn’t work for the front line though, where staff in call centres, many of whom are outsourced in the public sector, work shifts already and have productivity monitored very closely.
Introducing the Labour proposal in the public sector would create an apartheid situation, between the civil service employees and contractors, and between higher-paid and lower-paid staff.
Which for most of their activities is not the case; certainly not for their debates.
What it isn't is people doing what they've always done, only now using different technology. Use of the technology is associated in the large majority of cases with stupidity, and with mindless copying in particular, and in a small minority of cases with activity that isn't stupid but is successful advertising work.
The reach of it all is staggering. I've found that when I point out to people that Google through for example its Youtube arm advertises a huge amount of snake oil, that's an idea that's completely new to them. They've never dared think about their experience with the big G so unsubmissively before. They're grateful for the "access to information" or porn or whatever.
Twitter is now trying to do something similar to Youtube, hosting long-form content and sharing revenue with creators. Their first exclusive creator is probably going to be Tucker Carlson. Like him or not, Carlson is probably second to Joe Rogan in terms of attracting an American audience for his show. To balance things politically, Twitter has also reached out to recently-fired CNN host Don Lemon.
The French appear to do OK with a four day week - and the experience of Heath's three days week in the seventies suggested something similar.
As far as public services are concerned, it might actually lead to an improvement in what happens at weekends ?
Gross Fixed Capital Formation, in fact hit a peak in the last quarter of 2022
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/bulletins/businessinvestment/octobertodecember2022provisionalresults
This advocates a 32 hour week with no loss of pay.
This is one way in which Russia's nuclear weapons genuinely make this war different to other conflicts. There is zero prospect of Ukraine marching on Moscow, or of making an attempt to seize Russia's Black Sea coast. This means that Russia can lose the war and yet still remain secure within its own borders, and this reduces the necessity for the Russian elite to maintain unity to defend themselves.
Ministers call for immigration and UK food prices to increase
Exclusive: Sunak urged to take urgent action to solve food crisis at meeting with Defra and farmers
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/15/ministers-call-for-immigration-and-uk-food-prices-to-increase
Immigration and food prices must increase to solve the food crisis, ministers are to say at a summit.
Rishi Sunak will be joined by ministers from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) as well as farmers and industry leaders at the meeting at No 10 on Tuesday.
The Guardian understands there is a battle between the home secretary, Suella Braverman, and Defra over immigration.
Fruit and vegetables have been rotting in the fields, and some farmers have gone out of business, as there are not enough people willing to pick them.
Farmers and Defra ministers have been lobbying the Home Office to increase the number of temporary visas for agricultural workers, but a senior Defra source said Braverman was “ideologically opposed” to such a move...
The exchange of solicitors' letters is also there.
And then Labour students. Never mind some of the nutters at our uni, it was when we went to wider meetings that it got really ansty. I remember the regional students group being in our faces angry about something which had happened at our student union. The main issue being that some issue they decided was Bad having prompted the first quorate Union meeting in ages. 'How dare you vote on that' was essentially the rant.
At least one of the headbangers ended up on Labour's NEC, and was even more of a headbanger than I remember.
I just cannot see how it works for jobs on production lines, for example, that are limited by cycle times of equipment. You cannot just increase the speed of the machinery. She talks about increased automation. That will end up simply displacing the very workers she is wanting to have extra time off.
I was offered an interview at Land Rover over a decade ago but they made it clear it was 3.30 finish on Friday and if you don't like it don't go for the interview. So I didn't go for the interview.
The In Conversation With ... strand is not booked directly by The Stand. It is produced by independent Glasgow-based producer Fair Pley.
So The Stand had contracted with Fair Pley Ltd to provide a venue for their event.
There is no real comparison with the activities of the Oxford Union - unless it is letting its premises to outsiders to hold events there.
The United Kingdom will start basic training for Ukrainian pilots on different kind of aircrafts in the summer and is working with other countries on a possible shipment of F-16s to Ukraine, the UK government reports.
https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1658020215878213632
https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1658022892125265921
Michael Gove was due to be knighted as part of Boris Johnson’s resignation honours list but the former prime minister removed him after blaming him for blocking his return to No 10 last autumn.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/michael-gove-cut-from-honours-list-for-leadership-betrayal-j8jrkrvpk (£££)
Training pilots is all well and good, but it takes years and costs millions per pilot, from basic training to combat-ready. You will need a steady supply of them, but so much of the work can now be done with relatively inexpensive unmanned aircraft.
But it's also possible that 7 day operation of plant might just as well be facilitated without 5 day working weeks ?
If you've ever been in a hospital over a weekend, you'll know just how much some of the services drop off. True seven day operation of service might be far more efficient that what we have now is dealing with patient demand ?
A five day week isn't necessarily the best way to facilitate that.
There are complicated matters. Obviously an overnight change would be seriously disruptive. But historically, we managed the transition from six to five days weeks well enough.
I know it is meant to be 'temporary', but they still have to live somewhere.
If labour is getting too expensive then some investment is needed.
You'll note how basically every channel creator, podcaster etc. has a very diversified begging bowl plea - patreon, discord community, merch, the like-comment-share-subscribe mantra etc. - then the sponsored reads, the ads, the endorsements etc.
It *is* possible to scratch a living from it, but it's a constant hustle. Over a decade ago I used to write a film review blog with vague thoughts of one day doing more with it. The best thing it actually did was get me a foot in the door professionally in social media marketing in a proper actual job. If I'd gone down some sort of creator route instead, I'd be a husk of a person, stuck watching endless soul-crushing superhero films, hating the subject and myself.
Government doesn't seem to have a clue what that might be.
There’s clearly been a huge bun fight in government and cabinet, pro immigration Rishi versus tough on immigration tough on all causes of immigration Braverman. And now both sides are taking fight outside the walls into public.
One thing you haven’t admitted in all these discussions, if Braverman makes the top 2 against anyone, including Barclay, she wins. You do at least admit that much?
No reason to fit a straight line unless your believe the trend is linear, which seems unlikely here - i.e. if you grow the investment by 3% each year, say, that gives you a non-linear line due to compounding (3 years out from now, your investment is 1.03*1.03*1.03 * today's not today's plus 9%. You do need to be careful about that though, as that's exponential growth, which can lead to some interesting conclusions down the line as we saw during Covid.
This is a crude interrupted time series - you take your interruption (Brexit vote) and see whether there was a change in measured thing at the same time, looks convincing enough. Other approaches include diff-in-diff, where you compare to trends in e.g. other countries that did not Brexit or add controls for other things.
But you also have to think about interpretation. Brexit was a shock, the vote leading to uncertainty (what kind of Brexit?) which lasted years, so you expect growth to stall a bit, even if the final Brexit was a good thing. Then we have Covid, then not enough data to see what is coming next. Brexit good looks like this with stronger growth from 2020-2030; Brexit bad looks like this with weak growth from 2020-2030 (and 'strong' and 'weak' growth need to be compared to other countries, not just pre-Brexit as there will also be other things going on).
ETA: And even all that is irrelevant if you voted Brexit for reasons other than fast entry into sunlit economic uplands, e.g. sovereignty or hatred of the French
There was a BNP event in my constituency when I was an MP, and a big demo denouncing them. I supported the right of both the BNP and the demonstrators to express any legal opinions, although I was obviously closer to the latter.
The "10 Pound Poms" series that started last night was pretty good, I thought, and a useful illustration of what it's like to be a victim of discrimination even if one's white.
Absolute shower.
Some of them hate Liverpool more than they love Everton.
However there are real difficulties in the actual world.
The genuine defence of free speech hits several obstacles.
1) It is for many counter intuitive. Like the law of comparative advantage, the invisible hand or Monty Hall's paradox. Why, many will say, go to great lengths to sustain the platform of racists, holocaust deniers, Soviet fellow travellers etc.
2) The loudest voices and sharpest elbows belong to noisy assertive people for whom it is obvious they are right, and opposition is just a tedious nuisance. Other people's freedoms come way down the list.
3) Power automatically has no interest in scrutiny except on their own terms.
4) Few believe in free speech in an absolute way. (The N word, the glorification of child abuse or the holocaust). So there are always reasons for making your opponents an exception. Since exceptions exist.
The price of liberty remains eternal vigilence.
"One man went to moan, went to moan a meadow.."
The solution is to either invest in automation or not grow things that require cheap labour to make a profit.
I don't think that's entirely down to the government to solve.
What happens when politicians decide that criticising politicians is hate speech?
Racists are stupid and ignorant. But as long as they do not actually advocate violence or damage to others they should be allowed to be stupid and ignorant.
But the big picture is that pragmatic right really struggles against batso right in the current Conservative party. It takes a coronation (Sunak, May, Howard) or despair of ever winning (Cameron) to alter that. Given a chance, the membership goes for a candidate who tickles their fancy, no matter how unsuitable (IDS, Johnson, Truss).
And unless the parliamentary batso right is below one third of the party, they get their candidate on the membership ballot. It might not be clear who that will be, but there will be one.
It's being so cheerful that keeps me going.
I’ve traveled quite widely in Turkey, and quite recently
The plain fact is, Erdogan remains seriously popular with a lot of people, and not just religious conservatives
In his 20 year reign, many Turks have gone from outright poverty to a decent middle class life
Expensive, but the market is starting to fill the gap for foot/cycle passengers. I think that tourism in the inner hebs and smaller islands could adapt and survive on that basis - and actually inject some cash into the islanders running the services.
The problem is getting vehicles across to the Outer hebs.
The people in my various interest areas who seem to do best out of this are the people who would be doing it as much as possible in their spare time even if it didn't make them any money. And then when it becomes unexpectedly successful they're able to devote more time to it.
And some of them become so successful that they can expand to become a company which employs a whole team, who all manage to scratch a living from it.
The difference now is that the process of finding success is no longer mediated by a group of gatekeepers - producers, promoters, casting agents, etc - it's mediated by an algorithm, and whether people want to consume more of what you create.
Ronald Koeman changed the colour of his Christmas tree decorations after Everton fans argued it was too red.
Everton boss Koeman, 53, had tweeted a picture of his Christmas tree on Thursday with the caption: "Almost Christmas time, busy football period."
He was soon met with a barrage of comments due to the majority of the tree containing a distinctly red colour, to which the former Netherlands international later replied with a picture of the same tree featuring far more white with the humorous message, "Better colour?"
The comical exchange ended when the Premier League manager tweeted: "I think there are more serious problems in the world, than making a big story out of a Christmas tree!"
https://www.skysports.com/amp/football/news/11671/10680154/ronald-koeman-changes-colour-of-his-red-christmas-tree-decorations
Abu Hamza didn't directly do any physical damage to his adversaries personally, but his hate speech invited plenty of others to do so.
https://nickhawker.com/2023/05/12/the-fusion-gain-limit/
I find it hard to believe that anyone can have heard of Radio des Milles Collines and still write, with a straight face, "Above all, what those objecting to [insert villain of choice] want is one set of approved opinions, those they agree with. Free speech for me but not for thee. But what this will soon become is free speech for no-one, not even me." The victims of the Rwandan genocide don't have much free speech from the comfort of their mass graves.
In a betting sense, HY should be our SME for the coming Tory leadership election. But is in denial about how her stock is shooting up and how the differences in her platform helps her in leadership election.