Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

How opinion has shifted since GE2019 – politicalbetting.com

135

Comments

  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775

    Farooq said:

    stodge said:

    Listening to some of the language at the National Conservative event, I'm reminded of the dilemma I face on the issue of Freedom of Speech.

    As a "marxist liberal" or should that be "liberal marxist", I shouldn't have too many qualms but unfortunately I do. The notion of free speech, rather like EU membership, has only two credible positions - you're either for it or against it. As with our half-hearted rebate-obsessed membership of the EU, Freedom of Speech either means you're completely opposed and have no problem shutting down opinions with which you disagree or you're completely in favour which means accepting the right to offend and be offended.

    The Right to Offend is one of those tricky ones - we can all promise to be nice to each other but in the real world as soon as you bring in legislation or control to restrict anyone's right to freedom of speech, you're compromising that freedom for everyone.

    I don't like hate speech, I don't like speech which sets out deliberately to offend or provoke or incite or divide but I'm forced to accept these are aspects of the human condition and whether I like them or not, they exist and always will exist. I'm also reminded jaw-jaw is better than war-war and allowing the right to vent verbally is preferable to the wrong of acting physically.

    It's not comfortable but I suspect it's not meant to be - challenging those who wish to spread division and hate isn't easy because rational argument rarely works. They can be ignored - perhaps the first line of defence - and be left to shout into the darkness. That doesn't mean rational counter-argument can't and shouldn't be tried but in the expectation it won't have an impact.

    I think the Nat Con example is a very good one as to why we need to defend freedom of speech even when we don't like what is being said.

    Some of the things they are saying are pretty awful and I have no time for them at all.

    But some of the things they are saying are not awful. Even if I still disagree with them. Talking about the ills of globalisation is not, as the Guardian today would have us believe, code for anti-semitism. It is code for gloabalisation is, in their opinion, crap. And I am inclined on some levels to agree with that.

    But if some of the critics had their way then their definition - that it is all about anti-semitism - is the one that would apply and there are plenty out there who would ban them on that basis.

    That would be a very dangerous position for us to find ourselves in. We do see too many cases from both sides these days where people are wilfully misinterpreting their opponents a means of daemonising them and the only thing that stops this being a complete disaster is that the more sane voices on both sides are still willing to stand up and fight for freedom of speech.
    Note the distinction between "globalisation", and "globalist". "Globalisation" is something you often hear about from the left, and it's primarily a criticism of capitalism operating above the reach of national governments.
    "Globalist" is often used in a different context, and often nothing to do with criticising capitalism. Indeed, it's often used to attack the left. And, I'm afraid to say, it is also often used in conjunction with anti-Semitic tropes.

    Using the term "globalist" doesn't make someone an anti-Semite, but it merits watching out for other things they say in the same context. It's usually clear within a few sentences whether they dog-whistling racists or leftists. Or both.
    Sorry but that is dancing on the head of a pin. It is taking a small subsection of a spectrum of views and using them to tar the whole lot. It is lazy and pernicious.

    Nor is it only racists or lefties who are anti-globalisation and anti-globalists. I pretty much detest the left but I believe globalisation has been very bad on the whole for a large part of the world's population (just as it has been good for some of them). You are trying to pigeon hole people to suit your own ideology.

    I honestly don't see how, logically, you can be against globalisation and not either be a leftist or a racist. Perhaps you can help me understand where my thinking is wrong. Here's my case:

    Globalisation as a phenomenon in transport and communications is just a fact of life. That's probably not what people are complaining about in almost all cases. What they don't like is the way that international businesses operate in ways that evade national control.
    And to be sure, there are detriments to globalisation, like any kind of progress, but as a counterweight to scarcity (in commodities, products, jobs, markets for products, etc.) it was had hugely positive impacts. Globalisation insures against local fluctuations.

    People who want to exert coercive control of global trade are, in my experience, motivated by distaste for capitalism or distaste for the foreigners getting "our" stuff (our jobs, our raw materials, access to our services when they move here, etc). I think the latter belief carries with it an implicit rejection of my "globalisation is good for all parties" belief, so I guess that's the third way: leftist, racist, or mistaken about the benefits. So yeah, I've just convinced myself there's a third option, but I don't like any of them.

    And none of this is so definitive so I'll gladly take correction if you think I'm mistaken here.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,308
    Scott_xP said:

    Leon said:

    I sympathise with working class westerners and they are entitled to vote for Trump or Le Pen but they don’t get to create their own reality.

    *cough*BREXIT*cough*
    The piquant reality is that Brexit is, probably, for the first time, about to deliver serious potential benefits. The EU is desperate to prove its relevance and potency and the only way it can do this is by regulation. “We are a regulatory superpower” blah blah

    So the EU is now wheeling out laws regulating crypto and AI and all kinds of tech which might easily extinguish innovation in these areas in the EU. That will leave the UK very nicely placed as a large English speaking economy next to Europe unencumbered by these laws

    Of course it’s quite possible kir fuxking royale starmer will screw this up as our future dull witted Remoaner prime minister nonetheless the opportunity is now there
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Farooq said:

    Scott_xP said:

    dixiedean said:

    Get the feeling Boris' mass expulsions (lauded by some as a masterstroke) will be looked back on as a most grievous error.
    There's simply no senior Tory figure left with views close to the median elector, for the Party to coalesce around.

    Kicking out Churchill's grandson was a genius move...
    What an unexpected endorsement of the hereditary principle.
    Soames was an MP at the time, elected by the people.
    Yes, but the framing of the post was specifically about kicking out Churchill's grandson, as though that was particularly wrong as compared to kicking out others. That is, for some reason his being Churchill's grandson was relevant.

    That was not uncommon at the time either.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,038
    What's the point in being teenager if you can't have a quick fag behind the bike side, sneak your first pint with fake ID, and indelicately fondle Ceilia's breasts for the first time in a skate park late on Friday night?

    Not everything is about phones.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 3,871

    Leon said:

    CatMan said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Leon said:

    Bonus points for guessing what this is


    It's a display case
    What’s in it?

    There are actually enough clues in the picture (and my location: Alexandria) - for a smart person to guess what I am looking at
    All that remains of the Pharos?
    Decent guess. But no

    Clue: these are bones
    The skeleton of Bucephalus, horse of Alexander the Great?
    Oooh. Really close
    It better not be bloody AI again!
    It’s bones! But what?
    St Mark
    The remains of Nicholas Soames’ last supper?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    stodge said:

    Listening to some of the language at the National Conservative event, I'm reminded of the dilemma I face on the issue of Freedom of Speech.

    As a "marxist liberal" or should that be "liberal marxist", I shouldn't have too many qualms but unfortunately I do. The notion of free speech, rather like EU membership, has only two credible positions - you're either for it or against it. As with our half-hearted rebate-obsessed membership of the EU, Freedom of Speech either means you're completely opposed and have no problem shutting down opinions with which you disagree or you're completely in favour which means accepting the right to offend and be offended.

    The Right to Offend is one of those tricky ones - we can all promise to be nice to each other but in the real world as soon as you bring in legislation or control to restrict anyone's right to freedom of speech, you're compromising that freedom for everyone.

    I don't like hate speech, I don't like speech which sets out deliberately to offend or provoke or incite or divide but I'm forced to accept these are aspects of the human condition and whether I like them or not, they exist and always will exist. I'm also reminded jaw-jaw is better than war-war and allowing the right to vent verbally is preferable to the wrong of acting physically.

    It's not comfortable but I suspect it's not meant to be - challenging those who wish to spread division and hate isn't easy because rational argument rarely works. They can be ignored - perhaps the first line of defence - and be left to shout into the darkness. That doesn't mean rational counter-argument can't and shouldn't be tried but in the expectation it won't have an impact.

    I think the Nat Con example is a very good one as to why we need to defend freedom of speech even when we don't like what is being said.

    Some of the things they are saying are pretty awful and I have no time for them at all.

    But some of the things they are saying are not awful. Even if I still disagree with them. Talking about the ills of globalisation is not, as the Guardian today would have us believe, code for anti-semitism. It is code for gloabalisation is, in their opinion, crap. And I am inclined on some levels to agree with that.

    But if some of the critics had their way then their definition - that it is all about anti-semitism - is the one that would apply and there are plenty out there who would ban them on that basis.

    That would be a very dangerous position for us to find ourselves in. We do see too many cases from both sides these days where people are wilfully misinterpreting their opponents a means of daemonising them and the only thing that stops this being a complete disaster is that the more sane voices on both sides are still willing to stand up and fight for freedom of speech.
    Note the distinction between "globalisation", and "globalist". "Globalisation" is something you often hear about from the left, and it's primarily a criticism of capitalism operating above the reach of national governments.
    "Globalist" is often used in a different context, and often nothing to do with criticising capitalism. Indeed, it's often used to attack the left. And, I'm afraid to say, it is also often used in conjunction with anti-Semitic tropes.

    Using the term "globalist" doesn't make someone an anti-Semite, but it merits watching out for other things they say in the same context. It's usually clear within a few sentences whether they dog-whistling racists or leftists. Or both.
    Sorry but that is dancing on the head of a pin. It is taking a small subsection of a spectrum of views and using them to tar the whole lot. It is lazy and pernicious.

    Nor is it only racists or lefties who are anti-globalisation and anti-globalists. I pretty much detest the left but I believe globalisation has been very bad on the whole for a large part of the world's population (just as it has been good for some of them). You are trying to pigeon hole people to suit your own ideology.

    I whole heartedly agree with you on free speech but I completely disagree with you on globalisation. For the vast majority of humanity the last 30 years have been brilliant. 2 billion people have been lifted out of poverty into a reasonable lifestyle. Maybe more

    It’s been RELATIVELY shit for less educated people in the West who were used to coasting along on the accrued advantage of 300 years of western supremacy. Now they have to compete with that newly ambitious Egyptian lady I met tonight

    I sympathise with working class westerners and they are entitled to vote for Trump or Le Pen but they don’t get to create their own reality. Globalisation has generally been good for Homo sapiens
    It's been a great time to be alive, for the average person. Not that we are likely to feel grateful when something shitty happens, when asked to compare ourselves to a 12th century Sundanese farmer or something.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,590
    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    stodge said:

    Listening to some of the language at the National Conservative event, I'm reminded of the dilemma I face on the issue of Freedom of Speech.

    As a "marxist liberal" or should that be "liberal marxist", I shouldn't have too many qualms but unfortunately I do. The notion of free speech, rather like EU membership, has only two credible positions - you're either for it or against it. As with our half-hearted rebate-obsessed membership of the EU, Freedom of Speech either means you're completely opposed and have no problem shutting down opinions with which you disagree or you're completely in favour which means accepting the right to offend and be offended.

    The Right to Offend is one of those tricky ones - we can all promise to be nice to each other but in the real world as soon as you bring in legislation or control to restrict anyone's right to freedom of speech, you're compromising that freedom for everyone.

    I don't like hate speech, I don't like speech which sets out deliberately to offend or provoke or incite or divide but I'm forced to accept these are aspects of the human condition and whether I like them or not, they exist and always will exist. I'm also reminded jaw-jaw is better than war-war and allowing the right to vent verbally is preferable to the wrong of acting physically.

    It's not comfortable but I suspect it's not meant to be - challenging those who wish to spread division and hate isn't easy because rational argument rarely works. They can be ignored - perhaps the first line of defence - and be left to shout into the darkness. That doesn't mean rational counter-argument can't and shouldn't be tried but in the expectation it won't have an impact.

    I think the Nat Con example is a very good one as to why we need to defend freedom of speech even when we don't like what is being said.

    Some of the things they are saying are pretty awful and I have no time for them at all.

    But some of the things they are saying are not awful. Even if I still disagree with them. Talking about the ills of globalisation is not, as the Guardian today would have us believe, code for anti-semitism. It is code for gloabalisation is, in their opinion, crap. And I am inclined on some levels to agree with that.

    But if some of the critics had their way then their definition - that it is all about anti-semitism - is the one that would apply and there are plenty out there who would ban them on that basis.

    That would be a very dangerous position for us to find ourselves in. We do see too many cases from both sides these days where people are wilfully misinterpreting their opponents a means of daemonising them and the only thing that stops this being a complete disaster is that the more sane voices on both sides are still willing to stand up and fight for freedom of speech.
    Note the distinction between "globalisation", and "globalist". "Globalisation" is something you often hear about from the left, and it's primarily a criticism of capitalism operating above the reach of national governments.
    "Globalist" is often used in a different context, and often nothing to do with criticising capitalism. Indeed, it's often used to attack the left. And, I'm afraid to say, it is also often used in conjunction with anti-Semitic tropes.

    Using the term "globalist" doesn't make someone an anti-Semite, but it merits watching out for other things they say in the same context. It's usually clear within a few sentences whether they dog-whistling racists or leftists. Or both.
    Sorry but that is dancing on the head of a pin. It is taking a small subsection of a spectrum of views and using them to tar the whole lot. It is lazy and pernicious.

    Nor is it only racists or lefties who are anti-globalisation and anti-globalists. I pretty much detest the left but I believe globalisation has been very bad on the whole for a large part of the world's population (just as it has been good for some of them). You are trying to pigeon hole people to suit your own ideology.

    I whole heartedly agree with you on free speech but I completely disagree with you on globalisation. For the vast majority of humanity the last 30 years have been brilliant. 2 billion people have been lifted out of poverty into a reasonable lifestyle. Maybe more

    It’s been RELATIVELY shit for less educated people in the West who were used to coasting along on the accrued advantage of 300 years of western supremacy. Now they have to compete with that newly ambitious Egyptian lady I met tonight

    I sympathise with working class westerners and they are entitled to vote for Trump or Le Pen but they don’t get to create their own reality. Globalisation has generally been good for Homo sapiens
    I fucking hate saying this, but this is absolutely spot on.
    Why would you hate agreeing with Leon ? He's a long way from being a complete fool. Sometimes.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    stodge said:

    Listening to some of the language at the National Conservative event, I'm reminded of the dilemma I face on the issue of Freedom of Speech.

    As a "marxist liberal" or should that be "liberal marxist", I shouldn't have too many qualms but unfortunately I do. The notion of free speech, rather like EU membership, has only two credible positions - you're either for it or against it. As with our half-hearted rebate-obsessed membership of the EU, Freedom of Speech either means you're completely opposed and have no problem shutting down opinions with which you disagree or you're completely in favour which means accepting the right to offend and be offended.

    The Right to Offend is one of those tricky ones - we can all promise to be nice to each other but in the real world as soon as you bring in legislation or control to restrict anyone's right to freedom of speech, you're compromising that freedom for everyone.

    I don't like hate speech, I don't like speech which sets out deliberately to offend or provoke or incite or divide but I'm forced to accept these are aspects of the human condition and whether I like them or not, they exist and always will exist. I'm also reminded jaw-jaw is better than war-war and allowing the right to vent verbally is preferable to the wrong of acting physically.

    It's not comfortable but I suspect it's not meant to be - challenging those who wish to spread division and hate isn't easy because rational argument rarely works. They can be ignored - perhaps the first line of defence - and be left to shout into the darkness. That doesn't mean rational counter-argument can't and shouldn't be tried but in the expectation it won't have an impact.

    I think the Nat Con example is a very good one as to why we need to defend freedom of speech even when we don't like what is being said.

    Some of the things they are saying are pretty awful and I have no time for them at all.

    But some of the things they are saying are not awful. Even if I still disagree with them. Talking about the ills of globalisation is not, as the Guardian today would have us believe, code for anti-semitism. It is code for gloabalisation is, in their opinion, crap. And I am inclined on some levels to agree with that.

    But if some of the critics had their way then their definition - that it is all about anti-semitism - is the one that would apply and there are plenty out there who would ban them on that basis.

    That would be a very dangerous position for us to find ourselves in. We do see too many cases from both sides these days where people are wilfully misinterpreting their opponents a means of daemonising them and the only thing that stops this being a complete disaster is that the more sane voices on both sides are still willing to stand up and fight for freedom of speech.
    Note the distinction between "globalisation", and "globalist". "Globalisation" is something you often hear about from the left, and it's primarily a criticism of capitalism operating above the reach of national governments.
    "Globalist" is often used in a different context, and often nothing to do with criticising capitalism. Indeed, it's often used to attack the left. And, I'm afraid to say, it is also often used in conjunction with anti-Semitic tropes.

    Using the term "globalist" doesn't make someone an anti-Semite, but it merits watching out for other things they say in the same context. It's usually clear within a few sentences whether they dog-whistling racists or leftists. Or both.
    Sorry but that is dancing on the head of a pin. It is taking a small subsection of a spectrum of views and using them to tar the whole lot. It is lazy and pernicious.

    Nor is it only racists or lefties who are anti-globalisation and anti-globalists. I pretty much detest the left but I believe globalisation has been very bad on the whole for a large part of the world's population (just as it has been good for some of them). You are trying to pigeon hole people to suit your own ideology.

    I whole heartedly agree with you on free speech but I completely disagree with you on globalisation. For the vast majority of humanity the last 30 years have been brilliant. 2 billion people have been lifted out of poverty into a reasonable lifestyle. Maybe more

    It’s been RELATIVELY shit for less educated people in the West who were used to coasting along on the accrued advantage of 300 years of western supremacy. Now they have to compete with that newly ambitious Egyptian lady I met tonight

    I sympathise with working class westerners and they are entitled to vote for Trump or Le Pen but they don’t get to create their own reality. Globalisation has generally been good for Homo sapiens
    I fucking hate saying this, but this is absolutely spot on.
    Why would you hate agreeing with Leon ? He's a long way from being a complete fool. Sometimes.
    Sure, but letting him know that might backfire!
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    stodge said:

    Listening to some of the language at the National Conservative event, I'm reminded of the dilemma I face on the issue of Freedom of Speech.

    As a "marxist liberal" or should that be "liberal marxist", I shouldn't have too many qualms but unfortunately I do. The notion of free speech, rather like EU membership, has only two credible positions - you're either for it or against it. As with our half-hearted rebate-obsessed membership of the EU, Freedom of Speech either means you're completely opposed and have no problem shutting down opinions with which you disagree or you're completely in favour which means accepting the right to offend and be offended.

    The Right to Offend is one of those tricky ones - we can all promise to be nice to each other but in the real world as soon as you bring in legislation or control to restrict anyone's right to freedom of speech, you're compromising that freedom for everyone.

    I don't like hate speech, I don't like speech which sets out deliberately to offend or provoke or incite or divide but I'm forced to accept these are aspects of the human condition and whether I like them or not, they exist and always will exist. I'm also reminded jaw-jaw is better than war-war and allowing the right to vent verbally is preferable to the wrong of acting physically.

    It's not comfortable but I suspect it's not meant to be - challenging those who wish to spread division and hate isn't easy because rational argument rarely works. They can be ignored - perhaps the first line of defence - and be left to shout into the darkness. That doesn't mean rational counter-argument can't and shouldn't be tried but in the expectation it won't have an impact.

    I think the Nat Con example is a very good one as to why we need to defend freedom of speech even when we don't like what is being said.

    Some of the things they are saying are pretty awful and I have no time for them at all.

    But some of the things they are saying are not awful. Even if I still disagree with them. Talking about the ills of globalisation is not, as the Guardian today would have us believe, code for anti-semitism. It is code for gloabalisation is, in their opinion, crap. And I am inclined on some levels to agree with that.

    But if some of the critics had their way then their definition - that it is all about anti-semitism - is the one that would apply and there are plenty out there who would ban them on that basis.

    That would be a very dangerous position for us to find ourselves in. We do see too many cases from both sides these days where people are wilfully misinterpreting their opponents a means of daemonising them and the only thing that stops this being a complete disaster is that the more sane voices on both sides are still willing to stand up and fight for freedom of speech.
    Note the distinction between "globalisation", and "globalist". "Globalisation" is something you often hear about from the left, and it's primarily a criticism of capitalism operating above the reach of national governments.
    "Globalist" is often used in a different context, and often nothing to do with criticising capitalism. Indeed, it's often used to attack the left. And, I'm afraid to say, it is also often used in conjunction with anti-Semitic tropes.

    Using the term "globalist" doesn't make someone an anti-Semite, but it merits watching out for other things they say in the same context. It's usually clear within a few sentences whether they dog-whistling racists or leftists. Or both.
    Sorry but that is dancing on the head of a pin. It is taking a small subsection of a spectrum of views and using them to tar the whole lot. It is lazy and pernicious.

    Nor is it only racists or lefties who are anti-globalisation and anti-globalists. I pretty much detest the left but I believe globalisation has been very bad on the whole for a large part of the world's population (just as it has been good for some of them). You are trying to pigeon hole people to suit your own ideology.

    I whole heartedly agree with you on free speech but I completely disagree with you on globalisation. For the vast majority of humanity the last 30 years have been brilliant. 2 billion people have been lifted out of poverty into a reasonable lifestyle. Maybe more

    It’s been RELATIVELY shit for less educated people in the West who were used to coasting along on the accrued advantage of 300 years of western supremacy. Now they have to compete with that newly ambitious Egyptian lady I met tonight

    I sympathise with working class westerners and they are entitled to vote for Trump or Le Pen but they don’t get to create their own reality. Globalisation has generally been good for Homo sapiens
    It took me a lot longer to type out what Leon hammered out in seconds here, but yeah, largely this.

    I do not agree it's been in any way shit for less educated people in the West, though. Yes, there have been detriments alongside the benefits. But the amount of cheap stuff, and the jobs that have been made here by us being an open, trading economy have raised the livelihoods of even the worst off. I'd rather be at the bottom of the heap in 2023 than at the bottom of the heap in 1823.

    We've got enough problems without kicking away the ladder we're standing on. Globalisation and capitalism are good.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,093

    What's the point in being teenager if you can't have a quick fag behind the bike side, sneak your first pint with fake ID, and indelicately fondle Ceilia's breasts for the first time in a skate park late on Friday night?

    Not everything is about phones.

    U ok hun?
  • CorrectHorseBatCorrectHorseBat Posts: 1,761

    What's the point in being teenager if you can't have a quick fag behind the bike side, sneak your first pint with fake ID, and indelicately fondle Ceilia's breasts for the first time in a skate park late on Friday night?

    Not everything is about phones.

    U ok hun?
    If I posted that the user in question would be calling me a saddo with a poor sense of humour.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846
    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    stodge said:

    Listening to some of the language at the National Conservative event, I'm reminded of the dilemma I face on the issue of Freedom of Speech.

    As a "marxist liberal" or should that be "liberal marxist", I shouldn't have too many qualms but unfortunately I do. The notion of free speech, rather like EU membership, has only two credible positions - you're either for it or against it. As with our half-hearted rebate-obsessed membership of the EU, Freedom of Speech either means you're completely opposed and have no problem shutting down opinions with which you disagree or you're completely in favour which means accepting the right to offend and be offended.

    The Right to Offend is one of those tricky ones - we can all promise to be nice to each other but in the real world as soon as you bring in legislation or control to restrict anyone's right to freedom of speech, you're compromising that freedom for everyone.

    I don't like hate speech, I don't like speech which sets out deliberately to offend or provoke or incite or divide but I'm forced to accept these are aspects of the human condition and whether I like them or not, they exist and always will exist. I'm also reminded jaw-jaw is better than war-war and allowing the right to vent verbally is preferable to the wrong of acting physically.

    It's not comfortable but I suspect it's not meant to be - challenging those who wish to spread division and hate isn't easy because rational argument rarely works. They can be ignored - perhaps the first line of defence - and be left to shout into the darkness. That doesn't mean rational counter-argument can't and shouldn't be tried but in the expectation it won't have an impact.

    I think the Nat Con example is a very good one as to why we need to defend freedom of speech even when we don't like what is being said.

    Some of the things they are saying are pretty awful and I have no time for them at all.

    But some of the things they are saying are not awful. Even if I still disagree with them. Talking about the ills of globalisation is not, as the Guardian today would have us believe, code for anti-semitism. It is code for gloabalisation is, in their opinion, crap. And I am inclined on some levels to agree with that.

    But if some of the critics had their way then their definition - that it is all about anti-semitism - is the one that would apply and there are plenty out there who would ban them on that basis.

    That would be a very dangerous position for us to find ourselves in. We do see too many cases from both sides these days where people are wilfully misinterpreting their opponents a means of daemonising them and the only thing that stops this being a complete disaster is that the more sane voices on both sides are still willing to stand up and fight for freedom of speech.
    Note the distinction between "globalisation", and "globalist". "Globalisation" is something you often hear about from the left, and it's primarily a criticism of capitalism operating above the reach of national governments.
    "Globalist" is often used in a different context, and often nothing to do with criticising capitalism. Indeed, it's often used to attack the left. And, I'm afraid to say, it is also often used in conjunction with anti-Semitic tropes.

    Using the term "globalist" doesn't make someone an anti-Semite, but it merits watching out for other things they say in the same context. It's usually clear within a few sentences whether they dog-whistling racists or leftists. Or both.
    Sorry but that is dancing on the head of a pin. It is taking a small subsection of a spectrum of views and using them to tar the whole lot. It is lazy and pernicious.

    Nor is it only racists or lefties who are anti-globalisation and anti-globalists. I pretty much detest the left but I believe globalisation has been very bad on the whole for a large part of the world's population (just as it has been good for some of them). You are trying to pigeon hole people to suit your own ideology.

    I whole heartedly agree with you on free speech but I completely disagree with you on globalisation. For the vast majority of humanity the last 30 years have been brilliant. 2 billion people have been lifted out of poverty into a reasonable lifestyle. Maybe more

    It’s been RELATIVELY shit for less educated people in the West who were used to coasting along on the accrued advantage of 300 years of western supremacy. Now they have to compete with that newly ambitious Egyptian lady I met tonight

    I sympathise with working class westerners and they are entitled to vote for Trump or Le Pen but they don’t get to create their own reality. Globalisation has generally been good for Homo sapiens
    I agree the world has got better over the last 50 years or more but I would dispute that globalisation has necessarily been the cause. Trade has been good and has helped hugely along with technological and medical advances but globalisation has brought massive environmental degradation and a huge surge in what can only really be described as modern slavery. It has resulted in the concentration of wealth on a scale never seen before in human history and has created a supranational class who have done their best to circumvent national laws for their own ends.

    The world has undoubtedly got better but globalisation in the unfettered form we have it now has not been responsible and has not, on balance, been a force for good.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,842
    edited May 2023

    Returning to my hypothesis of this morning that on immigration what we're seeing is:

    1) Reduced European immigration to Leave voting areas.
    2) Increased non-European immigration to Remain voting areas

    Isn't that what both sides wanted ?

    If so then why isn't everyone happy ?

    Significant, and I mean genuinely significant, increase in the number of black people you see out and about in Knottingley, in Yvette Cooper’s ward, 68% leave IIRC. We’re where the A1 and M62 cross. Lots of warehousing and industry, 24 hour shift patterns.

    When I lived in the Midlands 20 years ago and did similar work we had lots of Kurds, Iraqis, etc, but up here there were very, very few non-whites. Plenty of Eastern Europeans mind but unless you spoke to them you assumed they were native.

    Very different now. Doesn’t bother me, but I do wonder what some of our more enthusiastic Brexiters think about it deep down. I suspect it isn’t quite what they expected.

    Rub their racist noses in diversity as far as I’m concerned. But I bet they didn’t think when they voted to kick all the Europeans out they’d find themselves with black people moving here instead.

    I’ve been, unfortunately, spending a lot of time at Pinderfields hospital in Wakefield recently. Lots and lots of African staff, again noticeably more than pre-Brexit. Backs up what my sister, a nurse, told me, that they’re recruiting from Africa to fill vacancies. She has no problem with black staff per se but she did say that their English generally isn’t as good as the EU workers we used to have, which causes problems.

    My mum, sadly shifting ever rightward as she ages, mutters about ‘them’ not speaking English properly when I’ve been taking her to visit her poorly husband.

    So, yeah, in this bit of the leave-voting Red Wall there’s definitely reduced European immigration. But it’s been replaced to a certain extent by non-white, African immigration. Make of that what you will.
    Very noticeable in the northeast too.
    Over the past year the number of Africans being picked up in minibuses, and riding the regular buses in the very early mornings for work has risen exponentially*. From almost none in this town.

    *Pedants may well note that it's relatively easy to rise exponentially from almost none...
    But you get my colloquial, anecdotal drift.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,093

    What's the point in being teenager if you can't have a quick fag behind the bike side, sneak your first pint with fake ID, and indelicately fondle Ceilia's breasts for the first time in a skate park late on Friday night?

    Not everything is about phones.

    U ok hun?
    If I posted that the user in question would be calling me a saddo with a poor sense of humour.
    Whereas I get told that I'm a saddo with a poor sense of humour on a regular basis anyway.

    The joys of teaching...
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,780
    Pagan2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    stodge said:

    Listening to some of the language at the National Conservative event, I'm reminded of the dilemma I face on the issue of Freedom of Speech.

    As a "marxist liberal" or should that be "liberal marxist", I shouldn't have too many qualms but unfortunately I do. The notion of free speech, rather like EU membership, has only two credible positions - you're either for it or against it. As with our half-hearted rebate-obsessed membership of the EU, Freedom of Speech either means you're completely opposed and have no problem shutting down opinions with which you disagree or you're completely in favour which means accepting the right to offend and be offended.

    The Right to Offend is one of those tricky ones - we can all promise to be nice to each other but in the real world as soon as you bring in legislation or control to restrict anyone's right to freedom of speech, you're compromising that freedom for everyone.

    I don't like hate speech, I don't like speech which sets out deliberately to offend or provoke or incite or divide but I'm forced to accept these are aspects of the human condition and whether I like them or not, they exist and always will exist. I'm also reminded jaw-jaw is better than war-war and allowing the right to vent verbally is preferable to the wrong of acting physically.

    It's not comfortable but I suspect it's not meant to be - challenging those who wish to spread division and hate isn't easy because rational argument rarely works. They can be ignored - perhaps the first line of defence - and be left to shout into the darkness. That doesn't mean rational counter-argument can't and shouldn't be tried but in the expectation it won't have an impact.

    I think the Nat Con example is a very good one as to why we need to defend freedom of speech even when we don't like what is being said.

    Some of the things they are saying are pretty awful and I have no time for them at all.

    But some of the things they are saying are not awful. Even if I still disagree with them. Talking about the ills of globalisation is not, as the Guardian today would have us believe, code for anti-semitism. It is code for gloabalisation is, in their opinion, crap. And I am inclined on some levels to agree with that.

    But if some of the critics had their way then their definition - that it is all about anti-semitism - is the one that would apply and there are plenty out there who would ban them on that basis.

    That would be a very dangerous position for us to find ourselves in. We do see too many cases from both sides these days where people are wilfully misinterpreting their opponents a means of daemonising them and the only thing that stops this being a complete disaster is that the more sane voices on both sides are still willing to stand up and fight for freedom of speech.
    Note the distinction between "globalisation", and "globalist". "Globalisation" is something you often hear about from the left, and it's primarily a criticism of capitalism operating above the reach of national governments.
    "Globalist" is often used in a different context, and often nothing to do with criticising capitalism. Indeed, it's often used to attack the left. And, I'm afraid to say, it is also often used in conjunction with anti-Semitic tropes.

    Using the term "globalist" doesn't make someone an anti-Semite, but it merits watching out for other things they say in the same context. It's usually clear within a few sentences whether they dog-whistling racists or leftists. Or both.
    Sorry but that is dancing on the head of a pin. It is taking a small subsection of a spectrum of views and using them to tar the whole lot. It is lazy and pernicious.

    Nor is it only racists or lefties who are anti-globalisation and anti-globalists. I pretty much detest the left but I believe globalisation has been very bad on the whole for a large part of the world's population (just as it has been good for some of them). You are trying to pigeon hole people to suit your own ideology.

    I whole heartedly agree with you on free speech but I completely disagree with you on globalisation. For the vast majority of humanity the last 30 years have been brilliant. 2 billion people have been lifted out of poverty into a reasonable lifestyle. Maybe more

    It’s been RELATIVELY shit for less educated people in the West who were used to coasting along on the accrued advantage of 300 years of western supremacy. Now they have to compete with that newly ambitious Egyptian lady I met tonight

    I sympathise with working class westerners and they are entitled to vote for Trump or Le Pen but they don’t get to create their own reality. Globalisation has generally been good for Homo sapiens
    I fucking hate saying this, but this is absolutely spot on.
    While it is true and don't disagree on the thrust of it, there is a point neglected in this. Western governements all embraced globalisation but they were elected not to look after the world but to look after the country that elected them. Globalisation helped the poor of the world but often harmed the bottom half of their countries....the people that voted for them and expected to be considered in their decisions.
    Well, the problem is that not embracing globalisation doesn't obviously work either.

    Natural resources were cheap, for example, because it was only those in the Wealthy West who consumed them. The rise of China has meant it's not just us buying Nigerian oil. And that means that we're going to be relatively poorer, whether we embrace globalisation or fight it.

  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,308
    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    stodge said:

    Listening to some of the language at the National Conservative event, I'm reminded of the dilemma I face on the issue of Freedom of Speech.

    As a "marxist liberal" or should that be "liberal marxist", I shouldn't have too many qualms but unfortunately I do. The notion of free speech, rather like EU membership, has only two credible positions - you're either for it or against it. As with our half-hearted rebate-obsessed membership of the EU, Freedom of Speech either means you're completely opposed and have no problem shutting down opinions with which you disagree or you're completely in favour which means accepting the right to offend and be offended.

    The Right to Offend is one of those tricky ones - we can all promise to be nice to each other but in the real world as soon as you bring in legislation or control to restrict anyone's right to freedom of speech, you're compromising that freedom for everyone.

    I don't like hate speech, I don't like speech which sets out deliberately to offend or provoke or incite or divide but I'm forced to accept these are aspects of the human condition and whether I like them or not, they exist and always will exist. I'm also reminded jaw-jaw is better than war-war and allowing the right to vent verbally is preferable to the wrong of acting physically.

    It's not comfortable but I suspect it's not meant to be - challenging those who wish to spread division and hate isn't easy because rational argument rarely works. They can be ignored - perhaps the first line of defence - and be left to shout into the darkness. That doesn't mean rational counter-argument can't and shouldn't be tried but in the expectation it won't have an impact.

    I think the Nat Con example is a very good one as to why we need to defend freedom of speech even when we don't like what is being said.

    Some of the things they are saying are pretty awful and I have no time for them at all.

    But some of the things they are saying are not awful. Even if I still disagree with them. Talking about the ills of globalisation is not, as the Guardian today would have us believe, code for anti-semitism. It is code for gloabalisation is, in their opinion, crap. And I am inclined on some levels to agree with that.

    But if some of the critics had their way then their definition - that it is all about anti-semitism - is the one that would apply and there are plenty out there who would ban them on that basis.

    That would be a very dangerous position for us to find ourselves in. We do see too many cases from both sides these days where people are wilfully misinterpreting their opponents a means of daemonising them and the only thing that stops this being a complete disaster is that the more sane voices on both sides are still willing to stand up and fight for freedom of speech.
    Note the distinction between "globalisation", and "globalist". "Globalisation" is something you often hear about from the left, and it's primarily a criticism of capitalism operating above the reach of national governments.
    "Globalist" is often used in a different context, and often nothing to do with criticising capitalism. Indeed, it's often used to attack the left. And, I'm afraid to say, it is also often used in conjunction with anti-Semitic tropes.

    Using the term "globalist" doesn't make someone an anti-Semite, but it merits watching out for other things they say in the same context. It's usually clear within a few sentences whether they dog-whistling racists or leftists. Or both.
    Sorry but that is dancing on the head of a pin. It is taking a small subsection of a spectrum of views and using them to tar the whole lot. It is lazy and pernicious.

    Nor is it only racists or lefties who are anti-globalisation and anti-globalists. I pretty much detest the left but I believe globalisation has been very bad on the whole for a large part of the world's population (just as it has been good for some of them). You are trying to pigeon hole people to suit your own ideology.

    I whole heartedly agree with you on free speech but I completely disagree with you on globalisation. For the vast majority of humanity the last 30 years have been brilliant. 2 billion people have been lifted out of poverty into a reasonable lifestyle. Maybe more

    It’s been RELATIVELY shit for less educated people in the West who were used to coasting along on the accrued advantage of 300 years of western supremacy. Now they have to compete with that newly ambitious Egyptian lady I met tonight

    I sympathise with working class westerners and they are entitled to vote for Trump or Le Pen but they don’t get to create their own reality. Globalisation has generally been good for Homo sapiens
    It's been a great time to be alive, for the average person. Not that we are likely to feel grateful when something shitty happens, when asked to compare ourselves to a 12th century Sundanese farmer or something.
    For many people in Chicago, Glasgow, and Lille the last 3 decades have been rubbish and show few signs of improving

    In Shanghai, Bangkok and Jakarta they’ve been fairly amazing. And the latter 3 cities all have populations over 10m
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846
    Farooq said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    stodge said:

    Listening to some of the language at the National Conservative event, I'm reminded of the dilemma I face on the issue of Freedom of Speech.

    As a "marxist liberal" or should that be "liberal marxist", I shouldn't have too many qualms but unfortunately I do. The notion of free speech, rather like EU membership, has only two credible positions - you're either for it or against it. As with our half-hearted rebate-obsessed membership of the EU, Freedom of Speech either means you're completely opposed and have no problem shutting down opinions with which you disagree or you're completely in favour which means accepting the right to offend and be offended.

    The Right to Offend is one of those tricky ones - we can all promise to be nice to each other but in the real world as soon as you bring in legislation or control to restrict anyone's right to freedom of speech, you're compromising that freedom for everyone.

    I don't like hate speech, I don't like speech which sets out deliberately to offend or provoke or incite or divide but I'm forced to accept these are aspects of the human condition and whether I like them or not, they exist and always will exist. I'm also reminded jaw-jaw is better than war-war and allowing the right to vent verbally is preferable to the wrong of acting physically.

    It's not comfortable but I suspect it's not meant to be - challenging those who wish to spread division and hate isn't easy because rational argument rarely works. They can be ignored - perhaps the first line of defence - and be left to shout into the darkness. That doesn't mean rational counter-argument can't and shouldn't be tried but in the expectation it won't have an impact.

    I think the Nat Con example is a very good one as to why we need to defend freedom of speech even when we don't like what is being said.

    Some of the things they are saying are pretty awful and I have no time for them at all.

    But some of the things they are saying are not awful. Even if I still disagree with them. Talking about the ills of globalisation is not, as the Guardian today would have us believe, code for anti-semitism. It is code for gloabalisation is, in their opinion, crap. And I am inclined on some levels to agree with that.

    But if some of the critics had their way then their definition - that it is all about anti-semitism - is the one that would apply and there are plenty out there who would ban them on that basis.

    That would be a very dangerous position for us to find ourselves in. We do see too many cases from both sides these days where people are wilfully misinterpreting their opponents a means of daemonising them and the only thing that stops this being a complete disaster is that the more sane voices on both sides are still willing to stand up and fight for freedom of speech.
    Note the distinction between "globalisation", and "globalist". "Globalisation" is something you often hear about from the left, and it's primarily a criticism of capitalism operating above the reach of national governments.
    "Globalist" is often used in a different context, and often nothing to do with criticising capitalism. Indeed, it's often used to attack the left. And, I'm afraid to say, it is also often used in conjunction with anti-Semitic tropes.

    Using the term "globalist" doesn't make someone an anti-Semite, but it merits watching out for other things they say in the same context. It's usually clear within a few sentences whether they dog-whistling racists or leftists. Or both.
    Sorry but that is dancing on the head of a pin. It is taking a small subsection of a spectrum of views and using them to tar the whole lot. It is lazy and pernicious.

    Nor is it only racists or lefties who are anti-globalisation and anti-globalists. I pretty much detest the left but I believe globalisation has been very bad on the whole for a large part of the world's population (just as it has been good for some of them). You are trying to pigeon hole people to suit your own ideology.

    I whole heartedly agree with you on free speech but I completely disagree with you on globalisation. For the vast majority of humanity the last 30 years have been brilliant. 2 billion people have been lifted out of poverty into a reasonable lifestyle. Maybe more

    It’s been RELATIVELY shit for less educated people in the West who were used to coasting along on the accrued advantage of 300 years of western supremacy. Now they have to compete with that newly ambitious Egyptian lady I met tonight

    I sympathise with working class westerners and they are entitled to vote for Trump or Le Pen but they don’t get to create their own reality. Globalisation has generally been good for Homo sapiens
    It took me a lot longer to type out what Leon hammered out in seconds here, but yeah, largely this.

    I do not agree it's been in any way shit for less educated people in the West, though. Yes, there have been detriments alongside the benefits. But the amount of cheap stuff, and the jobs that have been made here by us being an open, trading economy have raised the livelihoods of even the worst off. I'd rather be at the bottom of the heap in 2023 than at the bottom of the heap in 1823.

    We've got enough problems without kicking away the ladder we're standing on. Globalisation and capitalism are good.
    Trade and globalisation are not the same things. Conflating the two is like conflating civilisation and Empire.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,780

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    stodge said:

    Listening to some of the language at the National Conservative event, I'm reminded of the dilemma I face on the issue of Freedom of Speech.

    As a "marxist liberal" or should that be "liberal marxist", I shouldn't have too many qualms but unfortunately I do. The notion of free speech, rather like EU membership, has only two credible positions - you're either for it or against it. As with our half-hearted rebate-obsessed membership of the EU, Freedom of Speech either means you're completely opposed and have no problem shutting down opinions with which you disagree or you're completely in favour which means accepting the right to offend and be offended.

    The Right to Offend is one of those tricky ones - we can all promise to be nice to each other but in the real world as soon as you bring in legislation or control to restrict anyone's right to freedom of speech, you're compromising that freedom for everyone.

    I don't like hate speech, I don't like speech which sets out deliberately to offend or provoke or incite or divide but I'm forced to accept these are aspects of the human condition and whether I like them or not, they exist and always will exist. I'm also reminded jaw-jaw is better than war-war and allowing the right to vent verbally is preferable to the wrong of acting physically.

    It's not comfortable but I suspect it's not meant to be - challenging those who wish to spread division and hate isn't easy because rational argument rarely works. They can be ignored - perhaps the first line of defence - and be left to shout into the darkness. That doesn't mean rational counter-argument can't and shouldn't be tried but in the expectation it won't have an impact.

    I think the Nat Con example is a very good one as to why we need to defend freedom of speech even when we don't like what is being said.

    Some of the things they are saying are pretty awful and I have no time for them at all.

    But some of the things they are saying are not awful. Even if I still disagree with them. Talking about the ills of globalisation is not, as the Guardian today would have us believe, code for anti-semitism. It is code for gloabalisation is, in their opinion, crap. And I am inclined on some levels to agree with that.

    But if some of the critics had their way then their definition - that it is all about anti-semitism - is the one that would apply and there are plenty out there who would ban them on that basis.

    That would be a very dangerous position for us to find ourselves in. We do see too many cases from both sides these days where people are wilfully misinterpreting their opponents a means of daemonising them and the only thing that stops this being a complete disaster is that the more sane voices on both sides are still willing to stand up and fight for freedom of speech.
    Note the distinction between "globalisation", and "globalist". "Globalisation" is something you often hear about from the left, and it's primarily a criticism of capitalism operating above the reach of national governments.
    "Globalist" is often used in a different context, and often nothing to do with criticising capitalism. Indeed, it's often used to attack the left. And, I'm afraid to say, it is also often used in conjunction with anti-Semitic tropes.

    Using the term "globalist" doesn't make someone an anti-Semite, but it merits watching out for other things they say in the same context. It's usually clear within a few sentences whether they dog-whistling racists or leftists. Or both.
    Sorry but that is dancing on the head of a pin. It is taking a small subsection of a spectrum of views and using them to tar the whole lot. It is lazy and pernicious.

    Nor is it only racists or lefties who are anti-globalisation and anti-globalists. I pretty much detest the left but I believe globalisation has been very bad on the whole for a large part of the world's population (just as it has been good for some of them). You are trying to pigeon hole people to suit your own ideology.

    I whole heartedly agree with you on free speech but I completely disagree with you on globalisation. For the vast majority of humanity the last 30 years have been brilliant. 2 billion people have been lifted out of poverty into a reasonable lifestyle. Maybe more

    It’s been RELATIVELY shit for less educated people in the West who were used to coasting along on the accrued advantage of 300 years of western supremacy. Now they have to compete with that newly ambitious Egyptian lady I met tonight

    I sympathise with working class westerners and they are entitled to vote for Trump or Le Pen but they don’t get to create their own reality. Globalisation has generally been good for Homo sapiens
    I agree the world has got better over the last 50 years or more but I would dispute that globalisation has necessarily been the cause. Trade has been good and has helped hugely along with technological and medical advances but globalisation has brought massive environmental degradation and a huge surge in what can only really be described as modern slavery. It has resulted in the concentration of wealth on a scale never seen before in human history and has created a supranational class who have done their best to circumvent national laws for their own ends.

    The world has undoubtedly got better but globalisation in the unfettered form we have it now has not been responsible and has not, on balance, been a force for good.
    Surely the existence of the newly wealthy middle class Chinese are reducing global inequality? (Even as they increase inequality in the UK.)
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775

    Farooq said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    stodge said:

    Listening to some of the language at the National Conservative event, I'm reminded of the dilemma I face on the issue of Freedom of Speech.

    As a "marxist liberal" or should that be "liberal marxist", I shouldn't have too many qualms but unfortunately I do. The notion of free speech, rather like EU membership, has only two credible positions - you're either for it or against it. As with our half-hearted rebate-obsessed membership of the EU, Freedom of Speech either means you're completely opposed and have no problem shutting down opinions with which you disagree or you're completely in favour which means accepting the right to offend and be offended.

    The Right to Offend is one of those tricky ones - we can all promise to be nice to each other but in the real world as soon as you bring in legislation or control to restrict anyone's right to freedom of speech, you're compromising that freedom for everyone.

    I don't like hate speech, I don't like speech which sets out deliberately to offend or provoke or incite or divide but I'm forced to accept these are aspects of the human condition and whether I like them or not, they exist and always will exist. I'm also reminded jaw-jaw is better than war-war and allowing the right to vent verbally is preferable to the wrong of acting physically.

    It's not comfortable but I suspect it's not meant to be - challenging those who wish to spread division and hate isn't easy because rational argument rarely works. They can be ignored - perhaps the first line of defence - and be left to shout into the darkness. That doesn't mean rational counter-argument can't and shouldn't be tried but in the expectation it won't have an impact.

    I think the Nat Con example is a very good one as to why we need to defend freedom of speech even when we don't like what is being said.

    Some of the things they are saying are pretty awful and I have no time for them at all.

    But some of the things they are saying are not awful. Even if I still disagree with them. Talking about the ills of globalisation is not, as the Guardian today would have us believe, code for anti-semitism. It is code for gloabalisation is, in their opinion, crap. And I am inclined on some levels to agree with that.

    But if some of the critics had their way then their definition - that it is all about anti-semitism - is the one that would apply and there are plenty out there who would ban them on that basis.

    That would be a very dangerous position for us to find ourselves in. We do see too many cases from both sides these days where people are wilfully misinterpreting their opponents a means of daemonising them and the only thing that stops this being a complete disaster is that the more sane voices on both sides are still willing to stand up and fight for freedom of speech.
    Note the distinction between "globalisation", and "globalist". "Globalisation" is something you often hear about from the left, and it's primarily a criticism of capitalism operating above the reach of national governments.
    "Globalist" is often used in a different context, and often nothing to do with criticising capitalism. Indeed, it's often used to attack the left. And, I'm afraid to say, it is also often used in conjunction with anti-Semitic tropes.

    Using the term "globalist" doesn't make someone an anti-Semite, but it merits watching out for other things they say in the same context. It's usually clear within a few sentences whether they dog-whistling racists or leftists. Or both.
    Sorry but that is dancing on the head of a pin. It is taking a small subsection of a spectrum of views and using them to tar the whole lot. It is lazy and pernicious.

    Nor is it only racists or lefties who are anti-globalisation and anti-globalists. I pretty much detest the left but I believe globalisation has been very bad on the whole for a large part of the world's population (just as it has been good for some of them). You are trying to pigeon hole people to suit your own ideology.

    I whole heartedly agree with you on free speech but I completely disagree with you on globalisation. For the vast majority of humanity the last 30 years have been brilliant. 2 billion people have been lifted out of poverty into a reasonable lifestyle. Maybe more

    It’s been RELATIVELY shit for less educated people in the West who were used to coasting along on the accrued advantage of 300 years of western supremacy. Now they have to compete with that newly ambitious Egyptian lady I met tonight

    I sympathise with working class westerners and they are entitled to vote for Trump or Le Pen but they don’t get to create their own reality. Globalisation has generally been good for Homo sapiens
    It took me a lot longer to type out what Leon hammered out in seconds here, but yeah, largely this.

    I do not agree it's been in any way shit for less educated people in the West, though. Yes, there have been detriments alongside the benefits. But the amount of cheap stuff, and the jobs that have been made here by us being an open, trading economy have raised the livelihoods of even the worst off. I'd rather be at the bottom of the heap in 2023 than at the bottom of the heap in 1823.

    We've got enough problems without kicking away the ladder we're standing on. Globalisation and capitalism are good.
    Trade and globalisation are not the same things. Conflating the two is like conflating civilisation and Empire.
    Ok, so tell me what you mean by globalisation
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,631
    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    stodge said:

    Listening to some of the language at the National Conservative event, I'm reminded of the dilemma I face on the issue of Freedom of Speech.

    As a "marxist liberal" or should that be "liberal marxist", I shouldn't have too many qualms but unfortunately I do. The notion of free speech, rather like EU membership, has only two credible positions - you're either for it or against it. As with our half-hearted rebate-obsessed membership of the EU, Freedom of Speech either means you're completely opposed and have no problem shutting down opinions with which you disagree or you're completely in favour which means accepting the right to offend and be offended.

    The Right to Offend is one of those tricky ones - we can all promise to be nice to each other but in the real world as soon as you bring in legislation or control to restrict anyone's right to freedom of speech, you're compromising that freedom for everyone.

    I don't like hate speech, I don't like speech which sets out deliberately to offend or provoke or incite or divide but I'm forced to accept these are aspects of the human condition and whether I like them or not, they exist and always will exist. I'm also reminded jaw-jaw is better than war-war and allowing the right to vent verbally is preferable to the wrong of acting physically.

    It's not comfortable but I suspect it's not meant to be - challenging those who wish to spread division and hate isn't easy because rational argument rarely works. They can be ignored - perhaps the first line of defence - and be left to shout into the darkness. That doesn't mean rational counter-argument can't and shouldn't be tried but in the expectation it won't have an impact.

    I think the Nat Con example is a very good one as to why we need to defend freedom of speech even when we don't like what is being said.

    Some of the things they are saying are pretty awful and I have no time for them at all.

    But some of the things they are saying are not awful. Even if I still disagree with them. Talking about the ills of globalisation is not, as the Guardian today would have us believe, code for anti-semitism. It is code for gloabalisation is, in their opinion, crap. And I am inclined on some levels to agree with that.

    But if some of the critics had their way then their definition - that it is all about anti-semitism - is the one that would apply and there are plenty out there who would ban them on that basis.

    That would be a very dangerous position for us to find ourselves in. We do see too many cases from both sides these days where people are wilfully misinterpreting their opponents a means of daemonising them and the only thing that stops this being a complete disaster is that the more sane voices on both sides are still willing to stand up and fight for freedom of speech.
    Note the distinction between "globalisation", and "globalist". "Globalisation" is something you often hear about from the left, and it's primarily a criticism of capitalism operating above the reach of national governments.
    "Globalist" is often used in a different context, and often nothing to do with criticising capitalism. Indeed, it's often used to attack the left. And, I'm afraid to say, it is also often used in conjunction with anti-Semitic tropes.

    Using the term "globalist" doesn't make someone an anti-Semite, but it merits watching out for other things they say in the same context. It's usually clear within a few sentences whether they dog-whistling racists or leftists. Or both.
    Sorry but that is dancing on the head of a pin. It is taking a small subsection of a spectrum of views and using them to tar the whole lot. It is lazy and pernicious.

    Nor is it only racists or lefties who are anti-globalisation and anti-globalists. I pretty much detest the left but I believe globalisation has been very bad on the whole for a large part of the world's population (just as it has been good for some of them). You are trying to pigeon hole people to suit your own ideology.

    I whole heartedly agree with you on free speech but I completely disagree with you on globalisation. For the vast majority of humanity the last 30 years have been brilliant. 2 billion people have been lifted out of poverty into a reasonable lifestyle. Maybe more

    It’s been RELATIVELY shit for less educated people in the West who were used to coasting along on the accrued advantage of 300 years of western supremacy. Now they have to compete with that newly ambitious Egyptian lady I met tonight

    I sympathise with working class westerners and they are entitled to vote for Trump or Le Pen but they don’t get to create their own reality. Globalisation has generally been good for Homo sapiens
    I fucking hate saying this, but this is absolutely spot on.
    While it is true and don't disagree on the thrust of it, there is a point neglected in this. Western governements all embraced globalisation but they were elected not to look after the world but to look after the country that elected them. Globalisation helped the poor of the world but often harmed the bottom half of their countries....the people that voted for them and expected to be considered in their decisions.
    Well, the problem is that not embracing globalisation doesn't obviously work either.

    Natural resources were cheap, for example, because it was only those in the Wealthy West who consumed them. The rise of China has meant it's not just us buying Nigerian oil. And that means that we're going to be relatively poorer, whether we embrace globalisation or fight it.

    I don't deny we cannot get away from globalisation totally however globalisation as implemented by most western governments for example has meant globalisation of wages and production costs while keeping localisation of end product prices. A good example of this was Tesco's being told they couldn't sell cheap levi's sourced from south east asia and had to buy at european prices.

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2002/aug/01/clothes.marketingandpr

    If you want globalisation it should go both ways, the west seems to legislated to give companies all the benefits of globalisation while restricting the benefits of globalisation to consumers.

    In my view if a company wants to cut production costs by producing in say india then consumers should also be able to buy at indian prices from overseas websites not be told sorry you have to pay the local european price
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    stodge said:

    Listening to some of the language at the National Conservative event, I'm reminded of the dilemma I face on the issue of Freedom of Speech.

    As a "marxist liberal" or should that be "liberal marxist", I shouldn't have too many qualms but unfortunately I do. The notion of free speech, rather like EU membership, has only two credible positions - you're either for it or against it. As with our half-hearted rebate-obsessed membership of the EU, Freedom of Speech either means you're completely opposed and have no problem shutting down opinions with which you disagree or you're completely in favour which means accepting the right to offend and be offended.

    The Right to Offend is one of those tricky ones - we can all promise to be nice to each other but in the real world as soon as you bring in legislation or control to restrict anyone's right to freedom of speech, you're compromising that freedom for everyone.

    I don't like hate speech, I don't like speech which sets out deliberately to offend or provoke or incite or divide but I'm forced to accept these are aspects of the human condition and whether I like them or not, they exist and always will exist. I'm also reminded jaw-jaw is better than war-war and allowing the right to vent verbally is preferable to the wrong of acting physically.

    It's not comfortable but I suspect it's not meant to be - challenging those who wish to spread division and hate isn't easy because rational argument rarely works. They can be ignored - perhaps the first line of defence - and be left to shout into the darkness. That doesn't mean rational counter-argument can't and shouldn't be tried but in the expectation it won't have an impact.

    I think the Nat Con example is a very good one as to why we need to defend freedom of speech even when we don't like what is being said.

    Some of the things they are saying are pretty awful and I have no time for them at all.

    But some of the things they are saying are not awful. Even if I still disagree with them. Talking about the ills of globalisation is not, as the Guardian today would have us believe, code for anti-semitism. It is code for gloabalisation is, in their opinion, crap. And I am inclined on some levels to agree with that.

    But if some of the critics had their way then their definition - that it is all about anti-semitism - is the one that would apply and there are plenty out there who would ban them on that basis.

    That would be a very dangerous position for us to find ourselves in. We do see too many cases from both sides these days where people are wilfully misinterpreting their opponents a means of daemonising them and the only thing that stops this being a complete disaster is that the more sane voices on both sides are still willing to stand up and fight for freedom of speech.
    Note the distinction between "globalisation", and "globalist". "Globalisation" is something you often hear about from the left, and it's primarily a criticism of capitalism operating above the reach of national governments.
    "Globalist" is often used in a different context, and often nothing to do with criticising capitalism. Indeed, it's often used to attack the left. And, I'm afraid to say, it is also often used in conjunction with anti-Semitic tropes.

    Using the term "globalist" doesn't make someone an anti-Semite, but it merits watching out for other things they say in the same context. It's usually clear within a few sentences whether they dog-whistling racists or leftists. Or both.
    Sorry but that is dancing on the head of a pin. It is taking a small subsection of a spectrum of views and using them to tar the whole lot. It is lazy and pernicious.

    Nor is it only racists or lefties who are anti-globalisation and anti-globalists. I pretty much detest the left but I believe globalisation has been very bad on the whole for a large part of the world's population (just as it has been good for some of them). You are trying to pigeon hole people to suit your own ideology.

    I whole heartedly agree with you on free speech but I completely disagree with you on globalisation. For the vast majority of humanity the last 30 years have been brilliant. 2 billion people have been lifted out of poverty into a reasonable lifestyle. Maybe more

    It’s been RELATIVELY shit for less educated people in the West who were used to coasting along on the accrued advantage of 300 years of western supremacy. Now they have to compete with that newly ambitious Egyptian lady I met tonight

    I sympathise with working class westerners and they are entitled to vote for Trump or Le Pen but they don’t get to create their own reality. Globalisation has generally been good for Homo sapiens
    It's been a great time to be alive, for the average person. Not that we are likely to feel grateful when something shitty happens, when asked to compare ourselves to a 12th century Sundanese farmer or something.
    For many people in Chicago, Glasgow, and Lille the last 3 decades have been rubbish and show few signs of improving

    In Shanghai, Bangkok and Jakarta they’ve been fairly amazing. And the latter 3 cities all have populations over 10m
    Um, Glasgow's a much nicer place today than in 1993.
  • pm215pm215 Posts: 926
    Leon said:


    So the EU is now wheeling out laws regulating crypto and AI and all kinds of tech which might easily extinguish innovation in these areas in the EU. That will leave the UK very nicely placed as a large English speaking economy next to Europe unencumbered by these laws

    In a globalised economy what's the benefit of being "next to" Europe? The stuff we might hope to export to them will be just as subject to whatever import and data handling controls the EU determines as will direct US supply of tech and services to the EU.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,308

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    stodge said:

    Listening to some of the language at the National Conservative event, I'm reminded of the dilemma I face on the issue of Freedom of Speech.

    As a "marxist liberal" or should that be "liberal marxist", I shouldn't have too many qualms but unfortunately I do. The notion of free speech, rather like EU membership, has only two credible positions - you're either for it or against it. As with our half-hearted rebate-obsessed membership of the EU, Freedom of Speech either means you're completely opposed and have no problem shutting down opinions with which you disagree or you're completely in favour which means accepting the right to offend and be offended.

    The Right to Offend is one of those tricky ones - we can all promise to be nice to each other but in the real world as soon as you bring in legislation or control to restrict anyone's right to freedom of speech, you're compromising that freedom for everyone.

    I don't like hate speech, I don't like speech which sets out deliberately to offend or provoke or incite or divide but I'm forced to accept these are aspects of the human condition and whether I like them or not, they exist and always will exist. I'm also reminded jaw-jaw is better than war-war and allowing the right to vent verbally is preferable to the wrong of acting physically.

    It's not comfortable but I suspect it's not meant to be - challenging those who wish to spread division and hate isn't easy because rational argument rarely works. They can be ignored - perhaps the first line of defence - and be left to shout into the darkness. That doesn't mean rational counter-argument can't and shouldn't be tried but in the expectation it won't have an impact.

    I think the Nat Con example is a very good one as to why we need to defend freedom of speech even when we don't like what is being said.

    Some of the things they are saying are pretty awful and I have no time for them at all.

    But some of the things they are saying are not awful. Even if I still disagree with them. Talking about the ills of globalisation is not, as the Guardian today would have us believe, code for anti-semitism. It is code for gloabalisation is, in their opinion, crap. And I am inclined on some levels to agree with that.

    But if some of the critics had their way then their definition - that it is all about anti-semitism - is the one that would apply and there are plenty out there who would ban them on that basis.

    That would be a very dangerous position for us to find ourselves in. We do see too many cases from both sides these days where people are wilfully misinterpreting their opponents a means of daemonising them and the only thing that stops this being a complete disaster is that the more sane voices on both sides are still willing to stand up and fight for freedom of speech.
    Note the distinction between "globalisation", and "globalist". "Globalisation" is something you often hear about from the left, and it's primarily a criticism of capitalism operating above the reach of national governments.
    "Globalist" is often used in a different context, and often nothing to do with criticising capitalism. Indeed, it's often used to attack the left. And, I'm afraid to say, it is also often used in conjunction with anti-Semitic tropes.

    Using the term "globalist" doesn't make someone an anti-Semite, but it merits watching out for other things they say in the same context. It's usually clear within a few sentences whether they dog-whistling racists or leftists. Or both.
    Sorry but that is dancing on the head of a pin. It is taking a small subsection of a spectrum of views and using them to tar the whole lot. It is lazy and pernicious.

    Nor is it only racists or lefties who are anti-globalisation and anti-globalists. I pretty much detest the left but I believe globalisation has been very bad on the whole for a large part of the world's population (just as it has been good for some of them). You are trying to pigeon hole people to suit your own ideology.

    I whole heartedly agree with you on free speech but I completely disagree with you on globalisation. For the vast majority of humanity the last 30 years have been brilliant. 2 billion people have been lifted out of poverty into a reasonable lifestyle. Maybe more

    It’s been RELATIVELY shit for less educated people in the West who were used to coasting along on the accrued advantage of 300 years of western supremacy. Now they have to compete with that newly ambitious Egyptian lady I met tonight

    I sympathise with working class westerners and they are entitled to vote for Trump or Le Pen but they don’t get to create their own reality. Globalisation has generally been good for Homo sapiens
    I agree the world has got better over the last 50 years or more but I would dispute that globalisation has necessarily been the cause. Trade has been good and has helped hugely along with technological and medical advances but globalisation has brought massive environmental degradation and a huge surge in what can only really be described as modern slavery. It has resulted in the concentration of wealth on a scale never seen before in human history and has created a supranational class who have done their best to circumvent national laws for their own ends.

    The world has undoubtedly got better but globalisation in the unfettered form we have it now has not been responsible and has not, on balance, been a force for good.
    You certainly have a point on the environment. The degradation is everywhere. The crash in insect and now bird populations - worldwide - is frankly terrifying

    I’ve been in Egypt almost a week and I haven’t heard the whine of a single mosquito. Where have they gone???

    I’m not joking. I’m noticing this everywhere

    Nonetheless for the average human life has got vastly better since 1990. Question is: at what cost

  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,059
    Given its polling position, and a disasterous local election campaign, the Tory Party must consider a candidate who can capture the imagination of the public and bring a fresh perspective to the party. With Liz Truss destined for bigger things, who better than Dean Gaffney?

    The former EastEnders actor turned reality TV star has all the qualities needed to lead the Conservative Party into a new era. Here are just a few reasons why:

    Firstly, Gaffney has proven himself to be a man of the people. As a soap star, he was beloved by millions of viewers up and down the country, and his appearances on shows like I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! and Celebs Go Dating have only cemented his place in the nation's hearts. He knows how to connect with ordinary people and has a natural charm that is sorely lacking in today's politics.

    Secondly, Gaffney is a proven winner. He may not have won any Oscars or BAFTAs, but he has triumphed in the cut-throat world of showbiz. He knows how to work hard and get results, and that's exactly what the Conservative Party needs right now. With the country in turmoil, we need a leader who can roll up their sleeves and get things done.

    Thirdly, Gaffney is a unifier. He may have had his ups and downs in his personal life, but he has always remained loyal to his friends and family. He is the kind of person who can bring people together and find common ground. In a political landscape that is increasingly divisive, Gaffney could be just what we need to heal the wounds and bring the country back together.

    Of course, there will be those who dismiss Gaffney's candidacy as a joke. But let us not forget that Ronald Reagan was once dismissed as a washed-up actor with no political experience. And yet he went on to become one of America's greatest presidents. Who's to say that Dean Gaffney couldn't do the same for Britain? Was not Liz Truss once laughed at? Who’s laughing now?

    So let us embrace the unexpected, let us break free from the tired old political class, and let us put our faith in Dean Gaffney. He may not be what we were expecting, but sometimes the best leaders are the ones who surprise us the most.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,308
    pm215 said:

    Leon said:


    So the EU is now wheeling out laws regulating crypto and AI and all kinds of tech which might easily extinguish innovation in these areas in the EU. That will leave the UK very nicely placed as a large English speaking economy next to Europe unencumbered by these laws

    In a globalised economy what's the benefit of being "next to" Europe? The stuff we might hope to export to them will be just as subject to whatever import and data handling controls the EU determines as will direct US supply of tech and services to the EU.
    Because Europe is a much nicer place to live than the USA

    But what if you want US type freedom to innovate combined with a European lifestyle?

    Suddenly the UK is the place
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    DougSeal said:

    Given its polling position, and a disasterous local election campaign, the Tory Party must consider a candidate who can capture the imagination of the public and bring a fresh perspective to the party. With Liz Truss destined for bigger things, who better than Dean Gaffney?

    The former EastEnders actor turned reality TV star has all the qualities needed to lead the Conservative Party into a new era. Here are just a few reasons why:

    Firstly, Gaffney has proven himself to be a man of the people. As a soap star, he was beloved by millions of viewers up and down the country, and his appearances on shows like I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! and Celebs Go Dating have only cemented his place in the nation's hearts. He knows how to connect with ordinary people and has a natural charm that is sorely lacking in today's politics.

    Secondly, Gaffney is a proven winner. He may not have won any Oscars or BAFTAs, but he has triumphed in the cut-throat world of showbiz. He knows how to work hard and get results, and that's exactly what the Conservative Party needs right now. With the country in turmoil, we need a leader who can roll up their sleeves and get things done.

    Thirdly, Gaffney is a unifier. He may have had his ups and downs in his personal life, but he has always remained loyal to his friends and family. He is the kind of person who can bring people together and find common ground. In a political landscape that is increasingly divisive, Gaffney could be just what we need to heal the wounds and bring the country back together.

    Of course, there will be those who dismiss Gaffney's candidacy as a joke. But let us not forget that Ronald Reagan was once dismissed as a washed-up actor with no political experience. And yet he went on to become one of America's greatest presidents. Who's to say that Dean Gaffney couldn't do the same for Britain? Was not Liz Truss once laughed at? Who’s laughing now?

    So let us embrace the unexpected, let us break free from the tired old political class, and let us put our faith in Dean Gaffney. He may not be what we were expecting, but sometimes the best leaders are the ones who surprise us the most.

    You've been at the fondant fancies again
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,038
    edited May 2023

    What's the point in being teenager if you can't have a quick fag behind the bike side, sneak your first pint with fake ID, and indelicately fondle Ceilia's breasts for the first time in a skate park late on Friday night?

    Not everything is about phones.

    U ok hun?
    If I posted that the user in question would be calling me a saddo with a poor sense of humour.
    Whereas I get told that I'm a saddo with a poor sense of humour on a regular basis anyway.

    The joys of teaching...
    That's because you're interrupting them behind the bike sheds.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,780
    Pagan2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    stodge said:

    Listening to some of the language at the National Conservative event, I'm reminded of the dilemma I face on the issue of Freedom of Speech.

    As a "marxist liberal" or should that be "liberal marxist", I shouldn't have too many qualms but unfortunately I do. The notion of free speech, rather like EU membership, has only two credible positions - you're either for it or against it. As with our half-hearted rebate-obsessed membership of the EU, Freedom of Speech either means you're completely opposed and have no problem shutting down opinions with which you disagree or you're completely in favour which means accepting the right to offend and be offended.

    The Right to Offend is one of those tricky ones - we can all promise to be nice to each other but in the real world as soon as you bring in legislation or control to restrict anyone's right to freedom of speech, you're compromising that freedom for everyone.

    I don't like hate speech, I don't like speech which sets out deliberately to offend or provoke or incite or divide but I'm forced to accept these are aspects of the human condition and whether I like them or not, they exist and always will exist. I'm also reminded jaw-jaw is better than war-war and allowing the right to vent verbally is preferable to the wrong of acting physically.

    It's not comfortable but I suspect it's not meant to be - challenging those who wish to spread division and hate isn't easy because rational argument rarely works. They can be ignored - perhaps the first line of defence - and be left to shout into the darkness. That doesn't mean rational counter-argument can't and shouldn't be tried but in the expectation it won't have an impact.

    I think the Nat Con example is a very good one as to why we need to defend freedom of speech even when we don't like what is being said.

    Some of the things they are saying are pretty awful and I have no time for them at all.

    But some of the things they are saying are not awful. Even if I still disagree with them. Talking about the ills of globalisation is not, as the Guardian today would have us believe, code for anti-semitism. It is code for gloabalisation is, in their opinion, crap. And I am inclined on some levels to agree with that.

    But if some of the critics had their way then their definition - that it is all about anti-semitism - is the one that would apply and there are plenty out there who would ban them on that basis.

    That would be a very dangerous position for us to find ourselves in. We do see too many cases from both sides these days where people are wilfully misinterpreting their opponents a means of daemonising them and the only thing that stops this being a complete disaster is that the more sane voices on both sides are still willing to stand up and fight for freedom of speech.
    Note the distinction between "globalisation", and "globalist". "Globalisation" is something you often hear about from the left, and it's primarily a criticism of capitalism operating above the reach of national governments.
    "Globalist" is often used in a different context, and often nothing to do with criticising capitalism. Indeed, it's often used to attack the left. And, I'm afraid to say, it is also often used in conjunction with anti-Semitic tropes.

    Using the term "globalist" doesn't make someone an anti-Semite, but it merits watching out for other things they say in the same context. It's usually clear within a few sentences whether they dog-whistling racists or leftists. Or both.
    Sorry but that is dancing on the head of a pin. It is taking a small subsection of a spectrum of views and using them to tar the whole lot. It is lazy and pernicious.

    Nor is it only racists or lefties who are anti-globalisation and anti-globalists. I pretty much detest the left but I believe globalisation has been very bad on the whole for a large part of the world's population (just as it has been good for some of them). You are trying to pigeon hole people to suit your own ideology.

    I whole heartedly agree with you on free speech but I completely disagree with you on globalisation. For the vast majority of humanity the last 30 years have been brilliant. 2 billion people have been lifted out of poverty into a reasonable lifestyle. Maybe more

    It’s been RELATIVELY shit for less educated people in the West who were used to coasting along on the accrued advantage of 300 years of western supremacy. Now they have to compete with that newly ambitious Egyptian lady I met tonight

    I sympathise with working class westerners and they are entitled to vote for Trump or Le Pen but they don’t get to create their own reality. Globalisation has generally been good for Homo sapiens
    I fucking hate saying this, but this is absolutely spot on.
    While it is true and don't disagree on the thrust of it, there is a point neglected in this. Western governements all embraced globalisation but they were elected not to look after the world but to look after the country that elected them. Globalisation helped the poor of the world but often harmed the bottom half of their countries....the people that voted for them and expected to be considered in their decisions.
    Well, the problem is that not embracing globalisation doesn't obviously work either.

    Natural resources were cheap, for example, because it was only those in the Wealthy West who consumed them. The rise of China has meant it's not just us buying Nigerian oil. And that means that we're going to be relatively poorer, whether we embrace globalisation or fight it.

    I don't deny we cannot get away from globalisation totally however globalisation as implemented by most western governments for example has meant globalisation of wages and production costs while keeping localisation of end product prices. A good example of this was Tesco's being told they couldn't sell cheap levi's sourced from south east asia and had to buy at european prices.

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2002/aug/01/clothes.marketingandpr

    If you want globalisation it should go both ways, the west seems to legislated to give companies all the benefits of globalisation while restricting the benefits of globalisation to consumers.

    In my view if a company wants to cut production costs by producing in say india then consumers should also be able to buy at indian prices from overseas websites not be told sorry you have to pay the local european price
    @Pagan2, I present you AliExpress.

    Buy direct from Chinese factories and avoid making Jeff Bezos any richer.
  • pm215pm215 Posts: 926
    Farooq said:

    #We've got enough problems without kicking away the ladder we're standing on. Globalisation and capitalism are good.

    On balance, agreed. But I think a lot of the problems we have are because we're stuck in this vastly complicated system and we don't understand it anywhere near well enough to be able to reliably avoid its negative impacts. We can see that sweeping the whole thing away would clearly be a disaster, but we're by no means in control of it, which isn't a pleasant place to be.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    pm215 said:

    Farooq said:

    #We've got enough problems without kicking away the ladder we're standing on. Globalisation and capitalism are good.

    On balance, agreed. But I think a lot of the problems we have are because we're stuck in this vastly complicated system and we don't understand it anywhere near well enough to be able to reliably avoid its negative impacts. We can see that sweeping the whole thing away would clearly be a disaster, but we're by no means in control of it, which isn't a pleasant place to be.
    That's a feature, not a bug. Systems that are controllable are vulnerable to malign capture.
    One of the great lessons of history is that power concentrated is power abused. This is why the market is better than central planning. It's why democracy is better than dictatorship.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 5,794
    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    stodge said:

    Listening to some of the language at the National Conservative event, I'm reminded of the dilemma I face on the issue of Freedom of Speech.

    As a "marxist liberal" or should that be "liberal marxist", I shouldn't have too many qualms but unfortunately I do. The notion of free speech, rather like EU membership, has only two credible positions - you're either for it or against it. As with our half-hearted rebate-obsessed membership of the EU, Freedom of Speech either means you're completely opposed and have no problem shutting down opinions with which you disagree or you're completely in favour which means accepting the right to offend and be offended.

    The Right to Offend is one of those tricky ones - we can all promise to be nice to each other but in the real world as soon as you bring in legislation or control to restrict anyone's right to freedom of speech, you're compromising that freedom for everyone.

    I don't like hate speech, I don't like speech which sets out deliberately to offend or provoke or incite or divide but I'm forced to accept these are aspects of the human condition and whether I like them or not, they exist and always will exist. I'm also reminded jaw-jaw is better than war-war and allowing the right to vent verbally is preferable to the wrong of acting physically.

    It's not comfortable but I suspect it's not meant to be - challenging those who wish to spread division and hate isn't easy because rational argument rarely works. They can be ignored - perhaps the first line of defence - and be left to shout into the darkness. That doesn't mean rational counter-argument can't and shouldn't be tried but in the expectation it won't have an impact.

    I think the Nat Con example is a very good one as to why we need to defend freedom of speech even when we don't like what is being said.

    Some of the things they are saying are pretty awful and I have no time for them at all.

    But some of the things they are saying are not awful. Even if I still disagree with them. Talking about the ills of globalisation is not, as the Guardian today would have us believe, code for anti-semitism. It is code for gloabalisation is, in their opinion, crap. And I am inclined on some levels to agree with that.

    But if some of the critics had their way then their definition - that it is all about anti-semitism - is the one that would apply and there are plenty out there who would ban them on that basis.

    That would be a very dangerous position for us to find ourselves in. We do see too many cases from both sides these days where people are wilfully misinterpreting their opponents a means of daemonising them and the only thing that stops this being a complete disaster is that the more sane voices on both sides are still willing to stand up and fight for freedom of speech.
    Note the distinction between "globalisation", and "globalist". "Globalisation" is something you often hear about from the left, and it's primarily a criticism of capitalism operating above the reach of national governments.
    "Globalist" is often used in a different context, and often nothing to do with criticising capitalism. Indeed, it's often used to attack the left. And, I'm afraid to say, it is also often used in conjunction with anti-Semitic tropes.

    Using the term "globalist" doesn't make someone an anti-Semite, but it merits watching out for other things they say in the same context. It's usually clear within a few sentences whether they dog-whistling racists or leftists. Or both.
    Sorry but that is dancing on the head of a pin. It is taking a small subsection of a spectrum of views and using them to tar the whole lot. It is lazy and pernicious.

    Nor is it only racists or lefties who are anti-globalisation and anti-globalists. I pretty much detest the left but I believe globalisation has been very bad on the whole for a large part of the world's population (just as it has been good for some of them). You are trying to pigeon hole people to suit your own ideology.

    I whole heartedly agree with you on free speech but I completely disagree with you on globalisation. For the vast majority of humanity the last 30 years have been brilliant. 2 billion people have been lifted out of poverty into a reasonable lifestyle. Maybe more

    It’s been RELATIVELY shit for less educated people in the West who were used to coasting along on the accrued advantage of 300 years of western supremacy. Now they have to compete with that newly ambitious Egyptian lady I met tonight

    I sympathise with working class westerners and they are entitled to vote for Trump or Le Pen but they don’t get to create their own reality. Globalisation has generally been good for Homo sapiens
    I fucking hate saying this, but this is absolutely spot on.
    Otoh, The Diplomat is terrible. Lost a great deal of credibility and am now being punished with Sewing Bee.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846
    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    stodge said:

    Listening to some of the language at the National Conservative event, I'm reminded of the dilemma I face on the issue of Freedom of Speech.

    As a "marxist liberal" or should that be "liberal marxist", I shouldn't have too many qualms but unfortunately I do. The notion of free speech, rather like EU membership, has only two credible positions - you're either for it or against it. As with our half-hearted rebate-obsessed membership of the EU, Freedom of Speech either means you're completely opposed and have no problem shutting down opinions with which you disagree or you're completely in favour which means accepting the right to offend and be offended.

    The Right to Offend is one of those tricky ones - we can all promise to be nice to each other but in the real world as soon as you bring in legislation or control to restrict anyone's right to freedom of speech, you're compromising that freedom for everyone.

    I don't like hate speech, I don't like speech which sets out deliberately to offend or provoke or incite or divide but I'm forced to accept these are aspects of the human condition and whether I like them or not, they exist and always will exist. I'm also reminded jaw-jaw is better than war-war and allowing the right to vent verbally is preferable to the wrong of acting physically.

    It's not comfortable but I suspect it's not meant to be - challenging those who wish to spread division and hate isn't easy because rational argument rarely works. They can be ignored - perhaps the first line of defence - and be left to shout into the darkness. That doesn't mean rational counter-argument can't and shouldn't be tried but in the expectation it won't have an impact.

    I think the Nat Con example is a very good one as to why we need to defend freedom of speech even when we don't like what is being said.

    Some of the things they are saying are pretty awful and I have no time for them at all.

    But some of the things they are saying are not awful. Even if I still disagree with them. Talking about the ills of globalisation is not, as the Guardian today would have us believe, code for anti-semitism. It is code for gloabalisation is, in their opinion, crap. And I am inclined on some levels to agree with that.

    But if some of the critics had their way then their definition - that it is all about anti-semitism - is the one that would apply and there are plenty out there who would ban them on that basis.

    That would be a very dangerous position for us to find ourselves in. We do see too many cases from both sides these days where people are wilfully misinterpreting their opponents a means of daemonising them and the only thing that stops this being a complete disaster is that the more sane voices on both sides are still willing to stand up and fight for freedom of speech.
    Note the distinction between "globalisation", and "globalist". "Globalisation" is something you often hear about from the left, and it's primarily a criticism of capitalism operating above the reach of national governments.
    "Globalist" is often used in a different context, and often nothing to do with criticising capitalism. Indeed, it's often used to attack the left. And, I'm afraid to say, it is also often used in conjunction with anti-Semitic tropes.

    Using the term "globalist" doesn't make someone an anti-Semite, but it merits watching out for other things they say in the same context. It's usually clear within a few sentences whether they dog-whistling racists or leftists. Or both.
    Sorry but that is dancing on the head of a pin. It is taking a small subsection of a spectrum of views and using them to tar the whole lot. It is lazy and pernicious.

    Nor is it only racists or lefties who are anti-globalisation and anti-globalists. I pretty much detest the left but I believe globalisation has been very bad on the whole for a large part of the world's population (just as it has been good for some of them). You are trying to pigeon hole people to suit your own ideology.

    I whole heartedly agree with you on free speech but I completely disagree with you on globalisation. For the vast majority of humanity the last 30 years have been brilliant. 2 billion people have been lifted out of poverty into a reasonable lifestyle. Maybe more

    It’s been RELATIVELY shit for less educated people in the West who were used to coasting along on the accrued advantage of 300 years of western supremacy. Now they have to compete with that newly ambitious Egyptian lady I met tonight

    I sympathise with working class westerners and they are entitled to vote for Trump or Le Pen but they don’t get to create their own reality. Globalisation has generally been good for Homo sapiens
    It took me a lot longer to type out what Leon hammered out in seconds here, but yeah, largely this.

    I do not agree it's been in any way shit for less educated people in the West, though. Yes, there have been detriments alongside the benefits. But the amount of cheap stuff, and the jobs that have been made here by us being an open, trading economy have raised the livelihoods of even the worst off. I'd rather be at the bottom of the heap in 2023 than at the bottom of the heap in 1823.

    We've got enough problems without kicking away the ladder we're standing on. Globalisation and capitalism are good.
    Trade and globalisation are not the same things. Conflating the two is like conflating civilisation and Empire.
    Ok, so tell me what you mean by globalisation
    The creation of supranational companies and institutions whose sole aim is to make money by using the inevitable global differences to circumvent environmental, social and labour costs and responsibilities.

    Globalisation means that a company will catch fish in the North Sea, send it to the Far East for processing and then send it back to Europe as 'European'. All because it is cheaper than having it processed in Europe. If allowed to properly run its course it means that the US can impose lower food standards on countries it has free trade agreements with. Just look at the history of NAFTA. One good reason why I do not want us to have an FTA with the US. Globalisation in the end is really about might is right.

    It is strange that those who rightly criticise the European Empires of the past are so keen to see new non national Empires develop and excuse their excesses.

    Trade is good. Just like fire is good for keeping you warm. But you have to control it or it gets out of hand and burns your house down. Globalisation is the forest fire.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,038
    @Sean_F I'm not sure the Conservatives have really known what to do with since the main coalition agreement sort of expired in 2013. And even before then there were some dumb decisions on cutting defence, law & order and border control, although some welcome reforms as well.

    Cameron/Osborne seemed to have virtually no idea what to do with their majority won at GE2015. It sort of felt that since 2005 they'd been entirely defensive about being Conservatives, and seemed to think it was continuity New Labour but with slightly lower taxes.

    I'm still not convinced I've seen any evidence to say we're anything other than Two Nations - and both the centre-right and centre-left blocks should be hovering around 40%.

    But, a big chunk of the Conservative one has deserted because it hasn't got a clue what to do with itself and hasn't delivered.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846
    Farooq said:

    pm215 said:

    Farooq said:

    #We've got enough problems without kicking away the ladder we're standing on. Globalisation and capitalism are good.

    On balance, agreed. But I think a lot of the problems we have are because we're stuck in this vastly complicated system and we don't understand it anywhere near well enough to be able to reliably avoid its negative impacts. We can see that sweeping the whole thing away would clearly be a disaster, but we're by no means in control of it, which isn't a pleasant place to be.
    That's a feature, not a bug. Systems that are controllable are vulnerable to malign capture.
    One of the great lessons of history is that power concentrated is power abused. This is why the market is better than central planning. It's why democracy is better than dictatorship.
    Globalisation is that power concentrated and abused.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    stodge said:

    Listening to some of the language at the National Conservative event, I'm reminded of the dilemma I face on the issue of Freedom of Speech.

    As a "marxist liberal" or should that be "liberal marxist", I shouldn't have too many qualms but unfortunately I do. The notion of free speech, rather like EU membership, has only two credible positions - you're either for it or against it. As with our half-hearted rebate-obsessed membership of the EU, Freedom of Speech either means you're completely opposed and have no problem shutting down opinions with which you disagree or you're completely in favour which means accepting the right to offend and be offended.

    The Right to Offend is one of those tricky ones - we can all promise to be nice to each other but in the real world as soon as you bring in legislation or control to restrict anyone's right to freedom of speech, you're compromising that freedom for everyone.

    I don't like hate speech, I don't like speech which sets out deliberately to offend or provoke or incite or divide but I'm forced to accept these are aspects of the human condition and whether I like them or not, they exist and always will exist. I'm also reminded jaw-jaw is better than war-war and allowing the right to vent verbally is preferable to the wrong of acting physically.

    It's not comfortable but I suspect it's not meant to be - challenging those who wish to spread division and hate isn't easy because rational argument rarely works. They can be ignored - perhaps the first line of defence - and be left to shout into the darkness. That doesn't mean rational counter-argument can't and shouldn't be tried but in the expectation it won't have an impact.

    I think the Nat Con example is a very good one as to why we need to defend freedom of speech even when we don't like what is being said.

    Some of the things they are saying are pretty awful and I have no time for them at all.

    But some of the things they are saying are not awful. Even if I still disagree with them. Talking about the ills of globalisation is not, as the Guardian today would have us believe, code for anti-semitism. It is code for gloabalisation is, in their opinion, crap. And I am inclined on some levels to agree with that.

    But if some of the critics had their way then their definition - that it is all about anti-semitism - is the one that would apply and there are plenty out there who would ban them on that basis.

    That would be a very dangerous position for us to find ourselves in. We do see too many cases from both sides these days where people are wilfully misinterpreting their opponents a means of daemonising them and the only thing that stops this being a complete disaster is that the more sane voices on both sides are still willing to stand up and fight for freedom of speech.
    Note the distinction between "globalisation", and "globalist". "Globalisation" is something you often hear about from the left, and it's primarily a criticism of capitalism operating above the reach of national governments.
    "Globalist" is often used in a different context, and often nothing to do with criticising capitalism. Indeed, it's often used to attack the left. And, I'm afraid to say, it is also often used in conjunction with anti-Semitic tropes.

    Using the term "globalist" doesn't make someone an anti-Semite, but it merits watching out for other things they say in the same context. It's usually clear within a few sentences whether they dog-whistling racists or leftists. Or both.
    Sorry but that is dancing on the head of a pin. It is taking a small subsection of a spectrum of views and using them to tar the whole lot. It is lazy and pernicious.

    Nor is it only racists or lefties who are anti-globalisation and anti-globalists. I pretty much detest the left but I believe globalisation has been very bad on the whole for a large part of the world's population (just as it has been good for some of them). You are trying to pigeon hole people to suit your own ideology.

    I whole heartedly agree with you on free speech but I completely disagree with you on globalisation. For the vast majority of humanity the last 30 years have been brilliant. 2 billion people have been lifted out of poverty into a reasonable lifestyle. Maybe more

    It’s been RELATIVELY shit for less educated people in the West who were used to coasting along on the accrued advantage of 300 years of western supremacy. Now they have to compete with that newly ambitious Egyptian lady I met tonight

    I sympathise with working class westerners and they are entitled to vote for Trump or Le Pen but they don’t get to create their own reality. Globalisation has generally been good for Homo sapiens
    It took me a lot longer to type out what Leon hammered out in seconds here, but yeah, largely this.

    I do not agree it's been in any way shit for less educated people in the West, though. Yes, there have been detriments alongside the benefits. But the amount of cheap stuff, and the jobs that have been made here by us being an open, trading economy have raised the livelihoods of even the worst off. I'd rather be at the bottom of the heap in 2023 than at the bottom of the heap in 1823.

    We've got enough problems without kicking away the ladder we're standing on. Globalisation and capitalism are good.
    Trade and globalisation are not the same things. Conflating the two is like conflating civilisation and Empire.
    Ok, so tell me what you mean by globalisation
    The creation of supranational companies and institutions whose sole aim is to make money by using the inevitable global differences to circumvent environmental, social and labour costs and responsibilities.

    Globalisation means that a company will catch fish in the North Sea, send it to the Far East for processing and then send it back to Europe as 'European'. All because it is cheaper than having it processed in Europe. If allowed to properly run its course it means that the US can impose lower food standards on countries it has free trade agreements with. Just look at the history of NAFTA. One good reason why I do not want us to have an FTA with the US. Globalisation in the end is really about might is right.

    It is strange that those who rightly criticise the European Empires of the past are so keen to see new non national Empires develop and excuse their excesses.

    Trade is good. Just like fire is good for keeping you warm. But you have to control it or it gets out of hand and burns your house down. Globalisation is the forest fire.
    Thanks for that interesting view; I'll take a little time to think it over.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 4,542
    Another Brexit success story on the BBC !

    Looks like the world beating UK electric car industry was another load of hot air from no 10 .
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,175
    edited May 2023
    The BBC News at Ten led with Vauxhall warning about Brexit-related tariffs hitting electric car manufacture, followed by a report on high food inflation. Do the NatCs have any answers on these issues? Do the Tories in general?
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,620
    A big welcome back to the Correct Horse, although he is sometimes incorrect despite his name
  • RattersRatters Posts: 756
    edited May 2023
    The thing with the Tories is that they are failing on their own terms:

    - Immigration is at record highs
    - Borrowing remains extremely high, both in terms of deficit and debt
    - Economic growth has been poor
    - Tax as a proportion of GDP is also at very high levels

    These are areas where they should be trying to win against Labour on. But you can't attack potential future reckless borrowing when you are borrowing recklessly, for example.

    The culture wars (focusing on a minuscule proportion of immigration, plus minuscule proportion of the population that is trans) may shore up their base, but it's too narrow.

    For their own sake they need some time out of power, if only so that they can plausibly pin some of the blame on someone other than themselves.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,265
    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Yes, and Scott P's point was that he deserved to remain one due to who his grandpa was.

    Nope

    My point was that a Conservative and Unionist Party with no room for Churchill's grandson is fucked
    Nick Soames is a fat snobbish odious c*nt relying on his surname. No great loss to anyone
    No he isn't, he is a charming intelligent gentleman and patrician Tory of the old school.

    I once sat next to him at a Tory dinner and he was very engaging to speak to (even if he did have about 3 helpings of shepherds pie!)
    Yes, I found him a helpful colleague on non-political issues - he once got me tickets for constituents who wanted to visit the Royal Enclosure at Ascot!
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 4,542

    The BBC News at Ten led with Vauxhall warning about Brexit-related tariffs hitting car manufacture, followed by a report on high food inflation. Do the NatCs have any answers on these issues? Do the Tories in general?

    No they’re too busy scapegoating refugees and their war on woke !
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,780
    Eabhal said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    stodge said:

    Listening to some of the language at the National Conservative event, I'm reminded of the dilemma I face on the issue of Freedom of Speech.

    As a "marxist liberal" or should that be "liberal marxist", I shouldn't have too many qualms but unfortunately I do. The notion of free speech, rather like EU membership, has only two credible positions - you're either for it or against it. As with our half-hearted rebate-obsessed membership of the EU, Freedom of Speech either means you're completely opposed and have no problem shutting down opinions with which you disagree or you're completely in favour which means accepting the right to offend and be offended.

    The Right to Offend is one of those tricky ones - we can all promise to be nice to each other but in the real world as soon as you bring in legislation or control to restrict anyone's right to freedom of speech, you're compromising that freedom for everyone.

    I don't like hate speech, I don't like speech which sets out deliberately to offend or provoke or incite or divide but I'm forced to accept these are aspects of the human condition and whether I like them or not, they exist and always will exist. I'm also reminded jaw-jaw is better than war-war and allowing the right to vent verbally is preferable to the wrong of acting physically.

    It's not comfortable but I suspect it's not meant to be - challenging those who wish to spread division and hate isn't easy because rational argument rarely works. They can be ignored - perhaps the first line of defence - and be left to shout into the darkness. That doesn't mean rational counter-argument can't and shouldn't be tried but in the expectation it won't have an impact.

    I think the Nat Con example is a very good one as to why we need to defend freedom of speech even when we don't like what is being said.

    Some of the things they are saying are pretty awful and I have no time for them at all.

    But some of the things they are saying are not awful. Even if I still disagree with them. Talking about the ills of globalisation is not, as the Guardian today would have us believe, code for anti-semitism. It is code for gloabalisation is, in their opinion, crap. And I am inclined on some levels to agree with that.

    But if some of the critics had their way then their definition - that it is all about anti-semitism - is the one that would apply and there are plenty out there who would ban them on that basis.

    That would be a very dangerous position for us to find ourselves in. We do see too many cases from both sides these days where people are wilfully misinterpreting their opponents a means of daemonising them and the only thing that stops this being a complete disaster is that the more sane voices on both sides are still willing to stand up and fight for freedom of speech.
    Note the distinction between "globalisation", and "globalist". "Globalisation" is something you often hear about from the left, and it's primarily a criticism of capitalism operating above the reach of national governments.
    "Globalist" is often used in a different context, and often nothing to do with criticising capitalism. Indeed, it's often used to attack the left. And, I'm afraid to say, it is also often used in conjunction with anti-Semitic tropes.

    Using the term "globalist" doesn't make someone an anti-Semite, but it merits watching out for other things they say in the same context. It's usually clear within a few sentences whether they dog-whistling racists or leftists. Or both.
    Sorry but that is dancing on the head of a pin. It is taking a small subsection of a spectrum of views and using them to tar the whole lot. It is lazy and pernicious.

    Nor is it only racists or lefties who are anti-globalisation and anti-globalists. I pretty much detest the left but I believe globalisation has been very bad on the whole for a large part of the world's population (just as it has been good for some of them). You are trying to pigeon hole people to suit your own ideology.

    I whole heartedly agree with you on free speech but I completely disagree with you on globalisation. For the vast majority of humanity the last 30 years have been brilliant. 2 billion people have been lifted out of poverty into a reasonable lifestyle. Maybe more

    It’s been RELATIVELY shit for less educated people in the West who were used to coasting along on the accrued advantage of 300 years of western supremacy. Now they have to compete with that newly ambitious Egyptian lady I met tonight

    I sympathise with working class westerners and they are entitled to vote for Trump or Le Pen but they don’t get to create their own reality. Globalisation has generally been good for Homo sapiens
    I fucking hate saying this, but this is absolutely spot on.
    Otoh, The Diplomat is terrible. Lost a great deal of credibility and am now being punished with Sewing Bee.
    Eh?

    I've never seen it.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846
    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    stodge said:

    Listening to some of the language at the National Conservative event, I'm reminded of the dilemma I face on the issue of Freedom of Speech.

    As a "marxist liberal" or should that be "liberal marxist", I shouldn't have too many qualms but unfortunately I do. The notion of free speech, rather like EU membership, has only two credible positions - you're either for it or against it. As with our half-hearted rebate-obsessed membership of the EU, Freedom of Speech either means you're completely opposed and have no problem shutting down opinions with which you disagree or you're completely in favour which means accepting the right to offend and be offended.

    The Right to Offend is one of those tricky ones - we can all promise to be nice to each other but in the real world as soon as you bring in legislation or control to restrict anyone's right to freedom of speech, you're compromising that freedom for everyone.

    I don't like hate speech, I don't like speech which sets out deliberately to offend or provoke or incite or divide but I'm forced to accept these are aspects of the human condition and whether I like them or not, they exist and always will exist. I'm also reminded jaw-jaw is better than war-war and allowing the right to vent verbally is preferable to the wrong of acting physically.

    It's not comfortable but I suspect it's not meant to be - challenging those who wish to spread division and hate isn't easy because rational argument rarely works. They can be ignored - perhaps the first line of defence - and be left to shout into the darkness. That doesn't mean rational counter-argument can't and shouldn't be tried but in the expectation it won't have an impact.

    I think the Nat Con example is a very good one as to why we need to defend freedom of speech even when we don't like what is being said.

    Some of the things they are saying are pretty awful and I have no time for them at all.

    But some of the things they are saying are not awful. Even if I still disagree with them. Talking about the ills of globalisation is not, as the Guardian today would have us believe, code for anti-semitism. It is code for gloabalisation is, in their opinion, crap. And I am inclined on some levels to agree with that.

    But if some of the critics had their way then their definition - that it is all about anti-semitism - is the one that would apply and there are plenty out there who would ban them on that basis.

    That would be a very dangerous position for us to find ourselves in. We do see too many cases from both sides these days where people are wilfully misinterpreting their opponents a means of daemonising them and the only thing that stops this being a complete disaster is that the more sane voices on both sides are still willing to stand up and fight for freedom of speech.
    Note the distinction between "globalisation", and "globalist". "Globalisation" is something you often hear about from the left, and it's primarily a criticism of capitalism operating above the reach of national governments.
    "Globalist" is often used in a different context, and often nothing to do with criticising capitalism. Indeed, it's often used to attack the left. And, I'm afraid to say, it is also often used in conjunction with anti-Semitic tropes.

    Using the term "globalist" doesn't make someone an anti-Semite, but it merits watching out for other things they say in the same context. It's usually clear within a few sentences whether they dog-whistling racists or leftists. Or both.
    Sorry but that is dancing on the head of a pin. It is taking a small subsection of a spectrum of views and using them to tar the whole lot. It is lazy and pernicious.

    Nor is it only racists or lefties who are anti-globalisation and anti-globalists. I pretty much detest the left but I believe globalisation has been very bad on the whole for a large part of the world's population (just as it has been good for some of them). You are trying to pigeon hole people to suit your own ideology.

    I whole heartedly agree with you on free speech but I completely disagree with you on globalisation. For the vast majority of humanity the last 30 years have been brilliant. 2 billion people have been lifted out of poverty into a reasonable lifestyle. Maybe more

    It’s been RELATIVELY shit for less educated people in the West who were used to coasting along on the accrued advantage of 300 years of western supremacy. Now they have to compete with that newly ambitious Egyptian lady I met tonight

    I sympathise with working class westerners and they are entitled to vote for Trump or Le Pen but they don’t get to create their own reality. Globalisation has generally been good for Homo sapiens
    It took me a lot longer to type out what Leon hammered out in seconds here, but yeah, largely this.

    I do not agree it's been in any way shit for less educated people in the West, though. Yes, there have been detriments alongside the benefits. But the amount of cheap stuff, and the jobs that have been made here by us being an open, trading economy have raised the livelihoods of even the worst off. I'd rather be at the bottom of the heap in 2023 than at the bottom of the heap in 1823.

    We've got enough problems without kicking away the ladder we're standing on. Globalisation and capitalism are good.
    Trade and globalisation are not the same things. Conflating the two is like conflating civilisation and Empire.
    Ok, so tell me what you mean by globalisation
    The creation of supranational companies and institutions whose sole aim is to make money by using the inevitable global differences to circumvent environmental, social and labour costs and responsibilities.

    Globalisation means that a company will catch fish in the North Sea, send it to the Far East for processing and then send it back to Europe as 'European'. All because it is cheaper than having it processed in Europe. If allowed to properly run its course it means that the US can impose lower food standards on countries it has free trade agreements with. Just look at the history of NAFTA. One good reason why I do not want us to have an FTA with the US. Globalisation in the end is really about might is right.

    It is strange that those who rightly criticise the European Empires of the past are so keen to see new non national Empires develop and excuse their excesses.

    Trade is good. Just like fire is good for keeping you warm. But you have to control it or it gets out of hand and burns your house down. Globalisation is the forest fire.
    Thanks for that interesting view; I'll take a little time to think it over.
    I would add that the pandemic and the war in Ukraine have both highlighted the failings of globalisation. Not because they were caused by it but because they showed that the global trade system we have come to rely on is dangerously fragile and there is no means to improve it. I could also add that the way in which some third world economies were effectively turned into mono-cultures on the altar of trade whilst they didn't grow enough crops to feed their own populations is another symptom
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,547
    Leon said:

    Re the National Conservative conference. It’s getting predictably trashed by hysterical lefties but at least the Tories are having a debate, and engaging each other with interesting and serious ideas

    What does Starmer believe in? The Lib Dems? I have no clue. They never discuss ANYTHING


    Saying the German National Socialists mucked up on nationalism but the similarly named British National Conservatives would.do the job properly counts as "engaging each other with interesting and serious ideas"?

    Do you have to be a "hysterical leftie" to think they are completely barking, and not in a pleasant way?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,780
    Leon said:
    From the article:

    When computer scientists at Microsoft started to experiment with a new artificial intelligence system last year, they asked it to solve a puzzle that should have required an intuitive understanding of the physical world.

    “Here we have a book, nine eggs, a laptop, a bottle and a nail,” they asked. “Please tell me how to stack them onto each other in a stable manner.”

    The researchers were startled by the ingenuity of the A.I. system’s answer. Put the eggs on the book, it said. Arrange the eggs in three rows with space between them. Make sure you don’t crack them.

    “Place the laptop on top of the eggs, with the screen facing down and the keyboard facing up,” it wrote. “The laptop will fit snugly within the boundaries of the book and the eggs, and its flat and rigid surface will provide a stable platform for the next layer.”


    And this is what I got when I asked ChatGPT:


  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 3,911
    Leon said:
    If you haven't already, and you have a computer capable of handling it (windows PC with beefy NVIDIA graphics card or M1/M2 Mac), I highly recommend looking into running your own open source LLM.

    They are completely uncensored and, while they don't have the same number of parameters as ChatGPT (about 10x fewer, in fact), the completely uncensored experience more than makes up for it. Fewer parameters but feels far less "dumb" than OpenAI's "aligned" (ie woke, censored, "as a large language model I can't...") models.

    Requires a bit of knowledge to find the right model files and install them, but https://www.reddit.com/r/LocalLLaMA/ is a good place to start. A 7 or 13b parameter 4 bit quantized model will run at acceptable speeds on a beefy home computer.

    This is the guy who has been training the uncensored models and he gives a pretty good rationale for why he's doing it:
    https://erichartford.com/uncensored-models

    Even if the tech is still a bit out of the reach of your hardware/competence, it's extraordinary how in three months we've gone from "This is science fiction technology that requires $100k of dedicated A100 cards to run" to "I can run a local version of this on my home computer and achieve comparable (and uncensored) results".

    Once there is an easy install, consumer friendly open source interface, OpenAI's business model is dead in the water.

  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,289
    pm215 said:

    Leon said:


    So the EU is now wheeling out laws regulating crypto and AI and all kinds of tech which might easily extinguish innovation in these areas in the EU. That will leave the UK very nicely placed as a large English speaking economy next to Europe unencumbered by these laws

    In a globalised economy what's the benefit of being "next to" Europe? The stuff we might hope to export to them will be just as subject to whatever import and data handling controls the EU determines as will direct US supply of tech and services to the EU.
    I presume Leon is thinking of the enormous transport savings to be gained by only having to ship crypto and AI a few short miles across the Channel.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,968
    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    stodge said:

    Listening to some of the language at the National Conservative event, I'm reminded of the dilemma I face on the issue of Freedom of Speech.

    As a "marxist liberal" or should that be "liberal marxist", I shouldn't have too many qualms but unfortunately I do. The notion of free speech, rather like EU membership, has only two credible positions - you're either for it or against it. As with our half-hearted rebate-obsessed membership of the EU, Freedom of Speech either means you're completely opposed and have no problem shutting down opinions with which you disagree or you're completely in favour which means accepting the right to offend and be offended.

    The Right to Offend is one of those tricky ones - we can all promise to be nice to each other but in the real world as soon as you bring in legislation or control to restrict anyone's right to freedom of speech, you're compromising that freedom for everyone.

    I don't like hate speech, I don't like speech which sets out deliberately to offend or provoke or incite or divide but I'm forced to accept these are aspects of the human condition and whether I like them or not, they exist and always will exist. I'm also reminded jaw-jaw is better than war-war and allowing the right to vent verbally is preferable to the wrong of acting physically.

    It's not comfortable but I suspect it's not meant to be - challenging those who wish to spread division and hate isn't easy because rational argument rarely works. They can be ignored - perhaps the first line of defence - and be left to shout into the darkness. That doesn't mean rational counter-argument can't and shouldn't be tried but in the expectation it won't have an impact.

    I think the Nat Con example is a very good one as to why we need to defend freedom of speech even when we don't like what is being said.

    Some of the things they are saying are pretty awful and I have no time for them at all.

    But some of the things they are saying are not awful. Even if I still disagree with them. Talking about the ills of globalisation is not, as the Guardian today would have us believe, code for anti-semitism. It is code for gloabalisation is, in their opinion, crap. And I am inclined on some levels to agree with that.

    But if some of the critics had their way then their definition - that it is all about anti-semitism - is the one that would apply and there are plenty out there who would ban them on that basis.

    That would be a very dangerous position for us to find ourselves in. We do see too many cases from both sides these days where people are wilfully misinterpreting their opponents a means of daemonising them and the only thing that stops this being a complete disaster is that the more sane voices on both sides are still willing to stand up and fight for freedom of speech.
    Note the distinction between "globalisation", and "globalist". "Globalisation" is something you often hear about from the left, and it's primarily a criticism of capitalism operating above the reach of national governments.
    "Globalist" is often used in a different context, and often nothing to do with criticising capitalism. Indeed, it's often used to attack the left. And, I'm afraid to say, it is also often used in conjunction with anti-Semitic tropes.

    Using the term "globalist" doesn't make someone an anti-Semite, but it merits watching out for other things they say in the same context. It's usually clear within a few sentences whether they dog-whistling racists or leftists. Or both.
    Sorry but that is dancing on the head of a pin. It is taking a small subsection of a spectrum of views and using them to tar the whole lot. It is lazy and pernicious.

    Nor is it only racists or lefties who are anti-globalisation and anti-globalists. I pretty much detest the left but I believe globalisation has been very bad on the whole for a large part of the world's population (just as it has been good for some of them). You are trying to pigeon hole people to suit your own ideology.

    I whole heartedly agree with you on free speech but I completely disagree with you on globalisation. For the vast majority of humanity the last 30 years have been brilliant. 2 billion people have been lifted out of poverty into a reasonable lifestyle. Maybe more

    It’s been RELATIVELY shit for less educated people in the West who were used to coasting along on the accrued advantage of 300 years of western supremacy. Now they have to compete with that newly ambitious Egyptian lady I met tonight

    I sympathise with working class westerners and they are entitled to vote for Trump or Le Pen but they don’t get to create their own reality. Globalisation has generally been good for Homo sapiens
    It's been a great time to be alive, for the average person. Not that we are likely to feel grateful when something shitty happens, when asked to compare ourselves to a 12th century Sundanese farmer or something.
    For many people in Chicago, Glasgow, and Lille the last 3 decades have been rubbish and show few signs of improving

    In Shanghai, Bangkok and Jakarta they’ve been fairly amazing. And the latter 3 cities all have populations over 10m
    Thinking about which western demographics who are losing out:

    1) Remote rust belt communities where the jobs have moved out and the fentanyl has moved in

    2) Declining middle class types whose skills can be replicated cheaper elsewhere

    3) Those young loaded down with debt

    Any others ?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,308
    It’s midnight in Alex. I’m going to sleep

    The photo earlier is from the absolutely extraordinary Greco-Roman-Egyptian-Christian Alexandrian catacombs






    They are horse bones unearthed in the same area. It is believed they are the bones of champion Roman horses from the Alexandrian hippodrome or chariot races, around the time of Cleopatra. The horses were religiously venerated as sacred winners and therefore given ceremonial burials

    Night night
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846
    edited May 2023

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    stodge said:

    Listening to some of the language at the National Conservative event, I'm reminded of the dilemma I face on the issue of Freedom of Speech.

    As a "marxist liberal" or should that be "liberal marxist", I shouldn't have too many qualms but unfortunately I do. The notion of free speech, rather like EU membership, has only two credible positions - you're either for it or against it. As with our half-hearted rebate-obsessed membership of the EU, Freedom of Speech either means you're completely opposed and have no problem shutting down opinions with which you disagree or you're completely in favour which means accepting the right to offend and be offended.

    The Right to Offend is one of those tricky ones - we can all promise to be nice to each other but in the real world as soon as you bring in legislation or control to restrict anyone's right to freedom of speech, you're compromising that freedom for everyone.

    I don't like hate speech, I don't like speech which sets out deliberately to offend or provoke or incite or divide but I'm forced to accept these are aspects of the human condition and whether I like them or not, they exist and always will exist. I'm also reminded jaw-jaw is better than war-war and allowing the right to vent verbally is preferable to the wrong of acting physically.

    It's not comfortable but I suspect it's not meant to be - challenging those who wish to spread division and hate isn't easy because rational argument rarely works. They can be ignored - perhaps the first line of defence - and be left to shout into the darkness. That doesn't mean rational counter-argument can't and shouldn't be tried but in the expectation it won't have an impact.

    I think the Nat Con example is a very good one as to why we need to defend freedom of speech even when we don't like what is being said.

    Some of the things they are saying are pretty awful and I have no time for them at all.

    But some of the things they are saying are not awful. Even if I still disagree with them. Talking about the ills of globalisation is not, as the Guardian today would have us believe, code for anti-semitism. It is code for gloabalisation is, in their opinion, crap. And I am inclined on some levels to agree with that.

    But if some of the critics had their way then their definition - that it is all about anti-semitism - is the one that would apply and there are plenty out there who would ban them on that basis.

    That would be a very dangerous position for us to find ourselves in. We do see too many cases from both sides these days where people are wilfully misinterpreting their opponents a means of daemonising them and the only thing that stops this being a complete disaster is that the more sane voices on both sides are still willing to stand up and fight for freedom of speech.
    Note the distinction between "globalisation", and "globalist". "Globalisation" is something you often hear about from the left, and it's primarily a criticism of capitalism operating above the reach of national governments.
    "Globalist" is often used in a different context, and often nothing to do with criticising capitalism. Indeed, it's often used to attack the left. And, I'm afraid to say, it is also often used in conjunction with anti-Semitic tropes.

    Using the term "globalist" doesn't make someone an anti-Semite, but it merits watching out for other things they say in the same context. It's usually clear within a few sentences whether they dog-whistling racists or leftists. Or both.
    Sorry but that is dancing on the head of a pin. It is taking a small subsection of a spectrum of views and using them to tar the whole lot. It is lazy and pernicious.

    Nor is it only racists or lefties who are anti-globalisation and anti-globalists. I pretty much detest the left but I believe globalisation has been very bad on the whole for a large part of the world's population (just as it has been good for some of them). You are trying to pigeon hole people to suit your own ideology.

    I whole heartedly agree with you on free speech but I completely disagree with you on globalisation. For the vast majority of humanity the last 30 years have been brilliant. 2 billion people have been lifted out of poverty into a reasonable lifestyle. Maybe more

    It’s been RELATIVELY shit for less educated people in the West who were used to coasting along on the accrued advantage of 300 years of western supremacy. Now they have to compete with that newly ambitious Egyptian lady I met tonight

    I sympathise with working class westerners and they are entitled to vote for Trump or Le Pen but they don’t get to create their own reality. Globalisation has generally been good for Homo sapiens
    It's been a great time to be alive, for the average person. Not that we are likely to feel grateful when something shitty happens, when asked to compare ourselves to a 12th century Sundanese farmer or something.
    For many people in Chicago, Glasgow, and Lille the last 3 decades have been rubbish and show few signs of improving

    In Shanghai, Bangkok and Jakarta they’ve been fairly amazing. And the latter 3 cities all have populations over 10m
    Thinking about which western demographics who are losing out:

    1) Remote rust belt communities where the jobs have moved out and the fentanyl has moved in

    2) Declining middle class types whose skills can be replicated cheaper elsewhere

    3) Those young loaded down with debt

    Any others ?
    Given that those three categories probably covers about 70% of the population I am not sure we need any more.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,968
    Ratters said:

    The thing with the Tories is that they are failing on their own terms:

    - Immigration is at record highs
    - Borrowing remains extremely high, both in terms of deficit and debt
    - Economic growth has been poor
    - Tax as a proportion of GDP is also at very high levels

    These are areas where they should be trying to win against Labour on. But you can't attack potential future reckless borrowing when you are borrowing recklessly, for example.

    The culture wars (focusing on a minuscule proportion of immigration, plus minuscule proportion of the population that is trans) may shore up their base, but it's too narrow.

    For their own sake they need some time out of power, if only so that they can plausibly pin some of the blame on someone other than themselves.

    They should be shouting that they've achieved full employment.

    But many Conservatives likely think that full employment is a bad thing.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,038
    Ratters said:

    The thing with the Tories is that they are failing on their own terms:

    - Immigration is at record highs
    - Borrowing remains extremely high, both in terms of deficit and debt
    - Economic growth has been poor
    - Tax as a proportion of GDP is also at very high levels

    These are areas where they should be trying to win against Labour on. But you can't attack potential future reckless borrowing when you are borrowing recklessly, for example.

    The culture wars (focusing on a minuscule proportion of immigration, plus minuscule proportion of the population that is trans) may shore up their base, but it's too narrow.

    For their own sake they need some time out of power, if only so that they can plausibly pin some of the blame on someone other than themselves.

    Spring Budget 2023 said debt interest would reach £115bn this year, which is second only to the DHSC budget - double what it was a year ago.

    These are simply phenomenonal numbers and explains why there is so little money going around for extra spending and tax cuts - almost £60bn pa has simply vanished into higher debt payments.

    The Conservatives don't like to talk about this anymore - as they did in 2010-2015 - but these are very serious numbers, and the arguments for fiscal discipline haven't gone away.

  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,842

    What's the point in being teenager if you can't have a quick fag behind the bike side, sneak your first pint with fake ID, and indelicately fondle Ceilia's breasts for the first time in a skate park late on Friday night?

    Not everything is about phones.

    U ok hun?
    If I posted that the user in question would be calling me a saddo with a poor sense of humour.
    Whereas I get told that I'm a saddo with a poor sense of humour on a regular basis anyway.

    The joys of teaching...
    That's because you're interrupting them behind the bike sheds.
    The only folk smoking behind a bike shed these days are the staff.
    The drinking and groping may happen too for all I know.
    I'm trying not to...
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,968

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    stodge said:

    Listening to some of the language at the National Conservative event, I'm reminded of the dilemma I face on the issue of Freedom of Speech.

    As a "marxist liberal" or should that be "liberal marxist", I shouldn't have too many qualms but unfortunately I do. The notion of free speech, rather like EU membership, has only two credible positions - you're either for it or against it. As with our half-hearted rebate-obsessed membership of the EU, Freedom of Speech either means you're completely opposed and have no problem shutting down opinions with which you disagree or you're completely in favour which means accepting the right to offend and be offended.

    The Right to Offend is one of those tricky ones - we can all promise to be nice to each other but in the real world as soon as you bring in legislation or control to restrict anyone's right to freedom of speech, you're compromising that freedom for everyone.

    I don't like hate speech, I don't like speech which sets out deliberately to offend or provoke or incite or divide but I'm forced to accept these are aspects of the human condition and whether I like them or not, they exist and always will exist. I'm also reminded jaw-jaw is better than war-war and allowing the right to vent verbally is preferable to the wrong of acting physically.

    It's not comfortable but I suspect it's not meant to be - challenging those who wish to spread division and hate isn't easy because rational argument rarely works. They can be ignored - perhaps the first line of defence - and be left to shout into the darkness. That doesn't mean rational counter-argument can't and shouldn't be tried but in the expectation it won't have an impact.

    I think the Nat Con example is a very good one as to why we need to defend freedom of speech even when we don't like what is being said.

    Some of the things they are saying are pretty awful and I have no time for them at all.

    But some of the things they are saying are not awful. Even if I still disagree with them. Talking about the ills of globalisation is not, as the Guardian today would have us believe, code for anti-semitism. It is code for gloabalisation is, in their opinion, crap. And I am inclined on some levels to agree with that.

    But if some of the critics had their way then their definition - that it is all about anti-semitism - is the one that would apply and there are plenty out there who would ban them on that basis.

    That would be a very dangerous position for us to find ourselves in. We do see too many cases from both sides these days where people are wilfully misinterpreting their opponents a means of daemonising them and the only thing that stops this being a complete disaster is that the more sane voices on both sides are still willing to stand up and fight for freedom of speech.
    Note the distinction between "globalisation", and "globalist". "Globalisation" is something you often hear about from the left, and it's primarily a criticism of capitalism operating above the reach of national governments.
    "Globalist" is often used in a different context, and often nothing to do with criticising capitalism. Indeed, it's often used to attack the left. And, I'm afraid to say, it is also often used in conjunction with anti-Semitic tropes.

    Using the term "globalist" doesn't make someone an anti-Semite, but it merits watching out for other things they say in the same context. It's usually clear within a few sentences whether they dog-whistling racists or leftists. Or both.
    Sorry but that is dancing on the head of a pin. It is taking a small subsection of a spectrum of views and using them to tar the whole lot. It is lazy and pernicious.

    Nor is it only racists or lefties who are anti-globalisation and anti-globalists. I pretty much detest the left but I believe globalisation has been very bad on the whole for a large part of the world's population (just as it has been good for some of them). You are trying to pigeon hole people to suit your own ideology.

    I whole heartedly agree with you on free speech but I completely disagree with you on globalisation. For the vast majority of humanity the last 30 years have been brilliant. 2 billion people have been lifted out of poverty into a reasonable lifestyle. Maybe more

    It’s been RELATIVELY shit for less educated people in the West who were used to coasting along on the accrued advantage of 300 years of western supremacy. Now they have to compete with that newly ambitious Egyptian lady I met tonight

    I sympathise with working class westerners and they are entitled to vote for Trump or Le Pen but they don’t get to create their own reality. Globalisation has generally been good for Homo sapiens
    It took me a lot longer to type out what Leon hammered out in seconds here, but yeah, largely this.

    I do not agree it's been in any way shit for less educated people in the West, though. Yes, there have been detriments alongside the benefits. But the amount of cheap stuff, and the jobs that have been made here by us being an open, trading economy have raised the livelihoods of even the worst off. I'd rather be at the bottom of the heap in 2023 than at the bottom of the heap in 1823.

    We've got enough problems without kicking away the ladder we're standing on. Globalisation and capitalism are good.
    Trade and globalisation are not the same things. Conflating the two is like conflating civilisation and Empire.
    Ok, so tell me what you mean by globalisation
    The creation of supranational companies and institutions whose sole aim is to make money by using the inevitable global differences to circumvent environmental, social and labour costs and responsibilities.

    Globalisation means that a company will catch fish in the North Sea, send it to the Far East for processing and then send it back to Europe as 'European'. All because it is cheaper than having it processed in Europe. If allowed to properly run its course it means that the US can impose lower food standards on countries it has free trade agreements with. Just look at the history of NAFTA. One good reason why I do not want us to have an FTA with the US. Globalisation in the end is really about might is right.

    It is strange that those who rightly criticise the European Empires of the past are so keen to see new non national Empires develop and excuse their excesses.

    Trade is good. Just like fire is good for keeping you warm. But you have to control it or it gets out of hand and burns your house down. Globalisation is the forest fire.
    Thanks for that interesting view; I'll take a little time to think it over.
    I would add that the pandemic and the war in Ukraine have both highlighted the failings of globalisation. Not because they were caused by it but because they showed that the global trade system we have come to rely on is dangerously fragile and there is no means to improve it. I could also add that the way in which some third world economies were effectively turned into mono-cultures on the altar of trade whilst they didn't grow enough crops to feed their own populations is another symptom
    There are some who would say that you don't need to produce anything as you can always 'trade for it'.

    With well connected middlemen adding their 10% (or 100%) to 'facilitate' that trade.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,286
    Newsnight quite rightly leading on the SNP's stupid idea to abolish juries for rape trials.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,968

    Ratters said:

    The thing with the Tories is that they are failing on their own terms:

    - Immigration is at record highs
    - Borrowing remains extremely high, both in terms of deficit and debt
    - Economic growth has been poor
    - Tax as a proportion of GDP is also at very high levels

    These are areas where they should be trying to win against Labour on. But you can't attack potential future reckless borrowing when you are borrowing recklessly, for example.

    The culture wars (focusing on a minuscule proportion of immigration, plus minuscule proportion of the population that is trans) may shore up their base, but it's too narrow.

    For their own sake they need some time out of power, if only so that they can plausibly pin some of the blame on someone other than themselves.

    Spring Budget 2023 said debt interest would reach £115bn this year, which is second only to the DHSC budget - double what it was a year ago.

    These are simply phenomenonal numbers and explains why there is so little money going around for extra spending and tax cuts - almost £60bn pa has simply vanished into higher debt payments.

    The Conservatives don't like to talk about this anymore - as they did in 2010-2015 - but these are very serious numbers, and the arguments for fiscal discipline haven't gone away.

    Fiscal discipline requires some combination of:

    1) Tax rises on consumption
    2) Tax rises on property
    3) Reducing government handouts, especially to oldies
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,590
    DougSeal said:

    Given its polling position, and a disasterous local election campaign, the Tory Party must consider a candidate who can capture the imagination of the public and bring a fresh perspective to the party. With Liz Truss destined for bigger things, who better than Dean Gaffney?

    The former EastEnders actor turned reality TV star has all the qualities needed to lead the Conservative Party into a new era. Here are just a few reasons why:

    Firstly, Gaffney has proven himself to be a man of the people. As a soap star, he was beloved by millions of viewers up and down the country, and his appearances on shows like I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! and Celebs Go Dating have only cemented his place in the nation's hearts. He knows how to connect with ordinary people and has a natural charm that is sorely lacking in today's politics.

    Secondly, Gaffney is a proven winner. He may not have won any Oscars or BAFTAs, but he has triumphed in the cut-throat world of showbiz. He knows how to work hard and get results, and that's exactly what the Conservative Party needs right now. With the country in turmoil, we need a leader who can roll up their sleeves and get things done.

    Thirdly, Gaffney is a unifier. He may have had his ups and downs in his personal life, but he has always remained loyal to his friends and family. He is the kind of person who can bring people together and find common ground. In a political landscape that is increasingly divisive, Gaffney could be just what we need to heal the wounds and bring the country back together.

    Of course, there will be those who dismiss Gaffney's candidacy as a joke. But let us not forget that Ronald Reagan was once dismissed as a washed-up actor with no political experience. And yet he went on to become one of America's greatest presidents. Who's to say that Dean Gaffney couldn't do the same for Britain? Was not Liz Truss once laughed at? Who’s laughing now?

    So let us embrace the unexpected, let us break free from the tired old political class, and let us put our faith in Dean Gaffney. He may not be what we were expecting, but sometimes the best leaders are the ones who surprise us the most.

    I would rather say, step forward DougSeal.

    If you can learn to spell disastrous, the nation fancies your fondants.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,590
    Republican Senator Tommy Tuberville suggests we should end democratic elections in America.
    https://twitter.com/SawyerHackett/status/1658559891898880011
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    stodge said:

    Listening to some of the language at the National Conservative event, I'm reminded of the dilemma I face on the issue of Freedom of Speech.

    As a "marxist liberal" or should that be "liberal marxist", I shouldn't have too many qualms but unfortunately I do. The notion of free speech, rather like EU membership, has only two credible positions - you're either for it or against it. As with our half-hearted rebate-obsessed membership of the EU, Freedom of Speech either means you're completely opposed and have no problem shutting down opinions with which you disagree or you're completely in favour which means accepting the right to offend and be offended.

    The Right to Offend is one of those tricky ones - we can all promise to be nice to each other but in the real world as soon as you bring in legislation or control to restrict anyone's right to freedom of speech, you're compromising that freedom for everyone.

    I don't like hate speech, I don't like speech which sets out deliberately to offend or provoke or incite or divide but I'm forced to accept these are aspects of the human condition and whether I like them or not, they exist and always will exist. I'm also reminded jaw-jaw is better than war-war and allowing the right to vent verbally is preferable to the wrong of acting physically.

    It's not comfortable but I suspect it's not meant to be - challenging those who wish to spread division and hate isn't easy because rational argument rarely works. They can be ignored - perhaps the first line of defence - and be left to shout into the darkness. That doesn't mean rational counter-argument can't and shouldn't be tried but in the expectation it won't have an impact.

    I think the Nat Con example is a very good one as to why we need to defend freedom of speech even when we don't like what is being said.

    Some of the things they are saying are pretty awful and I have no time for them at all.

    But some of the things they are saying are not awful. Even if I still disagree with them. Talking about the ills of globalisation is not, as the Guardian today would have us believe, code for anti-semitism. It is code for gloabalisation is, in their opinion, crap. And I am inclined on some levels to agree with that.

    But if some of the critics had their way then their definition - that it is all about anti-semitism - is the one that would apply and there are plenty out there who would ban them on that basis.

    That would be a very dangerous position for us to find ourselves in. We do see too many cases from both sides these days where people are wilfully misinterpreting their opponents a means of daemonising them and the only thing that stops this being a complete disaster is that the more sane voices on both sides are still willing to stand up and fight for freedom of speech.
    Note the distinction between "globalisation", and "globalist". "Globalisation" is something you often hear about from the left, and it's primarily a criticism of capitalism operating above the reach of national governments.
    "Globalist" is often used in a different context, and often nothing to do with criticising capitalism. Indeed, it's often used to attack the left. And, I'm afraid to say, it is also often used in conjunction with anti-Semitic tropes.

    Using the term "globalist" doesn't make someone an anti-Semite, but it merits watching out for other things they say in the same context. It's usually clear within a few sentences whether they dog-whistling racists or leftists. Or both.
    Sorry but that is dancing on the head of a pin. It is taking a small subsection of a spectrum of views and using them to tar the whole lot. It is lazy and pernicious.

    Nor is it only racists or lefties who are anti-globalisation and anti-globalists. I pretty much detest the left but I believe globalisation has been very bad on the whole for a large part of the world's population (just as it has been good for some of them). You are trying to pigeon hole people to suit your own ideology.

    I whole heartedly agree with you on free speech but I completely disagree with you on globalisation. For the vast majority of humanity the last 30 years have been brilliant. 2 billion people have been lifted out of poverty into a reasonable lifestyle. Maybe more

    It’s been RELATIVELY shit for less educated people in the West who were used to coasting along on the accrued advantage of 300 years of western supremacy. Now they have to compete with that newly ambitious Egyptian lady I met tonight

    I sympathise with working class westerners and they are entitled to vote for Trump or Le Pen but they don’t get to create their own reality. Globalisation has generally been good for Homo sapiens
    It took me a lot longer to type out what Leon hammered out in seconds here, but yeah, largely this.

    I do not agree it's been in any way shit for less educated people in the West, though. Yes, there have been detriments alongside the benefits. But the amount of cheap stuff, and the jobs that have been made here by us being an open, trading economy have raised the livelihoods of even the worst off. I'd rather be at the bottom of the heap in 2023 than at the bottom of the heap in 1823.

    We've got enough problems without kicking away the ladder we're standing on. Globalisation and capitalism are good.
    Trade and globalisation are not the same things. Conflating the two is like conflating civilisation and Empire.
    Ok, so tell me what you mean by globalisation
    The creation of supranational companies and institutions whose sole aim is to make money by using the inevitable global differences to circumvent environmental, social and labour costs and responsibilities.

    Globalisation means that a company will catch fish in the North Sea, send it to the Far East for processing and then send it back to Europe as 'European'. All because it is cheaper than having it processed in Europe. If allowed to properly run its course it means that the US can impose lower food standards on countries it has free trade agreements with. Just look at the history of NAFTA. One good reason why I do not want us to have an FTA with the US. Globalisation in the end is really about might is right.

    It is strange that those who rightly criticise the European Empires of the past are so keen to see new non national Empires develop and excuse their excesses.

    Trade is good. Just like fire is good for keeping you warm. But you have to control it or it gets out of hand and burns your house down. Globalisation is the forest fire.
    Thanks for that interesting view; I'll take a little time to think it over.
    I would add that the pandemic and the war in Ukraine have both highlighted the failings of globalisation. Not because they were caused by it but because they showed that the global trade system we have come to rely on is dangerously fragile and there is no means to improve it. I could also add that the way in which some third world economies were effectively turned into mono-cultures on the altar of trade whilst they didn't grow enough crops to feed their own populations is another symptom
    There are some who would say that you don't need to produce anything as you can always 'trade for it'.

    With well connected middlemen adding their 10% (or 100%) to 'facilitate' that trade.
    I would suggest they are very wrong.
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 2,397
    edited May 2023
    Off topic: Diversity, density, globalization: All three have been favored by leftists in the US for decades, as well as many in the center, and on the right.

    But all three make global pandemics more likely, and more dangerous. Diversity because different populations are adapted to different diseases. Density because the more people you contact, the more chance you will be infected.* And globalization because as people travel they will, knowingly or not, bring diseases with them.

    As it happens, I am in favor of two out the three -- the exception is density -- but I think the COVID pandemic should have reminded us that nothing's free.

    (*In "Plagues and Peoples", McNeill passes along this example:
    "It has been calculated, for example, that during the eighteenth century, when London's Bills of Mortality permit reasonably accurate accountancy, deaths exceeded births by an average of 6,000 per anum." (p. 275) Despite that, the population of London grew during the century, as people came in from less-diseased rural areas.

    McNeill references C. Fraser Brockington's "World Health".)
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    It seems that Bozo's Brexit deal will result in our industry no longer being viable to export cars to the EU from January

    https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1658577635482509314

    NEW / EXCL - breaking on #bbcnewsten and News online … Vauxhall owner Stellantis tells Government to renegotiate Brexit deal signed by Boris Johnson as it confirms for first time its UK electric car exports will not qualify for TCA from January as wont meet origin requirements.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,968
    Nigelb said:

    Republican Senator Tommy Tuberville suggests we should end democratic elections in America.
    https://twitter.com/SawyerHackett/status/1658559891898880011

    Perhaps he'd like to start with Alabama.

    Instead of elections people should be chosen at random for government office, including US senator.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,780
    eek said:

    It seems that Bozo's Brexit deal will result in our industry no longer being viable to export cars to the EU from January

    https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1658577635482509314

    NEW / EXCL - breaking on #bbcnewsten and News online … Vauxhall owner Stellantis tells Government to renegotiate Brexit deal signed by Boris Johnson as it confirms for first time its UK electric car exports will not qualify for TCA from January as wont meet origin requirements.

    I have been ranting about Rules of Origin for some time.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    stodge said:

    Listening to some of the language at the National Conservative event, I'm reminded of the dilemma I face on the issue of Freedom of Speech.

    As a "marxist liberal" or should that be "liberal marxist", I shouldn't have too many qualms but unfortunately I do. The notion of free speech, rather like EU membership, has only two credible positions - you're either for it or against it. As with our half-hearted rebate-obsessed membership of the EU, Freedom of Speech either means you're completely opposed and have no problem shutting down opinions with which you disagree or you're completely in favour which means accepting the right to offend and be offended.

    The Right to Offend is one of those tricky ones - we can all promise to be nice to each other but in the real world as soon as you bring in legislation or control to restrict anyone's right to freedom of speech, you're compromising that freedom for everyone.

    I don't like hate speech, I don't like speech which sets out deliberately to offend or provoke or incite or divide but I'm forced to accept these are aspects of the human condition and whether I like them or not, they exist and always will exist. I'm also reminded jaw-jaw is better than war-war and allowing the right to vent verbally is preferable to the wrong of acting physically.

    It's not comfortable but I suspect it's not meant to be - challenging those who wish to spread division and hate isn't easy because rational argument rarely works. They can be ignored - perhaps the first line of defence - and be left to shout into the darkness. That doesn't mean rational counter-argument can't and shouldn't be tried but in the expectation it won't have an impact.

    I think the Nat Con example is a very good one as to why we need to defend freedom of speech even when we don't like what is being said.

    Some of the things they are saying are pretty awful and I have no time for them at all.

    But some of the things they are saying are not awful. Even if I still disagree with them. Talking about the ills of globalisation is not, as the Guardian today would have us believe, code for anti-semitism. It is code for gloabalisation is, in their opinion, crap. And I am inclined on some levels to agree with that.

    But if some of the critics had their way then their definition - that it is all about anti-semitism - is the one that would apply and there are plenty out there who would ban them on that basis.

    That would be a very dangerous position for us to find ourselves in. We do see too many cases from both sides these days where people are wilfully misinterpreting their opponents a means of daemonising them and the only thing that stops this being a complete disaster is that the more sane voices on both sides are still willing to stand up and fight for freedom of speech.
    Note the distinction between "globalisation", and "globalist". "Globalisation" is something you often hear about from the left, and it's primarily a criticism of capitalism operating above the reach of national governments.
    "Globalist" is often used in a different context, and often nothing to do with criticising capitalism. Indeed, it's often used to attack the left. And, I'm afraid to say, it is also often used in conjunction with anti-Semitic tropes.

    Using the term "globalist" doesn't make someone an anti-Semite, but it merits watching out for other things they say in the same context. It's usually clear within a few sentences whether they dog-whistling racists or leftists. Or both.
    Sorry but that is dancing on the head of a pin. It is taking a small subsection of a spectrum of views and using them to tar the whole lot. It is lazy and pernicious.

    Nor is it only racists or lefties who are anti-globalisation and anti-globalists. I pretty much detest the left but I believe globalisation has been very bad on the whole for a large part of the world's population (just as it has been good for some of them). You are trying to pigeon hole people to suit your own ideology.

    I whole heartedly agree with you on free speech but I completely disagree with you on globalisation. For the vast majority of humanity the last 30 years have been brilliant. 2 billion people have been lifted out of poverty into a reasonable lifestyle. Maybe more

    It’s been RELATIVELY shit for less educated people in the West who were used to coasting along on the accrued advantage of 300 years of western supremacy. Now they have to compete with that newly ambitious Egyptian lady I met tonight

    I sympathise with working class westerners and they are entitled to vote for Trump or Le Pen but they don’t get to create their own reality. Globalisation has generally been good for Homo sapiens
    It took me a lot longer to type out what Leon hammered out in seconds here, but yeah, largely this.

    I do not agree it's been in any way shit for less educated people in the West, though. Yes, there have been detriments alongside the benefits. But the amount of cheap stuff, and the jobs that have been made here by us being an open, trading economy have raised the livelihoods of even the worst off. I'd rather be at the bottom of the heap in 2023 than at the bottom of the heap in 1823.

    We've got enough problems without kicking away the ladder we're standing on. Globalisation and capitalism are good.
    Trade and globalisation are not the same things. Conflating the two is like conflating civilisation and Empire.
    Ok, so tell me what you mean by globalisation
    The creation of supranational companies and institutions whose sole aim is to make money by using the inevitable global differences to circumvent environmental, social and labour costs and responsibilities.

    Globalisation means that a company will catch fish in the North Sea, send it to the Far East for processing and then send it back to Europe as 'European'. All because it is cheaper than having it processed in Europe. If allowed to properly run its course it means that the US can impose lower food standards on countries it has free trade agreements with. Just look at the history of NAFTA. One good reason why I do not want us to have an FTA with the US. Globalisation in the end is really about might is right.

    It is strange that those who rightly criticise the European Empires of the past are so keen to see new non national Empires develop and excuse their excesses.

    Trade is good. Just like fire is good for keeping you warm. But you have to control it or it gets out of hand and burns your house down. Globalisation is the forest fire.
    Thanks for that interesting view; I'll take a little time to think it over.
    I would add that the pandemic and the war in Ukraine have both highlighted the failings of globalisation. Not because they were caused by it but because they showed that the global trade system we have come to rely on is dangerously fragile and there is no means to improve it. I could also add that the way in which some third world economies were effectively turned into mono-cultures on the altar of trade whilst they didn't grow enough crops to feed their own populations is another symptom
    There are some who would say that you don't need to produce anything as you can always 'trade for it'.

    With well connected middlemen adding their 10% (or 100%) to 'facilitate' that trade.
    I would suggest they are very wrong.
    I'd say that globalisation is probably responsible for the very sharp slowdown in Western growth rates, since 2000.

    OTOH, it has been good for a number of formerly very poor countries. Absolute poverty has fallen from about 40% of the world's population in 1980, to about 8%, today.

    Then again, it is making us dependent upon some very vile regimes.
  • RattersRatters Posts: 756

    Ratters said:

    The thing with the Tories is that they are failing on their own terms:

    - Immigration is at record highs
    - Borrowing remains extremely high, both in terms of deficit and debt
    - Economic growth has been poor
    - Tax as a proportion of GDP is also at very high levels

    These are areas where they should be trying to win against Labour on. But you can't attack potential future reckless borrowing when you are borrowing recklessly, for example.

    The culture wars (focusing on a minuscule proportion of immigration, plus minuscule proportion of the population that is trans) may shore up their base, but it's too narrow.

    For their own sake they need some time out of power, if only so that they can plausibly pin some of the blame on someone other than themselves.

    Spring Budget 2023 said debt interest would reach £115bn this year, which is second only to the DHSC budget - double what it was a year ago.

    These are simply phenomenonal numbers and explains why there is so little money going around for extra spending and tax cuts - almost £60bn pa has simply vanished into higher debt payments.

    The Conservatives don't like to talk about this anymore - as they did in 2010-2015 - but these are very serious numbers, and the arguments for fiscal discipline haven't gone away.

    And it's only going to get worse as older low interest debt matures and new debt is issued at higher interest rates (a bit like coming to the end of a series of fixed-term mortgages).

    The argument for fiscal discipline hasn't gone away, but the Conservatives have abandoned any ability to claim they are on top of it. They may as well write a note saying 'there's no money left' when they leave power.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,590
    rcs1000 said:

    eek said:

    It seems that Bozo's Brexit deal will result in our industry no longer being viable to export cars to the EU from January

    https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1658577635482509314

    NEW / EXCL - breaking on #bbcnewsten and News online … Vauxhall owner Stellantis tells Government to renegotiate Brexit deal signed by Boris Johnson as it confirms for first time its UK electric car exports will not qualify for TCA from January as wont meet origin requirements.

    I have been ranting about Rules of Origin for some time.
    I've been ranting about the EV industry since the Brexit vote.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 4,542
    eek said:

    It seems that Bozo's Brexit deal will result in our industry no longer being viable to export cars to the EU from January

    https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1658577635482509314

    NEW / EXCL - breaking on #bbcnewsten and News online … Vauxhall owner Stellantis tells Government to renegotiate Brexit deal signed by Boris Johnson as it confirms for first time its UK electric car exports will not qualify for TCA from January as wont meet origin requirements.

    Badernoch has gone with her begging bowl to the EU to try and get an extension to 2027 ! There is some impact of these rules of origin on the EU but it’s much less of an issue .
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,048

    Ratters said:

    The thing with the Tories is that they are failing on their own terms:

    - Immigration is at record highs
    - Borrowing remains extremely high, both in terms of deficit and debt
    - Economic growth has been poor
    - Tax as a proportion of GDP is also at very high levels

    These are areas where they should be trying to win against Labour on. But you can't attack potential future reckless borrowing when you are borrowing recklessly, for example.

    The culture wars (focusing on a minuscule proportion of immigration, plus minuscule proportion of the population that is trans) may shore up their base, but it's too narrow.

    For their own sake they need some time out of power, if only so that they can plausibly pin some of the blame on someone other than themselves.

    Spring Budget 2023 said debt interest would reach £115bn this year, which is second only to the DHSC budget - double what it was a year ago.

    These are simply phenomenonal numbers and explains why there is so little money going around for extra spending and tax cuts - almost £60bn pa has simply vanished into higher debt payments.

    The Conservatives don't like to talk about this anymore - as they did in 2010-2015 - but these are very serious numbers, and the arguments for fiscal discipline haven't gone away.

    Fiscal discipline requires some combination of:

    1) Tax rises on consumption
    2) Tax rises on property
    3) Reducing government handouts, especially to oldies
    Not really. The Government needs more tax revenue - that is likelier to come from increased consumption and other economic activity, than it is from tax increases which may lead to the opposite.
  • RattersRatters Posts: 756

    Ratters said:

    The thing with the Tories is that they are failing on their own terms:

    - Immigration is at record highs
    - Borrowing remains extremely high, both in terms of deficit and debt
    - Economic growth has been poor
    - Tax as a proportion of GDP is also at very high levels

    These are areas where they should be trying to win against Labour on. But you can't attack potential future reckless borrowing when you are borrowing recklessly, for example.

    The culture wars (focusing on a minuscule proportion of immigration, plus minuscule proportion of the population that is trans) may shore up their base, but it's too narrow.

    For their own sake they need some time out of power, if only so that they can plausibly pin some of the blame on someone other than themselves.

    They should be shouting that they've achieved full employment.

    But many Conservatives likely think that full employment is a bad thing.
    You're right, that is an achievement they should be shouting about - take wins where you can.

    The trouble is a lot of the population, while employed, is poorer than they were a few years' ago.

    Which isn't surprising given GDP growth is running slower than the rate of population growth.

    One part of the solution would be a huge increase in home building, facilitated by more liberal planning laws, and increased infrastructure spending in areas of high demand. Which, ironically, would probably necessitate higher immigration to help keep pace with the demands of a growing population.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 3,056
    rcs1000 said:

    eek said:

    It seems that Bozo's Brexit deal will result in our industry no longer being viable to export cars to the EU from January

    https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1658577635482509314

    NEW / EXCL - breaking on #bbcnewsten and News online … Vauxhall owner Stellantis tells Government to renegotiate Brexit deal signed by Boris Johnson as it confirms for first time its UK electric car exports will not qualify for TCA from January as wont meet origin requirements.

    I have been ranting about Rules of Origin for some time.
    The article says that 45% of a vehicle's value must be UK/EU to avoid tariffs, but then goes on to cite lack of battery factories in the UK. But surely there must be a wider lack of battery factories in the EU?

    Otherwise, they could just buy German or Spanish batteries. It must be that they are forced to (or want to) buy say Chinese or Malaysian or American batteries, otherwise the narrative makes no sense.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,547
    edited May 2023
    eek said:

    It seems that Bozo's Brexit deal will result in our industry no longer being viable to export cars to the EU from January

    https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1658577635482509314

    NEW / EXCL - breaking on #bbcnewsten and News online … Vauxhall owner Stellantis tells Government to renegotiate Brexit deal signed by Boris Johnson as it confirms for first time its UK electric car exports will not qualify for TCA from January as wont meet origin requirements.

    The problem is that this stuff increases risks and companies will invest accordingly. Even if particular models meet the thresholds at a particular time, placing your investment in the EU will always be a lower risk, so why invest in the UK?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Nigelb said:

    Republican Senator Tommy Tuberville suggests we should end democratic elections in America.
    https://twitter.com/SawyerHackett/status/1658559891898880011

    Some people think a lot of the GOP don't really buy into the Trump narratives on stolen elections and so on, and there are a few for whom that is the case but they go along with it because they are cowards.

    But a lot of them clearly believe it, and worse, completely.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    eek said:

    It seems that Bozo's Brexit deal will result in our industry no longer being viable to export cars to the EU from January

    https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1658577635482509314

    NEW / EXCL - breaking on #bbcnewsten and News online … Vauxhall owner Stellantis tells Government to renegotiate Brexit deal signed by Boris Johnson as it confirms for first time its UK electric car exports will not qualify for TCA from January as wont meet origin requirements.

    Call their bluff. If they don't want to risk falling below the threshold to count as a UK export, they can invest in bringing more of their supply chain to the UK.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,048

    eek said:

    It seems that Bozo's Brexit deal will result in our industry no longer being viable to export cars to the EU from January

    https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1658577635482509314

    NEW / EXCL - breaking on #bbcnewsten and News online … Vauxhall owner Stellantis tells Government to renegotiate Brexit deal signed by Boris Johnson as it confirms for first time its UK electric car exports will not qualify for TCA from January as wont meet origin requirements.

    Call their bluff. If they don't want to risk falling below the threshold to count as a UK export, they can invest in bringing more of their supply chain to the UK.
    Was BritishVolt not going to be a battery factory? That could be revived, Vauxhall could invest, the Government would have to grease the wheels, but we piss money at a lot of less worthwhile things.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,590
    Mother Fletcher, a living survivor of 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre, turns 109
    https://twitter.com/NewBlackMan/status/1658243869350281216
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797

    eek said:

    It seems that Bozo's Brexit deal will result in our industry no longer being viable to export cars to the EU from January

    https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1658577635482509314

    NEW / EXCL - breaking on #bbcnewsten and News online … Vauxhall owner Stellantis tells Government to renegotiate Brexit deal signed by Boris Johnson as it confirms for first time its UK electric car exports will not qualify for TCA from January as wont meet origin requirements.

    Call their bluff. If they don't want to risk falling below the threshold to count as a UK export, they can invest in bringing more of their supply chain to the UK.
    Or they just close their Liverpool factory and shunt production to another factory in the EU (which has always seemed to be the] long term plan).
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,235

    eek said:

    It seems that Bozo's Brexit deal will result in our industry no longer being viable to export cars to the EU from January

    https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1658577635482509314

    NEW / EXCL - breaking on #bbcnewsten and News online … Vauxhall owner Stellantis tells Government to renegotiate Brexit deal signed by Boris Johnson as it confirms for first time its UK electric car exports will not qualify for TCA from January as wont meet origin requirements.

    Call their bluff. If they don't want to risk falling below the threshold to count as a UK export, they can invest in bringing more of their supply chain to the UK.
    Sorry, that's not good enough. It was sold to the country as 'oven-ready deal' and 'get Brexit done'. The Leavers have got to start delivering on their boasts.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,603
    edited May 2023
    ...

    eek said:

    It seems that Bozo's Brexit deal will result in our industry no longer being viable to export cars to the EU from January

    https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1658577635482509314

    NEW / EXCL - breaking on #bbcnewsten and News online … Vauxhall owner Stellantis tells Government to renegotiate Brexit deal signed by Boris Johnson as it confirms for first time its UK electric car exports will not qualify for TCA from January as wont meet origin requirements.

    Call their bluff. If they don't want to risk falling below the threshold to count as a UK export, they can invest in bringing more of their supply chain to the UK.
    Was BritishVolt not going to be a battery factory? That could be revived, Vauxhall could invest, the Government would have to grease the wheels, but we piss money at a lot of less worthwhile things.
    Stellantis covers not just Vauxhall but Opel, Peugeot, Citroen, DS, Fiat, Alfa Romeo, Lancia and some prestige Italian Marques and across the whole of mainland Europe. Why would they invest enormous sums in Blighty if they can just close whatever is left of production at Luton and Ellesmere Port and take up any slack capacity elsewhere in the EU, say Russelsheim, for next to nothing?

    Or do we still hold all the cards?
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    edited May 2023

    pm215 said:

    Leon said:


    So the EU is now wheeling out laws regulating crypto and AI and all kinds of tech which might easily extinguish innovation in these areas in the EU. That will leave the UK very nicely placed as a large English speaking economy next to Europe unencumbered by these laws

    In a globalised economy what's the benefit of being "next to" Europe? The stuff we might hope to export to them will be just as subject to whatever import and data handling controls the EU determines as will direct US supply of tech and services to the EU.
    I presume Leon is thinking of the enormous transport savings to be gained by only having to ship crypto and AI a few short miles across the Channel.
    I can't speak for AI but crypto is made by people, and we want to live where
    1) other crypto people are
    2) it's nice
    3) taxes are low
    4) we're not going to get arrested

    Most of the non-fraudulent crypto projects started in Europe, often Berlin which was a cool, cheap city with a lot of eastern European talent. Berlin failed on (3), (4) and during the winter months (2), so a lot of the talent has now moved to Lisbon, but there's still a lot of talent in different parts of Europe and it's good to meet IRL sometimes, so you do want to be close rather than basing yourself in Dubai or somewhere.

    No crypto project really has clarity on (4) anywhere in the world and it's quite important to us. London is good enough on (1) to (3) so if it wants this it can easily have it. The main thing is that you need to let us issue tokens for projects that can be anonymously traded and potentially used to commit crimes, either selling them when they're created or issuing them to a company/foundation without worrying that you're going to arrest us for violating securities laws. We don't mind paying taxes, within reason.

    The downside of doing this is that it will attract a torrent of scams, and potentially also undermine any existing protections you have for investors, because companies wanting to defraud investors will dress their schemes up as crypto projects.
  • SteveSSteveS Posts: 40

    Was BritishVolt not going to be a battery factory? That could be revived, Vauxhall could invest, the Government would have to grease the wheels, but we piss money at a lot of less worthwhile things.

    Ah yes. Subsidies for British firms funded by British taxpayers to ensure they remain competitive. Very good. Very Conservative.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776
    Ratters said:

    Ratters said:

    The thing with the Tories is that they are failing on their own terms:

    - Immigration is at record highs
    - Borrowing remains extremely high, both in terms of deficit and debt
    - Economic growth has been poor
    - Tax as a proportion of GDP is also at very high levels

    These are areas where they should be trying to win against Labour on. But you can't attack potential future reckless borrowing when you are borrowing recklessly, for example.

    The culture wars (focusing on a minuscule proportion of immigration, plus minuscule proportion of the population that is trans) may shore up their base, but it's too narrow.

    For their own sake they need some time out of power, if only so that they can plausibly pin some of the blame on someone other than themselves.

    Spring Budget 2023 said debt interest would reach £115bn this year, which is second only to the DHSC budget - double what it was a year ago.

    These are simply phenomenonal numbers and explains why there is so little money going around for extra spending and tax cuts - almost £60bn pa has simply vanished into higher debt payments.

    The Conservatives don't like to talk about this anymore - as they did in 2010-2015 - but these are very serious numbers, and the arguments for fiscal discipline haven't gone away.

    And it's only going to get worse as older low interest debt matures and new debt is issued at higher interest rates (a bit like coming to the end of a series of fixed-term mortgages).

    The argument for fiscal discipline hasn't gone away, but the Conservatives have abandoned any ability to claim they are on top of it. They may as well write a note saying 'there's no money left' when they leave power.
    In order to maintain fiscal discipline, the Conservatives could have taken other decisions. No lockdown, no COVID support, no energy support, after the invasion of Ukraine. No uprating of benefits to match inflation.

    But that would have been very brave (in the Yes Minister sense).
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797

    eek said:

    It seems that Bozo's Brexit deal will result in our industry no longer being viable to export cars to the EU from January

    https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1658577635482509314

    NEW / EXCL - breaking on #bbcnewsten and News online … Vauxhall owner Stellantis tells Government to renegotiate Brexit deal signed by Boris Johnson as it confirms for first time its UK electric car exports will not qualify for TCA from January as wont meet origin requirements.

    Call their bluff. If they don't want to risk falling below the threshold to count as a UK export, they can invest in bringing more of their supply chain to the UK.
    Was BritishVolt not going to be a battery factory? That could be revived, Vauxhall could invest, the Government would have to grease the wheels, but we piss money at a lot of less worthwhile things.
    Ignoring the idea that britishvolt was a con job, it simply didn’t have the people nor the expertise to make batteries for cars and was already shifting its focus to home / industrial storage.

    It really was a disaster and of no real use so it disappearing isn’t a loss.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,235
    SteveS said:

    Was BritishVolt not going to be a battery factory? That could be revived, Vauxhall could invest, the Government would have to grease the wheels, but we piss money at a lot of less worthwhile things.

    Ah yes. Subsidies for British firms funded by British taxpayers to ensure they remain competitive. Very good. Very Conservative.
    The poster in question is always bemoaning the post-Truss declinism of the current government, yet he is now endorsing the consummate 1970s declinism of 'picking winners', so beloved of Harold Wilson and Sunny Jim. The British Right is in intellectual free-fall.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,286
    Daily Mail front page:

    "Working From Home fuels UK's sick note crisis"

    https://news.sky.com/story/thursdays-national-newspaper-front-pages-12427754
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 3,056
    edited May 2023

    SteveS said:

    Was BritishVolt not going to be a battery factory? That could be revived, Vauxhall could invest, the Government would have to grease the wheels, but we piss money at a lot of less worthwhile things.

    Ah yes. Subsidies for British firms funded by British taxpayers to ensure they remain competitive. Very good. Very Conservative.
    The poster in question is always bemoaning the post-Truss declinism of the current government, yet he is now endorsing the consummate 1970s declinism of 'picking winners', so beloved of Harold Wilson and Sunny Jim. The British Right is in intellectual free-fall.
    Governments get very touchy about car factories, because they are in the public mind. A government could, by policy, lose 5000 car assembly jobs, and create 100000 jobs in small high tech businesses, and the public would still care more about the car factory closing - because the new industries are anonymous - and not just in the city where the factory was.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    Times reporting that Bozo’s Resignation list will result in w by-elections. 2 “safe” seats and 1 likely Tory loss.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,048

    SteveS said:

    Was BritishVolt not going to be a battery factory? That could be revived, Vauxhall could invest, the Government would have to grease the wheels, but we piss money at a lot of less worthwhile things.

    Ah yes. Subsidies for British firms funded by British taxpayers to ensure they remain competitive. Very good. Very Conservative.
    The poster in question is always bemoaning the post-Truss declinism of the current government, yet he is now endorsing the consummate 1970s declinism of 'picking winners', so beloved of Harold Wilson and Sunny Jim. The British Right is in intellectual free-fall.
    I am not an ideological purist; I start from where we are. Given that we have a very highly taxed and regulated economy, putting money toward such a project seems sensible, superficially at least. It is hardly a novel approach - Vauxhall and its parent company will have been in receipt of all sorts of Government support over decades.

    I am very flattered to be the intellectual lodestar of the British Right though. How much further do I need to free fall to be on a level with your disturbed chunterings?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,048
    eek said:

    eek said:

    It seems that Bozo's Brexit deal will result in our industry no longer being viable to export cars to the EU from January

    https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1658577635482509314

    NEW / EXCL - breaking on #bbcnewsten and News online … Vauxhall owner Stellantis tells Government to renegotiate Brexit deal signed by Boris Johnson as it confirms for first time its UK electric car exports will not qualify for TCA from January as wont meet origin requirements.

    Call their bluff. If they don't want to risk falling below the threshold to count as a UK export, they can invest in bringing more of their supply chain to the UK.
    Was BritishVolt not going to be a battery factory? That could be revived, Vauxhall could invest, the Government would have to grease the wheels, but we piss money at a lot of less worthwhile things.
    Ignoring the idea that britishvolt was a con job, it simply didn’t have the people nor the expertise to make batteries for cars and was already shifting its focus to home / industrial storage.

    It really was a disaster and of no real use so it disappearing isn’t a loss.
    So it was a car battery project. Ooh, get me.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,620
    edited May 2023

    eek said:

    It seems that Bozo's Brexit deal will result in our industry no longer being viable to export cars to the EU from January

    https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1658577635482509314

    NEW / EXCL - breaking on #bbcnewsten and News online … Vauxhall owner Stellantis tells Government to renegotiate Brexit deal signed by Boris Johnson as it confirms for first time its UK electric car exports will not qualify for TCA from January as wont meet origin requirements.

    Call their bluff. If they don't want to risk falling below the threshold to count as a UK export, they can invest in bringing more of their supply chain to the UK.
    Sorry, that's not good enough. It was sold to the country as 'oven-ready deal' and 'get Brexit done'. The Leavers have got to start delivering on their boasts.
    The shifts of @williamglenn from left liberal, to Hillary-obsessed Trumpite, to European federalist, to rightwing Brexiteer are an interesting PB case study in well coordinated spoof accounts. They might not convince, but they entertain.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,048
    SteveS said:

    Was BritishVolt not going to be a battery factory? That could be revived, Vauxhall could invest, the Government would have to grease the wheels, but we piss money at a lot of less worthwhile things.

    Ah yes. Subsidies for British firms funded by British taxpayers to ensure they remain competitive. Very good. Very Conservative.
    If you're really 4 posts in, get some manners. If you're a pathetic returnee, get a life.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797

    eek said:

    eek said:

    It seems that Bozo's Brexit deal will result in our industry no longer being viable to export cars to the EU from January

    https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1658577635482509314

    NEW / EXCL - breaking on #bbcnewsten and News online … Vauxhall owner Stellantis tells Government to renegotiate Brexit deal signed by Boris Johnson as it confirms for first time its UK electric car exports will not qualify for TCA from January as wont meet origin requirements.

    Call their bluff. If they don't want to risk falling below the threshold to count as a UK export, they can invest in bringing more of their supply chain to the UK.
    Was BritishVolt not going to be a battery factory? That could be revived, Vauxhall could invest, the Government would have to grease the wheels, but we piss money at a lot of less worthwhile things.
    Ignoring the idea that britishvolt was a con job, it simply didn’t have the people nor the expertise to make batteries for cars and was already shifting its focus to home / industrial storage.

    It really was a disaster and of no real use so it disappearing isn’t a loss.
    So it was a car battery project. Ooh, get me.
    Well they started talking about car batteries then moved to anything they thought someone might be interested in buying that didn’t require as much design skills - given that they would have 10 years of car battery knowledge to catch up on and patents (owned by other competitors) to either licence or work around.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 4,748
    I've just got home after a train journey of 45 miles on a main rail route that took 5 hours. This was due to last minute timetable changes then an unplanned replacement bus for part of the way, after the last leg got cancelled.

    Cost £27 return - by car it would have been around 1h - 1h 15m and would have cost about £5 each way in petrol.

    Not a good state of affairs.
  • darkage said:

    I've just got home after a train journey of 45 miles on a main rail route that took 5 hours. This was due to last minute timetable changes then an unplanned replacement bus for part of the way, after the last leg got cancelled.

    Cost £27 return - by car it would have been around 1h - 1h 15m and would have cost about £5 each way in petrol.

    Not a good state of affairs.

    Were you by any chance travelling no where close to the capital ?
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 3,056
    Per The Times: "Starmer: I'll build houses on the green belt"

    Irrespective of the actual merits, politically is this bold outflanking, or reckless politics?
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 4,748

    darkage said:

    I've just got home after a train journey of 45 miles on a main rail route that took 5 hours. This was due to last minute timetable changes then an unplanned replacement bus for part of the way, after the last leg got cancelled.

    Cost £27 return - by car it would have been around 1h - 1h 15m and would have cost about £5 each way in petrol.

    Not a good state of affairs.

    Were you by any chance travelling no where close to the capital ?
    Yep. Something about an ASLEF overtime ban?
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797

    Andy_JS said:

    Daily Mail front page:

    "Working From Home fuels UK's sick note crisis"

    https://news.sky.com/story/thursdays-national-newspaper-front-pages-12427754

    I don't really understand that. I've had a bad cold for the last few days which turns out to be Covid. I wouldn't have dreamed of going into work and infecting colleagues, but I'm able to work reasonably well, so I do. Even if I didn't have much work ethic, I'd still feel it was a bit difficult to say "I can't work because I'm sniffling". How does working from home make it MORE likely that I'll take a day off because I feel or claim to feel seedy?
    Supposedly a combination of mental health, bad back from inappropriate chairs / desks and long Covid.

    As for the reality - not a clue but working from home should as you say reduce sick days as it’s often the case you are too I’ll to travel but perfectly fine to do a day of meetings ‘ admin work from home.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 8,480
    edited May 2023

    SteveS said:

    Was BritishVolt not going to be a battery factory? That could be revived, Vauxhall could invest, the Government would have to grease the wheels, but we piss money at a lot of less worthwhile things.

    Ah yes. Subsidies for British firms funded by British taxpayers to ensure they remain competitive. Very good. Very Conservative.
    The poster in question is always bemoaning the post-Truss declinism of the current government, yet he is now endorsing the consummate 1970s declinism of 'picking winners', so beloved of Harold Wilson and Sunny Jim. The British Right is in intellectual free-fall.
    The thing is, industrial policy has worked in Germany for many decades. Industrial strategy is also about long-term invesment as much as "picking winners", which we have been singularly awful at.

    It has to be said certain City interests have always been keen to the raise this issue of 1970's industrial failure ( also linked to feudal management and obstreperous Unions ) because it obscures this other issue of short-term investment, as well as an excessively laissez-faire approach to key strategic national interests, over the last 30 years, up to and including issues like nuclear power generation, and to an extent unmatched almost anywhere else in the Western world.
This discussion has been closed.