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.)
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
#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.
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.
Length is always a ChatGPT tell. No-one's typing that out.
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.
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.
@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.
#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.
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?
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.
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!
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 !
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.
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
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?
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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
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.
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.
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".)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 .
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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?
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.
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 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).
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ?
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 ?
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?
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.
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.
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?
The Brexiteers were almost right, except it turns out it was not the *German* car manufacturers exerting pressure.
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?
I agree. The Daily Mail's logic is difficult to understand.
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?
I agree. The Daily Mail's logic is difficult to understand.
It's not.
It's readers are all retirees who want to believe WFH is a skive, because they were never allowed to do it, and they can't get their heads around modern technology, so the paper is giving them what they want to hear.
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...
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.
It is an open question as to whether it was industrial policy as is commonly understood (i.e. picking and favouring winning sectors and companies and protecting them) that worked in Germany, or microeconomic policy more broadly, such as an excellent education and apprenticeship system, good infrastructure, more pro-growth planning laws than here and macroeconomic policy that emphasised low inflation. (Also of course cheap Russian gas from the 80s until last year).
I'd give the latter factors much more weight, and I haven't worked in the City in quite a few years.
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?
I agree. The Daily Mail's logic is difficult to understand.
It's not.
It's readers are all retirees who want to believe WFH is a skive, because they were never allowed to do it, and they can't get their heads around modern technology, so the paper is giving them what they want to hear.
I was allowed to do it now and again, and it was a skive. But that’s just me.
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?
I agree. The Daily Mail's logic is difficult to understand.
It's not.
It's readers are all retirees who want to believe WFH is a skive, because they were never allowed to do it, and they can't get their heads around modern technology, so the paper is giving them what they want to hear.
Also, WFH means fewer commuters, which means less newspaper sales. The interesting thing is that the Mail have prioritised this obsession over "Starmer will give Europeans the vote". Normally, they can keep something like that up for a week.
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?
I agree. The Daily Mail's logic is difficult to understand.
It's not.
It's readers are all retirees who want to believe WFH is a skive, because they were never allowed to do it, and they can't get their heads around modern technology, so the paper is giving them what they want to hear.
I was allowed to do it now and again, and it was a skive. But that’s just me.
I work like a trooper at home, just as I do in the office. Even my father - who reads the Daily Mail, and still hasn't adjusted his view of anyone else doing it - commented as such when he stayed with us. I think in the past, because it was rare, you could effectively use it as a semi-free day off but, now, it's a fundamental part of how people work flexibly.
Of course, there are two types: those that diligently work and need minimal/no supervision, and those who try and get away with as little as possible. There are no doubt people mucking around at home who need to be virtually supervised, just as they'd muck around in the office if they weren't directly supervised, and it's important to check in with their progress, and measure their performance, just as you would in the office.
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?
I agree. The Daily Mail's logic is difficult to understand.
It's not.
It's readers are all retirees who want to believe WFH is a skive, because they were never allowed to do it, and they can't get their heads around modern technology, so the paper is giving them what they want to hear.
I was allowed to do it now and again, and it was a skive. But that’s just me.
I work like a trooper at home, just as I do in the office. Even my father - who reads the Daily Mail, and still hasn't adjusted his view of anyone else doing it - commented as such when he stayed with us. I think in the past, because it was rare, you could effectively use it as a semi-free day off but, now, it's a fundamental part of how people work flexibly.
Of course, there are two types: those that diligently work and need minimal/no supervision, and those who try and get away with as little as possible. There are no doubt people mucking around at home who need to be virtually supervised, just as they'd muck around in the office if they weren't directly supervised, and it's important to check in with their progress, and measure their performance, just as you would in the office.
It was nothing to do with the supervision; I was sufficiently senior that this wasn’t an issue. Somehow it was just the environment; at home; I was so easily distracted and ended up doing long awaited bits of diy, or cleaning, or anything in preference to working. Even when I switched to full-time councillor I much preferred going into the town hall and sitting in my office to do emails and paperwork to being at home. I think partly it’s because I’ve always been a ‘leave the office, no more work’ type of person, and if I had stuff to do would stay late rather than take it home. After decades of that, seeing home as a place to work was always most difficult.
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?
The report is on long term sickness which is nothing at all to do with that scenario though. Working from home, especially in its early days as we get used to it, does involve a drop in mental health and physical activity (for non drivers) with the loss of the commute, so it is not surprising if its a factor in increased long term sickness.
I think properly planned and considered, if you make other changes to ensure you get enough social connection and physical activity elsewhere, then working from home can be better for mental and physical health, but that requires individuals being pro-active about it. The default is less connection and less movement.
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?
As per the FT: “A generation and its hopes are being blocked by those who — more often than not — enjoy the secure homes and jobs that they’re denying to others,” Starmer will say.
“Mark my words: we will take on planning reform. We’ll bring back local housing targets. We’ll streamline the process for national infrastructure projects and commercial development and we’ll remove the veto used by big landowners to stop shovels hitting the ground.”
I think it's outflanking the Tories on growth. It'll lose some nimby votes but that's not where most Labour targets are and you need to take on vested interests to move the country forward.
Nice to some Labour policy, and one that is in the right direction.
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?
I agree. The Daily Mail's logic is difficult to understand.
It's not.
It's readers are all retirees who want to believe WFH is a skive, because they were never allowed to do it, and they can't get their heads around modern technology, so the paper is giving them what they want to hear.
I was allowed to do it now and again, and it was a skive. But that’s just me.
I work like a trooper at home, just as I do in the office. Even my father - who reads the Daily Mail, and still hasn't adjusted his view of anyone else doing it - commented as such when he stayed with us. I think in the past, because it was rare, you could effectively use it as a semi-free day off but, now, it's a fundamental part of how people work flexibly.
Of course, there are two types: those that diligently work and need minimal/no supervision, and those who try and get away with as little as possible. There are no doubt people mucking around at home who need to be virtually supervised, just as they'd muck around in the office if they weren't directly supervised, and it's important to check in with their progress, and measure their performance, just as you would in the office.
It was nothing to do with the supervision; I was sufficiently senior that this wasn’t an issue. Somehow it was just the environment; at home; I was so easily distracted and ended up doing long awaited bits of diy, or cleaning, or anything in preference to working. Even when I switched to full-time councillor I much preferred going into the town hall and sitting in my office to do emails and paperwork to being at home. I think partly it’s because I’ve always been a ‘leave the office, no more work’ type of person, and if I had stuff to do would stay late rather than take it home. After decades of that, seeing home as a place to work was always most difficult.
There is a cultural aspect to it. For me, I have a home office and I simply sit in it all day working - I don't ever do anything else!
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?
I agree. The Daily Mail's logic is difficult to understand.
It's not.
It's readers are all retirees who want to believe WFH is a skive, because they were never allowed to do it, and they can't get their heads around modern technology, so the paper is giving them what they want to hear.
I was allowed to do it now and again, and it was a skive. But that’s just me.
I work like a trooper at home, just as I do in the office. Even my father - who reads the Daily Mail, and still hasn't adjusted his view of anyone else doing it - commented as such when he stayed with us. I think in the past, because it was rare, you could effectively use it as a semi-free day off but, now, it's a fundamental part of how people work flexibly.
Of course, there are two types: those that diligently work and need minimal/no supervision, and those who try and get away with as little as possible. There are no doubt people mucking around at home who need to be virtually supervised, just as they'd muck around in the office if they weren't directly supervised, and it's important to check in with their progress, and measure their performance, just as you would in the office.
"those that diligently work and need minimal/no supervision, and those who try and get away with as little as possible"
Those two groups exist in the office too
As a boss, I see benefits (to me) from employees WFH: in particular, I can figure out pretty quickly who is pulling their weight.
Against that, it is hard for newer, less experienced staff to get up to speed.
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?
I agree. The Daily Mail's logic is difficult to understand.
It's not.
It's readers are all retirees who want to believe WFH is a skive, because they were never allowed to do it, and they can't get their heads around modern technology, so the paper is giving them what they want to hear.
I was allowed to do it now and again, and it was a skive. But that’s just me.
I work like a trooper at home, just as I do in the office. Even my father - who reads the Daily Mail, and still hasn't adjusted his view of anyone else doing it - commented as such when he stayed with us. I think in the past, because it was rare, you could effectively use it as a semi-free day off but, now, it's a fundamental part of how people work flexibly.
Of course, there are two types: those that diligently work and need minimal/no supervision, and those who try and get away with as little as possible. There are no doubt people mucking around at home who need to be virtually supervised, just as they'd muck around in the office if they weren't directly supervised, and it's important to check in with their progress, and measure their performance, just as you would in the office.
It was nothing to do with the supervision; I was sufficiently senior that this wasn’t an issue. Somehow it was just the environment; at home; I was so easily distracted and ended up doing long awaited bits of diy, or cleaning, or anything in preference to working. Even when I switched to full-time councillor I much preferred going into the town hall and sitting in my office to do emails and paperwork to being at home. I think partly it’s because I’ve always been a ‘leave the office, no more work’ type of person, and if I had stuff to do would stay late rather than take it home. After decades of that, seeing home as a place to work was always most difficult.
There is a cultural aspect to it. For me, I have a home office and I simply sit in it all day working - I don't ever do anything else!
The main downside is I tend to raid the fridge.
Yep:
I snack far more often at home (to the detriment of my waistline) than if I'm in the office.
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?
As per the FT: “A generation and its hopes are being blocked by those who — more often than not — enjoy the secure homes and jobs that they’re denying to others,” Starmer will say.
“Mark my words: we will take on planning reform. We’ll bring back local housing targets. We’ll streamline the process for national infrastructure projects and commercial development and we’ll remove the veto used by big landowners to stop shovels hitting the ground.”
I think it's outflanking the Tories on growth. It'll lose some nimby votes but that's not where most Labour targets are and you need to take on vested interests to move the country forward.
Nice to some Labour policy, and one that is in the right direction.
Just nice words - and a dig at the wealthy when they aren’t really the issue. Let’s hope the details match the promise
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?
I agree. The Daily Mail's logic is difficult to understand.
It's not.
It's readers are all retirees who want to believe WFH is a skive, because they were never allowed to do it, and they can't get their heads around modern technology, so the paper is giving them what they want to hear.
I was allowed to do it now and again, and it was a skive. But that’s just me.
I work like a trooper at home, just as I do in the office. Even my father - who reads the Daily Mail, and still hasn't adjusted his view of anyone else doing it - commented as such when he stayed with us. I think in the past, because it was rare, you could effectively use it as a semi-free day off but, now, it's a fundamental part of how people work flexibly.
Of course, there are two types: those that diligently work and need minimal/no supervision, and those who try and get away with as little as possible. There are no doubt people mucking around at home who need to be virtually supervised, just as they'd muck around in the office if they weren't directly supervised, and it's important to check in with their progress, and measure their performance, just as you would in the office.
"those that diligently work and need minimal/no supervision, and those who try and get away with as little as possible"
Those two groups exist in the office too
As a boss, I see benefits (to me) from employees WFH: in particular, I can figure out pretty quickly who is pulling their weight.
Against that, it is hard for newer, less experienced staff to get up to speed.
Yes, exactly- working from home makes no difference to employee performance per say.
You are right it's harder for newer and younger staff to get up to speed. That's why I have "anchor days" and go in at least 2 days a week.
A propos of nothing, James Cleverley is really the only decent choice the Tories have for leader if they lose the next election. He is not perfect, far from it, but he is a pragmatist who gives strong indications of living in the real world. If he stands and wins it would be a strong sign that the Tories are determined to be a serious party once more. If it's Braverman or Badenoch, Labour and the LibDems will be delighted.
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?
I agree. The Daily Mail's logic is difficult to understand.
It's not.
It's readers are all retirees who want to believe WFH is a skive, because they were never allowed to do it, and they can't get their heads around modern technology, so the paper is giving them what they want to hear.
I was allowed to do it now and again, and it was a skive. But that’s just me.
I work like a trooper at home, just as I do in the office. Even my father - who reads the Daily Mail, and still hasn't adjusted his view of anyone else doing it - commented as such when he stayed with us. I think in the past, because it was rare, you could effectively use it as a semi-free day off but, now, it's a fundamental part of how people work flexibly.
Of course, there are two types: those that diligently work and need minimal/no supervision, and those who try and get away with as little as possible. There are no doubt people mucking around at home who need to be virtually supervised, just as they'd muck around in the office if they weren't directly supervised, and it's important to check in with their progress, and measure their performance, just as you would in the office.
It was nothing to do with the supervision; I was sufficiently senior that this wasn’t an issue. Somehow it was just the environment; at home; I was so easily distracted and ended up doing long awaited bits of diy, or cleaning, or anything in preference to working. Even when I switched to full-time councillor I much preferred going into the town hall and sitting in my office to do emails and paperwork to being at home. I think partly it’s because I’ve always been a ‘leave the office, no more work’ type of person, and if I had stuff to do would stay late rather than take it home. After decades of that, seeing home as a place to work was always most difficult.
There is a cultural aspect to it. For me, I have a home office and I simply sit in it all day working - I don't ever do anything else!
The main downside is I tend to raid the fridge.
My office used to be the sort with sweets and biscuits always on the side, whereas at home I could just not buy them, so it was the opposite.
WFH is much more attractive to those with larger homes with space and views and facilities, than for a younger person renting a small flat.
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?
As per the FT: “A generation and its hopes are being blocked by those who — more often than not — enjoy the secure homes and jobs that they’re denying to others,” Starmer will say.
“Mark my words: we will take on planning reform. We’ll bring back local housing targets. We’ll streamline the process for national infrastructure projects and commercial development and we’ll remove the veto used by big landowners to stop shovels hitting the ground.”
I think it's outflanking the Tories on growth. It'll lose some nimby votes but that's not where most Labour targets are and you need to take on vested interests to move the country forward.
Nice to some Labour policy, and one that is in the right direction.
This feels like an area where there is a big divide between Labour and the Lib Dems.
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?
The Brexiteers were almost right, except it turns out it was not the *German* car manufacturers exerting pressure.
Our strategy on batteries is all over the place.
This govt lacks a coherent approach on almost any subject.
Comments
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
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
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.
But what if you want US type freedom to innovate combined with a European lifestyle?
Suddenly the UK is the place
Buy direct from Chinese factories and avoid making Jeff Bezos any richer.
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.
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.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/16/technology/microsoft-ai-human-reasoning.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
Looks like the world beating UK electric car industry was another load of hot air from no 10 .
- 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.
I've never seen it.
Do you have to be a "hysterical leftie" to think they are completely barking, and not in a pleasant way?
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:
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.
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 ?
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
But many Conservatives likely think that full employment is a bad thing.
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.
The drinking and groping may happen too for all I know.
I'm trying not to...
With well connected middlemen adding their 10% (or 100%) to 'facilitate' that trade.
1) Tax rises on consumption
2) Tax rises on property
3) Reducing government handouts, especially to oldies
If you can learn to spell disastrous, the nation fancies your fondants.
https://twitter.com/SawyerHackett/status/1658559891898880011
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".)
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.
Instead of elections people should be chosen at random for government office, including US senator.
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.
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.
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.
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.
But a lot of them clearly believe it, and worse, completely.
https://twitter.com/NewBlackMan/status/1658243869350281216
Or do we still hold all the cards?
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.
But that would have been very brave (in the Yes Minister sense).
It really was a disaster and of no real use so it disappearing isn’t a loss.
"Working From Home fuels UK's sick note crisis"
https://news.sky.com/story/thursdays-national-newspaper-front-pages-12427754
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?
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.
Irrespective of the actual merits, politically is this bold outflanking, or reckless politics?
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.
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.
It's readers are all retirees who want to believe WFH is a skive, because they were never allowed to do it, and they can't get their heads around modern technology, so the paper is giving them what they want to hear.
I'd give the latter factors much more weight, and I haven't worked in the City in quite a few years.
Of course, there are two types: those that diligently work and need minimal/no supervision, and those who try and get away with as little as possible. There are no doubt people mucking around at home who need to be virtually supervised, just as they'd muck around in the office if they weren't directly supervised, and it's important to check in with their progress, and measure their performance, just as you would in the office.
I think properly planned and considered, if you make other changes to ensure you get enough social connection and physical activity elsewhere, then working from home can be better for mental and physical health, but that requires individuals being pro-active about it. The default is less connection and less movement.
“Mark my words: we will take on planning reform. We’ll bring back local housing targets. We’ll streamline the process for national infrastructure projects and commercial development and we’ll remove the veto used by big landowners to stop shovels hitting the ground.”
I think it's outflanking the Tories on growth. It'll lose some nimby votes but that's not where most Labour targets are and you need to take on vested interests to move the country forward.
Nice to some Labour policy, and one that is in the right direction.
The main downside is I tend to raid the fridge.
Those two groups exist in the office too
As a boss, I see benefits (to me) from employees WFH: in particular, I can figure out pretty quickly who is pulling their weight.
Against that, it is hard for newer, less experienced staff to get up to speed.
I snack far more often at home (to the detriment of my waistline) than if I'm in the office.
You are right it's harder for newer and younger staff to get up to speed. That's why I have "anchor days" and go in at least 2 days a week.
WFH is much more attractive to those with larger homes with space and views and facilities, than for a younger person renting a small flat.
What a shock !!!
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/anti-capitalist-cafe-famous-for-letting-customers-pay-what-they-like-goes-bust/ar-AA1bh4bS?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=802a6237ceb6459b874299c95149e10c&ei=15
This govt lacks a coherent approach on almost any subject.
Still, cultural marxism.