Although the "cyclists need insurance" brigade do have a point. Liability insurance for cyclists is quite sensible.
Adult cyclists who cycle on pavements, which is unlawful, with a "get out of my way, pedestrian scum" attitude, being too wimpy and scared to ride on the roads, need bans slapped on them by magistrates. (It would only take a few Cambridge fellows to feel the long arm of the law for the others to feel "encouraged".)
Guidance from the Police Chief's Association accepts that adults cycling on pavements is OK, when the road is too dangerous, and it is done considerately - as in the vast majority of cases. Guidance was issued in 1999 by the Home Secretary when it became an "offence", and reaffirmed in 2014. The recent case of the manslaughter of the elderly cyclist demonstrates the need, until such time as we have safe facilities everywhere:
The "cyclists need insurance" brigade have no point whatsoever, except in their own sawdust-filled heads.
Lability insurance for people riding bikes usually comes for free with a home contents policy. Some of us have extra insurance via memberships or specialist policies. I have that because I know many motorist vehicle drivers will lie to the police and then lie to the court, and I will need ferocious lawyers should the worst happen, potentially for a civil claim.
These insurance companies include liability insurance in their Home Contents policies:
Apologies for introducing evidence to the debate.
Normally placid people go absolutely bonkers when it comes to cyclists. It's utterly barmy and baffling.
Even if inflation falls Sunak can hardly bring out the bunting given to get there it would have driven many people to lose their homes .
On another note am I the only one fed up of the moralizing crap from people who seek to judge those who just wanted to own their own home . The situation was vastly different 20 years ago .
People took out mortgages and could never have envisaged the rapid change in interest rates over the space of just over a year.
There seems to be a lot of mean spiritedness about which I find appalling when some people are going to be sick with worry over what will happen to their mortgages .
Although the "cyclists need insurance" brigade do have a point. Liability insurance for cyclists is quite sensible.
It's a ludicrous idea.
We all do things that could in theory expose us to liability to a third party. Your dog might bite someone. Your lawnmower might damage a neighbour's gnome. You might knock over a shelf of pottery in a shop. You might injure someone with an ill-timed challenge in an informal game of park football.
We don't insist on people getting liability insurance for these activities because the risk of a claim arising is low, and the likelihood of it being a high value claim even if it does is low (i.e. if there is a legal claim against you, there's a good chance you'd be able to pay without claiming on insurance). We make an exception for motor insurance as the inherent risk from driving around several tonnes of metal at potentially some speed is pretty high - we don't have a high accident rate in the UK, but where they do happen the damage to property and people can be pretty catastrophic and beyond the means of the person claimed against.
That is not to diminish the fact that on very rare occasions, an irresponsible person on a bike can cause significant damage. But compared with motor vehicles it is simply incredibly unusual to have situations where lack of third party insurance is an issue for the injured party.
That sounds very complacent to me. Some of those liabilities are probably covered by your household policy, but for those that aren't it is a very sound idea to look in to joining the park footballers/dog owners/ whatever society, who often throw in a few m liability cover in exchange for an annual membership sub.
Although the "cyclists need insurance" brigade do have a point. Liability insurance for cyclists is quite sensible.
Adult cyclists who cycle on pavements, which is unlawful, with a "get out of my way, pedestrian scum" attitude, being too wimpy and scared to ride on the roads, need bans slapped on them by magistrates. (It would only take a few Cambridge fellows to feel the long arm of the law for the others to feel "encouraged".)
Guidance from the Police Chief's Association accepts that adults cycling on pavements is OK, when the road is too dangerous, and it is done considerately - as in the vast majority of cases. Guidance was issued in 1999 by the Home Secretary when it became an "offence", and reaffirmed in 2014. The recent case of the manslaughter of the elderly cyclist demonstrates the need, until such time as we have safe facilities everywhere:
The "cyclists need insurance" brigade have no point whatsoever, except in their own sawdust-filled heads.
Lability insurance for people riding bikes usually comes for free with a home contents policy. Some of us have extra insurance via memberships or specialist policies. I have that because I know many motorists will lie to the po9lice and the court, and I will need ferocious lawyers should the worst happen.
These insurance companies include liability insurance in their Home Contents policies:
Apologies for introducing evidence to the debate.
The trick with getting hit by a car on your bike is to do what I did and have it happen right outside the police station.
That's what I did, and the motorist very quickly paid up to replace my bike. Yes, it was entirely their fault too, as the police CCTV would have shown if they'd care to chance it.
'@GoodwinMJ · 17h The old elite projected their social status through their wealth, estates & titles. The new elite project their status & distinguish themselves from the masses by preaching radical woke progressivism'
Goodwin is really disappearing ever deeper up his own backside.
Yes. It is quite evident that the new elite project their status & distinguish themselves from the masses by uttering mantras which *appear* to be progressive.
The reality is nothing changes, but they all give each other awards for being on message - see the revelation about how much money the Met Police spends on awarding itself awards.
Goodwin just isn't thinking structurally about who the 'elite' are. Being an academic, he probably thinks that leftie academics with pride flags in their twitter profile are a part of the elite - ie it's pure narcissism. The elite are people who control the levers of political and economic power, ie people in business and finance and the Tory party. These are not people you will bump into at a BLM protest, believe me.
The whole misuse of the concept of "elites" by people like HYUFD strikes me as so much playing with fire. To hear populist narratives coming out of the mouths of "conservatives" is disturbing.
The danger is that normalising such language opens the door of the town hall to far worse people than either the stupid conservatives speaking like this or the stupid people they are trying to attack.
Populism isn't a plaything. It's a vicious weapon that should only be unleashed when it's really, really needed. If your target is tweedy academics and pride flags, you can be damn sure it's not needed.
Yes, reading the Spectator these days is like reading a student Trotskyist pamphlet: full of talk of 'our rulers', 'the ruling class', 'the ruling elite' etc. My theory is that a certain type of middle-class conservative bitterly regrets letting the 1970s and punk rock pass them by and is desperate for another go.
The above concept of the "elite" is cribbed from Rob Henderson's theory of "luxury beliefs".
Paraphrasing, we have an overproduction of "elites" i.e. university educated people who in previous times would have demanded high salaries for jobs such as journalism or academia, but due to the change in the job market and the increasing precariousness of the middle class, we have produced too many humanities graduates who are educated but no longer command large salaries. This overly large class of people can no longer compete on traditional wealth based status symbols, so they use their belief system as a signifier of their class.
What is a luxury belief? I've heard people call "gender ideology" a "luxury belief" - despite the fact the vast majority of trans people are working class and poor, disproportionately homeless and suffer from mental health issues related to being ostracised by society; doesn't sound very "luxury" to me. Whereas I would say "trickle down economics" is a pretty "luxury belief" - only the rich can believe it, it justifies their existence and their hoarding of wealth, and it patently doesn't work. Is "equal rights" a luxury belief? "Human rights"? "Society"?
The issue is that on economics, there is no other game in town. History did end, capitalism won. Corbyn and Bernie get called bloody Marxists for wanting to do low level social democratic reforms which are all in aid of keeping capitalism from falling apart under it's own contradictions. So when capitalism is clearly failing but it's easier to imagine the end of the world then it is the end of capitalism, what do you have left?
Social democracy won (even if social democratic parties are vanishing). Most rich world economies have public spending at 40-50% of GDP and extensive welfare states.
Thatcher called Blair her heir. The welfare state has been cut year on year since 2008. Public spending is high due to bungs to private corporations and military spending - and public coffers are empty because of tax cuts after tax cuts. If social democracy is an incrementalistic approach to socialist equality via the ballot box, why is wealth inequality higher now than 50 years ago? You're looking at technological gains and saying that the quality of life is better for most people, therefore society must have improved, but the gap between the richest and poorest is astronomically greater than previously.
I am not sure what planet you are living on but it isn't this one.
Military spending is now less as a % of GDP than it has been in decades. It was 7% in the 1960s and is now 2%. And taxes are higher as a % of GDP than they have been at any time in the last 50 years.
Yes but @148grss's basic observation is right: the gap between rich and poor has ballooned, under both Labour and Tory administrations.
So what?
It makes no difference to my life whether Elon Musk or Richard Branson can afford one flight into space or 1000.
It does make a difference to my life whether my own life is getting better or worse.
Closing the gap by making us all poorer is not progress.
Making us all richer, even if some get much richer than others, is progress.
Problem is, the rich are getting richer and the not-rich are getting poorer. I think it peaked sometimes in the past 20 years and the not-rich are still heading downhill. We can pick our poison: GFC, Brexit, the break-up of the White Stripes, whatever, but we aren't thriving to say the least.
Interest rates went up to 5% today. How big is your mortgage? Feeling poor, or feeling rich?
Yes if the rich are getting richer and the not-rich are getting poorer then that is a problem, but that's a totally different problem to the rich getting richer while the poor are also getting richer. And Brexit is likely reversing that, Brexit aids the not-rich more than the rich, in seeing wages going up potentially.
As for me I don't like going into personal details but I'm happy to say I'm paying less for my mortgage today than I was paying for my landlord's mortgage this time last year, when rates were lower. So things have in the past year improved for me, personally.
But I'm not primarily concerned about myself. If I go into negative equity, as I hope, I will still have my own home. I will still have a roof over my head and no landlord.
Millions of others of my generation and younger aren't so fortunate. I'm more concerned with them, than I am myself.
And negative equity is a solved problem - it hit Northern Ireland between 2009 to 2015 and the banks just allowed people to continue their loans - it's less risky than the other options...
Absolutely! Indeed its happened throughout history and throughout the world.
Last thing the Banks want is to foreclose on a loan that's bigger than what they'll get from the asset. They're losing money if they do that. Ride it out to the other side as best as can be done is better and leaves the economy in a much healthier place.
'@GoodwinMJ · 17h The old elite projected their social status through their wealth, estates & titles. The new elite project their status & distinguish themselves from the masses by preaching radical woke progressivism'
Goodwin is really disappearing ever deeper up his own backside.
Yes. It is quite evident that the new elite project their status & distinguish themselves from the masses by uttering mantras which *appear* to be progressive.
The reality is nothing changes, but they all give each other awards for being on message - see the revelation about how much money the Met Police spends on awarding itself awards.
Goodwin just isn't thinking structurally about who the 'elite' are. Being an academic, he probably thinks that leftie academics with pride flags in their twitter profile are a part of the elite - ie it's pure narcissism. The elite are people who control the levers of political and economic power, ie people in business and finance and the Tory party. These are not people you will bump into at a BLM protest, believe me.
The whole misuse of the concept of "elites" by people like HYUFD strikes me as so much playing with fire. To hear populist narratives coming out of the mouths of "conservatives" is disturbing.
The danger is that normalising such language opens the door of the town hall to far worse people than either the stupid conservatives speaking like this or the stupid people they are trying to attack.
Populism isn't a plaything. It's a vicious weapon that should only be unleashed when it's really, really needed. If your target is tweedy academics and pride flags, you can be damn sure it's not needed.
Yes, reading the Spectator these days is like reading a student Trotskyist pamphlet: full of talk of 'our rulers', 'the ruling class', 'the ruling elite' etc. My theory is that a certain type of middle-class conservative bitterly regrets letting the 1970s and punk rock pass them by and is desperate for another go.
The above concept of the "elite" is cribbed from Rob Henderson's theory of "luxury beliefs".
Paraphrasing, we have an overproduction of "elites" i.e. university educated people who in previous times would have demanded high salaries for jobs such as journalism or academia, but due to the change in the job market and the increasing precariousness of the middle class, we have produced too many humanities graduates who are educated but no longer command large salaries. This overly large class of people can no longer compete on traditional wealth based status symbols, so they use their belief system as a signifier of their class.
What is a luxury belief? I've heard people call "gender ideology" a "luxury belief" - despite the fact the vast majority of trans people are working class and poor, disproportionately homeless and suffer from mental health issues related to being ostracised by society; doesn't sound very "luxury" to me. Whereas I would say "trickle down economics" is a pretty "luxury belief" - only the rich can believe it, it justifies their existence and their hoarding of wealth, and it patently doesn't work. Is "equal rights" a luxury belief? "Human rights"? "Society"?
The issue is that on economics, there is no other game in town. History did end, capitalism won. Corbyn and Bernie get called bloody Marxists for wanting to do low level social democratic reforms which are all in aid of keeping capitalism from falling apart under it's own contradictions. So when capitalism is clearly failing but it's easier to imagine the end of the world then it is the end of capitalism, what do you have left?
Social democracy won (even if social democratic parties are vanishing). Most rich world economies have public spending at 40-50% of GDP and extensive welfare states.
Thatcher called Blair her heir. The welfare state has been cut year on year since 2008. Public spending is high due to bungs to private corporations and military spending - and public coffers are empty because of tax cuts after tax cuts. If social democracy is an incrementalistic approach to socialist equality via the ballot box, why is wealth inequality higher now than 50 years ago? You're looking at technological gains and saying that the quality of life is better for most people, therefore society must have improved, but the gap between the richest and poorest is astronomically greater than previously.
I am not sure what planet you are living on but it isn't this one.
Military spending is now less as a % of GDP than it has been in decades. It was 7% in the 1960s and is now 2%. And taxes are higher as a % of GDP than they have been at any time in the last 50 years.
Yes but @148grss's basic observation is right: the gap between rich and poor has ballooned, under both Labour and Tory administrations.
So what?
It makes no difference to my life whether Elon Musk or Richard Branson can afford one flight into space or 1000.
It does make a difference to my life whether my own life is getting better or worse.
Closing the gap by making us all poorer is not progress.
Making us all richer, even if some get much richer than others, is progress.
Inequality is an issue when ~20% of the population skip meals because they can't afford to eat all the time, and have to choose between eating and paying the bills, when other people have the resources to buy luxury yachts and private jets.
The wealth is being created - but it is being redistributed up to the owning class, not to those who actually do the labour. Elon Musk or Richard Branson don't do anything - they buy the means of production and the workers do the work. Relative poverty, affording the basics to engage in society, has increased in the last 40 years, not decreased.
No. 20% of the population skipping meals is a problem in its own right, not because of inequality.
If we were more equal and 60% of the population were skipping meals instead would that be better or worse?
The wealth exists. That some people have astronomically more, and others have so little that they are skipping meals, is a problem. The wealth that the rich have could go to those who do not have it and are therefore having a worse standard of living. There is no conceivable way that wealth redistribution from the richest people who have ridiculous amounts of money, inconceivable amounts of money, money that when put into context is absolutely absurd, would lead to 60% of the population of the population skipping meals - but it could easily make that 0%.
How do you square the belief that an increasing number of people are too poor to eat with the growing levels of obesity?
Because some of the cheapest food is some of the most unhealthy.
Not to say I don't like this new to-the-right-of-Mark Francois @williamglenn but sometimes the auto-responses are a bit too lazy.
I still think you are doing this because it is an amusing role to play (cf your pre-2016 vote persona).
'@GoodwinMJ · 17h The old elite projected their social status through their wealth, estates & titles. The new elite project their status & distinguish themselves from the masses by preaching radical woke progressivism'
Goodwin is really disappearing ever deeper up his own backside.
Yes. It is quite evident that the new elite project their status & distinguish themselves from the masses by uttering mantras which *appear* to be progressive.
The reality is nothing changes, but they all give each other awards for being on message - see the revelation about how much money the Met Police spends on awarding itself awards.
Goodwin just isn't thinking structurally about who the 'elite' are. Being an academic, he probably thinks that leftie academics with pride flags in their twitter profile are a part of the elite - ie it's pure narcissism. The elite are people who control the levers of political and economic power, ie people in business and finance and the Tory party. These are not people you will bump into at a BLM protest, believe me.
The whole misuse of the concept of "elites" by people like HYUFD strikes me as so much playing with fire. To hear populist narratives coming out of the mouths of "conservatives" is disturbing.
The danger is that normalising such language opens the door of the town hall to far worse people than either the stupid conservatives speaking like this or the stupid people they are trying to attack.
Populism isn't a plaything. It's a vicious weapon that should only be unleashed when it's really, really needed. If your target is tweedy academics and pride flags, you can be damn sure it's not needed.
Yes, reading the Spectator these days is like reading a student Trotskyist pamphlet: full of talk of 'our rulers', 'the ruling class', 'the ruling elite' etc. My theory is that a certain type of middle-class conservative bitterly regrets letting the 1970s and punk rock pass them by and is desperate for another go.
The above concept of the "elite" is cribbed from Rob Henderson's theory of "luxury beliefs".
Paraphrasing, we have an overproduction of "elites" i.e. university educated people who in previous times would have demanded high salaries for jobs such as journalism or academia, but due to the change in the job market and the increasing precariousness of the middle class, we have produced too many humanities graduates who are educated but no longer command large salaries. This overly large class of people can no longer compete on traditional wealth based status symbols, so they use their belief system as a signifier of their class.
What is a luxury belief? I've heard people call "gender ideology" a "luxury belief" - despite the fact the vast majority of trans people are working class and poor, disproportionately homeless and suffer from mental health issues related to being ostracised by society; doesn't sound very "luxury" to me. Whereas I would say "trickle down economics" is a pretty "luxury belief" - only the rich can believe it, it justifies their existence and their hoarding of wealth, and it patently doesn't work. Is "equal rights" a luxury belief? "Human rights"? "Society"?
The issue is that on economics, there is no other game in town. History did end, capitalism won. Corbyn and Bernie get called bloody Marxists for wanting to do low level social democratic reforms which are all in aid of keeping capitalism from falling apart under it's own contradictions. So when capitalism is clearly failing but it's easier to imagine the end of the world then it is the end of capitalism, what do you have left?
Social democracy won (even if social democratic parties are vanishing). Most rich world economies have public spending at 40-50% of GDP and extensive welfare states.
Thatcher called Blair her heir. The welfare state has been cut year on year since 2008. Public spending is high due to bungs to private corporations and military spending - and public coffers are empty because of tax cuts after tax cuts. If social democracy is an incrementalistic approach to socialist equality via the ballot box, why is wealth inequality higher now than 50 years ago? You're looking at technological gains and saying that the quality of life is better for most people, therefore society must have improved, but the gap between the richest and poorest is astronomically greater than previously.
I am not sure what planet you are living on but it isn't this one.
Military spending is now less as a % of GDP than it has been in decades. It was 7% in the 1960s and is now 2%. And taxes are higher as a % of GDP than they have been at any time in the last 50 years.
Yes but @148grss's basic observation is right: the gap between rich and poor has ballooned, under both Labour and Tory administrations.
So what?
It makes no difference to my life whether Elon Musk or Richard Branson can afford one flight into space or 1000.
It does make a difference to my life whether my own life is getting better or worse.
Closing the gap by making us all poorer is not progress.
Making us all richer, even if some get much richer than others, is progress.
Inequality is an issue when ~20% of the population skip meals because they can't afford to eat all the time, and have to choose between eating and paying the bills, when other people have the resources to buy luxury yachts and private jets.
The wealth is being created - but it is being redistributed up to the owning class, not to those who actually do the labour. Elon Musk or Richard Branson don't do anything - they buy the means of production and the workers do the work. Relative poverty, affording the basics to engage in society, has increased in the last 40 years, not decreased.
No. 20% of the population skipping meals is a problem in its own right, not because of inequality.
If we were more equal and 60% of the population were skipping meals instead would that be better or worse?
The wealth exists. That some people have astronomically more, and others have so little that they are skipping meals, is a problem. The wealth that the rich have could go to those who do not have it and are therefore having a worse standard of living. There is no conceivable way that wealth redistribution from the richest people who have ridiculous amounts of money, inconceivable amounts of money, money that when put into context is absolutely absurd, would lead to 60% of the population of the population skipping meals - but it could easily make that 0%.
How do you square the belief that an increasing number of people are too poor to eat with the growing levels of obesity?
Dirt cheap price of carbs relative to other forms of nutrition.
Although the "cyclists need insurance" brigade do have a point. Liability insurance for cyclists is quite sensible.
Adult cyclists who cycle on pavements, which is unlawful, with a "get out of my way, pedestrian scum" attitude, being too wimpy and scared to ride on the roads, need bans slapped on them by magistrates. (It would only take a few Cambridge fellows to feel the long arm of the law for the others to feel "encouraged".)
Guidance from the Police Chief's Association accepts that adults cycling on pavements is OK, when the road is too dangerous, and it is done considerately - as in the vast majority of cases. Guidance was issued in 1999 by the Home Secretary when it became an "offence", and reaffirmed in 2014. The recent case of the manslaughter of the elderly cyclist demonstrates the need, until such time as we have safe facilities everywhere:
The "cyclists need insurance" brigade have no point whatsoever, except in their own sawdust-filled heads.
Lability insurance for people riding bikes usually comes for free with a home contents policy. Some of us have extra insurance via memberships or specialist policies. I have that because I know many motorist vehicle drivers will lie to the police and then lie to the court, and I will need ferocious lawyers should the worst happen, potentially for a civil claim.
These insurance companies include liability insurance in their Home Contents policies:
Apologies for introducing evidence to the debate.
Normally placid people go absolutely bonkers when it comes to cyclists. It's utterly barmy and baffling.
It's jealously. Motorists see my calf muscles go momentarily insane.
'@GoodwinMJ · 17h The old elite projected their social status through their wealth, estates & titles. The new elite project their status & distinguish themselves from the masses by preaching radical woke progressivism'
Goodwin is really disappearing ever deeper up his own backside.
Yes. It is quite evident that the new elite project their status & distinguish themselves from the masses by uttering mantras which *appear* to be progressive.
The reality is nothing changes, but they all give each other awards for being on message - see the revelation about how much money the Met Police spends on awarding itself awards.
Goodwin just isn't thinking structurally about who the 'elite' are. Being an academic, he probably thinks that leftie academics with pride flags in their twitter profile are a part of the elite - ie it's pure narcissism. The elite are people who control the levers of political and economic power, ie people in business and finance and the Tory party. These are not people you will bump into at a BLM protest, believe me.
The whole misuse of the concept of "elites" by people like HYUFD strikes me as so much playing with fire. To hear populist narratives coming out of the mouths of "conservatives" is disturbing.
The danger is that normalising such language opens the door of the town hall to far worse people than either the stupid conservatives speaking like this or the stupid people they are trying to attack.
Populism isn't a plaything. It's a vicious weapon that should only be unleashed when it's really, really needed. If your target is tweedy academics and pride flags, you can be damn sure it's not needed.
Yes, reading the Spectator these days is like reading a student Trotskyist pamphlet: full of talk of 'our rulers', 'the ruling class', 'the ruling elite' etc. My theory is that a certain type of middle-class conservative bitterly regrets letting the 1970s and punk rock pass them by and is desperate for another go.
The above concept of the "elite" is cribbed from Rob Henderson's theory of "luxury beliefs".
Paraphrasing, we have an overproduction of "elites" i.e. university educated people who in previous times would have demanded high salaries for jobs such as journalism or academia, but due to the change in the job market and the increasing precariousness of the middle class, we have produced too many humanities graduates who are educated but no longer command large salaries. This overly large class of people can no longer compete on traditional wealth based status symbols, so they use their belief system as a signifier of their class.
What is a luxury belief? I've heard people call "gender ideology" a "luxury belief" - despite the fact the vast majority of trans people are working class and poor, disproportionately homeless and suffer from mental health issues related to being ostracised by society; doesn't sound very "luxury" to me. Whereas I would say "trickle down economics" is a pretty "luxury belief" - only the rich can believe it, it justifies their existence and their hoarding of wealth, and it patently doesn't work. Is "equal rights" a luxury belief? "Human rights"? "Society"?
The issue is that on economics, there is no other game in town. History did end, capitalism won. Corbyn and Bernie get called bloody Marxists for wanting to do low level social democratic reforms which are all in aid of keeping capitalism from falling apart under it's own contradictions. So when capitalism is clearly failing but it's easier to imagine the end of the world then it is the end of capitalism, what do you have left?
Social democracy won (even if social democratic parties are vanishing). Most rich world economies have public spending at 40-50% of GDP and extensive welfare states.
Thatcher called Blair her heir. The welfare state has been cut year on year since 2008. Public spending is high due to bungs to private corporations and military spending - and public coffers are empty because of tax cuts after tax cuts. If social democracy is an incrementalistic approach to socialist equality via the ballot box, why is wealth inequality higher now than 50 years ago? You're looking at technological gains and saying that the quality of life is better for most people, therefore society must have improved, but the gap between the richest and poorest is astronomically greater than previously.
I am not sure what planet you are living on but it isn't this one.
Military spending is now less as a % of GDP than it has been in decades. It was 7% in the 1960s and is now 2%. And taxes are higher as a % of GDP than they have been at any time in the last 50 years.
Yes but @148grss's basic observation is right: the gap between rich and poor has ballooned, under both Labour and Tory administrations.
So what?
It makes no difference to my life whether Elon Musk or Richard Branson can afford one flight into space or 1000.
It does make a difference to my life whether my own life is getting better or worse.
Closing the gap by making us all poorer is not progress.
Making us all richer, even if some get much richer than others, is progress.
Inequality is an issue when ~20% of the population skip meals because they can't afford to eat all the time, and have to choose between eating and paying the bills, when other people have the resources to buy luxury yachts and private jets.
The wealth is being created - but it is being redistributed up to the owning class, not to those who actually do the labour. Elon Musk or Richard Branson don't do anything - they buy the means of production and the workers do the work. Relative poverty, affording the basics to engage in society, has increased in the last 40 years, not decreased.
No. 20% of the population skipping meals is a problem in its own right, not because of inequality.
If we were more equal and 60% of the population were skipping meals instead would that be better or worse?
The wealth exists. That some people have astronomically more, and others have so little that they are skipping meals, is a problem. The wealth that the rich have could go to those who do not have it and are therefore having a worse standard of living. There is no conceivable way that wealth redistribution from the richest people who have ridiculous amounts of money, inconceivable amounts of money, money that when put into context is absolutely absurd, would lead to 60% of the population of the population skipping meals - but it could easily make that 0%.
You're assuming we could make that 0% but never assume it makes an ass out of u and me.
Countries that have attempted to abolish rather than reduce or ameliorate inequality have invariably and inevitably always ended up with more people skipping meals, not fewer.
'@GoodwinMJ · 17h The old elite projected their social status through their wealth, estates & titles. The new elite project their status & distinguish themselves from the masses by preaching radical woke progressivism'
Goodwin is really disappearing ever deeper up his own backside.
Yes. It is quite evident that the new elite project their status & distinguish themselves from the masses by uttering mantras which *appear* to be progressive.
The reality is nothing changes, but they all give each other awards for being on message - see the revelation about how much money the Met Police spends on awarding itself awards.
Goodwin just isn't thinking structurally about who the 'elite' are. Being an academic, he probably thinks that leftie academics with pride flags in their twitter profile are a part of the elite - ie it's pure narcissism. The elite are people who control the levers of political and economic power, ie people in business and finance and the Tory party. These are not people you will bump into at a BLM protest, believe me.
The whole misuse of the concept of "elites" by people like HYUFD strikes me as so much playing with fire. To hear populist narratives coming out of the mouths of "conservatives" is disturbing.
The danger is that normalising such language opens the door of the town hall to far worse people than either the stupid conservatives speaking like this or the stupid people they are trying to attack.
Populism isn't a plaything. It's a vicious weapon that should only be unleashed when it's really, really needed. If your target is tweedy academics and pride flags, you can be damn sure it's not needed.
Yes, reading the Spectator these days is like reading a student Trotskyist pamphlet: full of talk of 'our rulers', 'the ruling class', 'the ruling elite' etc. My theory is that a certain type of middle-class conservative bitterly regrets letting the 1970s and punk rock pass them by and is desperate for another go.
Goodwin just dislikes the evolution of societal norms. Most of Goodwin's recent book (which has very few actual citations for an academic) claims that the new "elite" are essentially just all university graduates, women, and ethnic or sexual minorities, and the old elite are white working class people and the elderly. Which is clearly not the case, that's just generational divide.
The "elite" are the same people who have owned and controlled land since their ancestors landed on these shores in 1066. The "elite" are the same narrow group of people who go to one of two or three public schools and one of two universities. The "elite" are the people who have the opportunity to leverage their preexisting wealth and networks into cushy jobs where they can publish in national newspapers on a regular basis or get a peerage before the age of 30.
What the new generation have is the ability for the old elites to hear them, because social media allows the plebs to shout at anyone. They also have more willingness to "talk back" to their "betters". Graduates may have more pluralistic attitudes because they interact with a different set of people whilst at university - people from across the country and across the world.
I want to know what significant impact the "new elite" have had. If we're talking about the press - that's overwhelming right wing in this country. The government has been right wing / centrist since Thatcher. Yes, we have progressed on open racism, sexism and homophobia - but barely and only if it is really obvious (in his book Goodwin complains that the "new elite" think doing accents and complaining that people don't speak English in the UK are racist is bad, actually, and thinks that we should define the number of people who hold racially prejudicial views on the basis of a poll that asked people if they self defined as racist).
The problem with Goodwin, HYUFD, and a lot of British conservatism is they're complaining about winning too much. They won the economic argument - everyone's a Thatcherite now. They won on the EU - we're leaving. They won most of the culture war - gay rights begins and ends with the right to act like straight people with same sex marriage, and it's more important that 5 rich people are likely dead out of their own hubris than it is 500 migrants were killed when their boat was sank. But winning doesn't make your enemies shut up and respect you, and that's what they want - for the goddamn poors and women and gays and ethnics to just accept their place in the world and stop asking for a better world. They believe it was shit for them (despite most of them living through the golden age of the welfare state and investment into their progress) and therefore demand that it must be shit for the rest of us. "Didn't do me any harm..." etc etc, bullcrap bullcrap
The liberal elite won the culture war, we have homosexual marriage, abortion near on demand up to 24 weeks, Pride days even in corporations, religious teachers sacked for teaching traditional views of gender and sexuality, migration to the UK higher than ever before even despite Brexit, statues being pulled down in big cities and museums. Social liberalism and anti Brexit views dominate the ranks of academia, the civil service, lawyers, big corporations and TV news from the BBC to Channel 4.
Even the economic argument the right was alleged to have won is looking shaky with the tax burden high and likely to get even higher under a Starmer government, increasing public spending and things which were privatised like railways now being drawn up by stealth under public ownership. While the Unions are shaking their fists again and striking for huge wage rises.
The elite is also different, the rich list in the Sunday Times is now mainly self made entrepreneurs, whereas in the early 1980s it was mainly landowners and inherited wealth. Public schools are now seeing pupils being rejected from Oxbridge more than ever, with 65% of Oxford and 70% of Cambridge students from state schools and even most Tory MPs now state educated.
"Social liberalism and anti Brexit views dominate..." - views. Opinions. Political positions. Not ability to enact wide or systemic change. Just "people who are in the modern middle class hold different opinions to people in the old middle class and old upper class". That's what this is all about.
Same sex marriage is conservative - yes it was important for same sex couples to have the same rights as any married couples, to visit the ill, to inherit, to live together - but it essentially assimilation into the heteronormative tradition. "We're here, we're queer, get used to it" used to be about difference, not assimilation. Abortion is still illegal without 2 doctors signing off on it in this country. And again, dog whistle with "religious teachers" because you don't want a Muslim to teach students fundamental Islamism - you want a specific brand of traditional Christianity imposed on kids.
Starmer is going out with his shadow chancellor on TV every day saying that he won't do anything radical on the economy because of the "economic condition". A majority of TORY voters want public ownership of necessary utilities, and the Labour party is STILL ruling it out.
You call lefties permanent victims, and then complain that the poors are being allowed into the posh people unis, and that new money are lauded like some kind of Victorian Whig. We live in the world created by Thatcherism and Reaganism, by the neoliberal consensus, by capital and capitalism. You won; get over it.
No. Same sex marriage is liberal, hence most Conservative MPs voted against it and most Labour and LD MPs voted for it. Conservative MPs wanted civil unions only at the time.
I see David Cameron has joined HYFUD’s ranks of “not a true Conservative”
So I don't support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I'm a Conservative.
Does anyone believe the Tories can pull it back to a Hung Parliament and still remain in Government? I would like to hear your hypothesis for my betting
Although the "cyclists need insurance" brigade do have a point. Liability insurance for cyclists is quite sensible.
Adult cyclists who cycle on pavements, which is unlawful, with a "get out of my way, pedestrian scum" attitude, being too wimpy and scared to ride on the roads, need bans slapped on them by magistrates. (It would only take a few Cambridge fellows to feel the long arm of the law for the others to feel "encouraged".)
Guidance from the Police Chief's Association accepts that adults cycling on pavements is OK, when the road is too dangerous, and it is done considerately - as in the vast majority of cases. Guidance was issued in 1999 by the Home Secretary when it became an "offence", and reaffirmed in 2014. The recent case of the manslaughter of the elderly cyclist demonstrates the need, until such time as we have safe facilities everywhere:
The "cyclists need insurance" brigade have no point whatsoever, except in their own sawdust-filled heads.
Lability insurance for people riding bikes usually comes for free with a home contents policy. Some of us have extra insurance via memberships or specialist policies. I have that because I know many motorist vehicle drivers will lie to the police and then lie to the court, and I will need ferocious lawyers should the worst happen, potentially for a civil claim.
These insurance companies include liability insurance in their Home Contents policies:
Apologies for introducing evidence to the debate.
Normally placid people go absolutely bonkers when it comes to cyclists. It's utterly barmy and baffling.
The worst cyclists on the streets of London are without doubt the Just Eat/Deliveroo ones. Most cyclists at least look left then right before going through red lights - the food delivery ones don't even do this.
And I'm the idiot who stops at all the red lights as I see 83% of other cyclists race through them past me.
'@GoodwinMJ · 17h The old elite projected their social status through their wealth, estates & titles. The new elite project their status & distinguish themselves from the masses by preaching radical woke progressivism'
Goodwin is really disappearing ever deeper up his own backside.
Yes. It is quite evident that the new elite project their status & distinguish themselves from the masses by uttering mantras which *appear* to be progressive.
The reality is nothing changes, but they all give each other awards for being on message - see the revelation about how much money the Met Police spends on awarding itself awards.
Goodwin just isn't thinking structurally about who the 'elite' are. Being an academic, he probably thinks that leftie academics with pride flags in their twitter profile are a part of the elite - ie it's pure narcissism. The elite are people who control the levers of political and economic power, ie people in business and finance and the Tory party. These are not people you will bump into at a BLM protest, believe me.
The whole misuse of the concept of "elites" by people like HYUFD strikes me as so much playing with fire. To hear populist narratives coming out of the mouths of "conservatives" is disturbing.
The danger is that normalising such language opens the door of the town hall to far worse people than either the stupid conservatives speaking like this or the stupid people they are trying to attack.
Populism isn't a plaything. It's a vicious weapon that should only be unleashed when it's really, really needed. If your target is tweedy academics and pride flags, you can be damn sure it's not needed.
Yes, reading the Spectator these days is like reading a student Trotskyist pamphlet: full of talk of 'our rulers', 'the ruling class', 'the ruling elite' etc. My theory is that a certain type of middle-class conservative bitterly regrets letting the 1970s and punk rock pass them by and is desperate for another go.
Goodwin just dislikes the evolution of societal norms. Most of Goodwin's recent book (which has very few actual citations for an academic) claims that the new "elite" are essentially just all university graduates, women, and ethnic or sexual minorities, and the old elite are white working class people and the elderly. Which is clearly not the case, that's just generational divide.
The "elite" are the same people who have owned and controlled land since their ancestors landed on these shores in 1066. The "elite" are the same narrow group of people who go to one of two or three public schools and one of two universities. The "elite" are the people who have the opportunity to leverage their preexisting wealth and networks into cushy jobs where they can publish in national newspapers on a regular basis or get a peerage before the age of 30.
What the new generation have is the ability for the old elites to hear them, because social media allows the plebs to shout at anyone. They also have more willingness to "talk back" to their "betters". Graduates may have more pluralistic attitudes because they interact with a different set of people whilst at university - people from across the country and across the world.
I want to know what significant impact the "new elite" have had. If we're talking about the press - that's overwhelming right wing in this country. The government has been right wing / centrist since Thatcher. Yes, we have progressed on open racism, sexism and homophobia - but barely and only if it is really obvious (in his book Goodwin complains that the "new elite" think doing accents and complaining that people don't speak English in the UK are racist is bad, actually, and thinks that we should define the number of people who hold racially prejudicial views on the basis of a poll that asked people if they self defined as racist).
The problem with Goodwin, HYUFD, and a lot of British conservatism is they're complaining about winning too much. They won the economic argument - everyone's a Thatcherite now. They won on the EU - we're leaving. They won most of the culture war - gay rights begins and ends with the right to act like straight people with same sex marriage, and it's more important that 5 rich people are likely dead out of their own hubris than it is 500 migrants were killed when their boat was sank. But winning doesn't make your enemies shut up and respect you, and that's what they want - for the goddamn poors and women and gays and ethnics to just accept their place in the world and stop asking for a better world. They believe it was shit for them (despite most of them living through the golden age of the welfare state and investment into their progress) and therefore demand that it must be shit for the rest of us. "Didn't do me any harm..." etc etc, bullcrap bullcrap
The liberal elite won the culture war, we have homosexual marriage, abortion near on demand up to 24 weeks, Pride days even in corporations, religious teachers sacked for teaching traditional views of gender and sexuality, migration to the UK higher than ever before even despite Brexit, statues being pulled down in big cities and museums. Social liberalism and anti Brexit views dominate the ranks of academia, the civil service, lawyers, big corporations and TV news from the BBC to Channel 4.
Even the economic argument the right was alleged to have won is looking shaky with the tax burden high and likely to get even higher under a Starmer government, increasing public spending and things which were privatised like railways now being drawn up by stealth under public ownership. While the Unions are shaking their fists again and striking for huge wage rises.
The elite is also different, the rich list in the Sunday Times is now mainly self made entrepreneurs, whereas in the early 1980s it was mainly landowners and inherited wealth. Public schools are now seeing pupils being rejected from Oxbridge more than ever, with 65% of Oxford and 70% of Cambridge students from state schools and even most Tory MPs now state educated.
Social liberalism won the culture war. That doesn’t mean the “liberal elite” won it. Rather, the public at large threw off the social conservatism of the then elite.
High migration isn’t proof of a ruling liberal elite: high migration is the result of Conservative Party policies.
And saying 65% of Oxford’s intake is from state schools is an odd way of saying the privately educated are still massively over-represented at Oxford.
High migration is a result of the ruling elite not fulling implementing the Brexit vote to cut immigration.
The public at large was always more socially conservative than the elite, check polls on homosexuality in the 1980s or the death penalty now.
About 40% of top A grades and A* grades at A level go to private school pupils yet now over 70% of Cambridge students went to state schools. Indeed access schemes give places at some Oxbridge pupils to state school pupils with only 3 Bs
High migration is a desire by capitalists to have cheap labour and discipline labour at home - the reasons liberals don't mind migration is because they want to treat people humanely, and the reason leftists don't mind migration is because they're internationalists who view borders as fake. The only people who don't like high migration are those who are convinced by capitalists that migrants are taking their jobs and destroying their culture so that the blame of migration and labour discipline falls on the relatively powerless migrant and not the exceptionally powerful capitalist.
That's why you see in the US, for example, lots of anti immigrant rhetoric from the right, but when someone like De Santis implements a policy of fining companies $10000 for each illegal immigrant they are found to be using as labour you a) have food shortages in Florida and b) lots of companies (who spend lots of money in GOP primaries) crying that their profits are going down.
'@GoodwinMJ · 17h The old elite projected their social status through their wealth, estates & titles. The new elite project their status & distinguish themselves from the masses by preaching radical woke progressivism'
Goodwin is really disappearing ever deeper up his own backside.
Yes. It is quite evident that the new elite project their status & distinguish themselves from the masses by uttering mantras which *appear* to be progressive.
The reality is nothing changes, but they all give each other awards for being on message - see the revelation about how much money the Met Police spends on awarding itself awards.
Goodwin just isn't thinking structurally about who the 'elite' are. Being an academic, he probably thinks that leftie academics with pride flags in their twitter profile are a part of the elite - ie it's pure narcissism. The elite are people who control the levers of political and economic power, ie people in business and finance and the Tory party. These are not people you will bump into at a BLM protest, believe me.
The whole misuse of the concept of "elites" by people like HYUFD strikes me as so much playing with fire. To hear populist narratives coming out of the mouths of "conservatives" is disturbing.
The danger is that normalising such language opens the door of the town hall to far worse people than either the stupid conservatives speaking like this or the stupid people they are trying to attack.
Populism isn't a plaything. It's a vicious weapon that should only be unleashed when it's really, really needed. If your target is tweedy academics and pride flags, you can be damn sure it's not needed.
Why do you think populist parties are in government in Sweden, Finland, Italy, and will likely be in Spain very soon?
'@GoodwinMJ · 17h The old elite projected their social status through their wealth, estates & titles. The new elite project their status & distinguish themselves from the masses by preaching radical woke progressivism'
Goodwin is really disappearing ever deeper up his own backside.
Yes. It is quite evident that the new elite project their status & distinguish themselves from the masses by uttering mantras which *appear* to be progressive.
The reality is nothing changes, but they all give each other awards for being on message - see the revelation about how much money the Met Police spends on awarding itself awards.
Goodwin just isn't thinking structurally about who the 'elite' are. Being an academic, he probably thinks that leftie academics with pride flags in their twitter profile are a part of the elite - ie it's pure narcissism. The elite are people who control the levers of political and economic power, ie people in business and finance and the Tory party. These are not people you will bump into at a BLM protest, believe me.
The whole misuse of the concept of "elites" by people like HYUFD strikes me as so much playing with fire. To hear populist narratives coming out of the mouths of "conservatives" is disturbing.
The danger is that normalising such language opens the door of the town hall to far worse people than either the stupid conservatives speaking like this or the stupid people they are trying to attack.
Populism isn't a plaything. It's a vicious weapon that should only be unleashed when it's really, really needed. If your target is tweedy academics and pride flags, you can be damn sure it's not needed.
Yes, reading the Spectator these days is like reading a student Trotskyist pamphlet: full of talk of 'our rulers', 'the ruling class', 'the ruling elite' etc. My theory is that a certain type of middle-class conservative bitterly regrets letting the 1970s and punk rock pass them by and is desperate for another go.
The above concept of the "elite" is cribbed from Rob Henderson's theory of "luxury beliefs".
Paraphrasing, we have an overproduction of "elites" i.e. university educated people who in previous times would have demanded high salaries for jobs such as journalism or academia, but due to the change in the job market and the increasing precariousness of the middle class, we have produced too many humanities graduates who are educated but no longer command large salaries. This overly large class of people can no longer compete on traditional wealth based status symbols, so they use their belief system as a signifier of their class.
What is a luxury belief? I've heard people call "gender ideology" a "luxury belief" - despite the fact the vast majority of trans people are working class and poor, disproportionately homeless and suffer from mental health issues related to being ostracised by society; doesn't sound very "luxury" to me. Whereas I would say "trickle down economics" is a pretty "luxury belief" - only the rich can believe it, it justifies their existence and their hoarding of wealth, and it patently doesn't work. Is "equal rights" a luxury belief? "Human rights"? "Society"?
The issue is that on economics, there is no other game in town. History did end, capitalism won. Corbyn and Bernie get called bloody Marxists for wanting to do low level social democratic reforms which are all in aid of keeping capitalism from falling apart under it's own contradictions. So when capitalism is clearly failing but it's easier to imagine the end of the world then it is the end of capitalism, what do you have left?
Social democracy won (even if social democratic parties are vanishing). Most rich world economies have public spending at 40-50% of GDP and extensive welfare states.
Thatcher called Blair her heir. The welfare state has been cut year on year since 2008. Public spending is high due to bungs to private corporations and military spending - and public coffers are empty because of tax cuts after tax cuts. If social democracy is an incrementalistic approach to socialist equality via the ballot box, why is wealth inequality higher now than 50 years ago? You're looking at technological gains and saying that the quality of life is better for most people, therefore society must have improved, but the gap between the richest and poorest is astronomically greater than previously.
I am not sure what planet you are living on but it isn't this one.
Military spending is now less as a % of GDP than it has been in decades. It was 7% in the 1960s and is now 2%. And taxes are higher as a % of GDP than they have been at any time in the last 50 years.
Yes but @148grss's basic observation is right: the gap between rich and poor has ballooned, under both Labour and Tory administrations.
So what?
It makes no difference to my life whether Elon Musk or Richard Branson can afford one flight into space or 1000.
It does make a difference to my life whether my own life is getting better or worse.
Closing the gap by making us all poorer is not progress.
Making us all richer, even if some get much richer than others, is progress.
Inequality is an issue when ~20% of the population skip meals because they can't afford to eat all the time, and have to choose between eating and paying the bills, when other people have the resources to buy luxury yachts and private jets.
The wealth is being created - but it is being redistributed up to the owning class, not to those who actually do the labour. Elon Musk or Richard Branson don't do anything - they buy the means of production and the workers do the work. Relative poverty, affording the basics to engage in society, has increased in the last 40 years, not decreased.
No. 20% of the population skipping meals is a problem in its own right, not because of inequality.
If we were more equal and 60% of the population were skipping meals instead would that be better or worse?
The wealth exists. That some people have astronomically more, and others have so little that they are skipping meals, is a problem. The wealth that the rich have could go to those who do not have it and are therefore having a worse standard of living. There is no conceivable way that wealth redistribution from the richest people who have ridiculous amounts of money, inconceivable amounts of money, money that when put into context is absolutely absurd, would lead to 60% of the population of the population skipping meals - but it could easily make that 0%.
How do you square the belief that an increasing number of people are too poor to eat with the growing levels of obesity?
Because the food they eat is ultra processed shit. Trouble is, it's the only food they can afford.
Although the "cyclists need insurance" brigade do have a point. Liability insurance for cyclists is quite sensible.
Adult cyclists who cycle on pavements, which is unlawful, with a "get out of my way, pedestrian scum" attitude, being too wimpy and scared to ride on the roads, need bans slapped on them by magistrates. (It would only take a few Cambridge fellows to feel the long arm of the law for the others to feel "encouraged".)
Guidance from the Police Chief's Association accepts that adults cycling on pavements is OK, when the road is too dangerous, and it is done considerately - as in the vast majority of cases. Guidance was issued in 1999 by the Home Secretary when it became an "offence", and reaffirmed in 2014. The recent case of the manslaughter of the elderly cyclist demonstrates the need, until such time as we have safe facilities everywhere:
The "cyclists need insurance" brigade have no point whatsoever, except in their own sawdust-filled heads.
Lability insurance for people riding bikes usually comes for free with a home contents policy. Some of us have extra insurance via memberships or specialist policies. I have that because I know many motorist vehicle drivers will lie to the police and then lie to the court, and I will need ferocious lawyers should the worst happen, potentially for a civil claim.
These insurance companies include liability insurance in their Home Contents policies:
Apologies for introducing evidence to the debate.
Normally placid people go absolutely bonkers when it comes to cyclists. It's utterly barmy and baffling.
It's jealously. Motorists see my calf muscles go momentarily insane.
I had a shout-off with some driver in a huge fuck off (but white) Jeep Cherokee this morning. I just think many drivers resent the freedom of movement of cyclists. They don't like cyclists filtering either which I think is part of this.
Does anyone believe the Tories can pull it back to a Hung Parliament and still remain in Government? I would like to hear your hypothesis for my betting
'@GoodwinMJ · 17h The old elite projected their social status through their wealth, estates & titles. The new elite project their status & distinguish themselves from the masses by preaching radical woke progressivism'
Goodwin is really disappearing ever deeper up his own backside.
Yes. It is quite evident that the new elite project their status & distinguish themselves from the masses by uttering mantras which *appear* to be progressive.
The reality is nothing changes, but they all give each other awards for being on message - see the revelation about how much money the Met Police spends on awarding itself awards.
Goodwin just isn't thinking structurally about who the 'elite' are. Being an academic, he probably thinks that leftie academics with pride flags in their twitter profile are a part of the elite - ie it's pure narcissism. The elite are people who control the levers of political and economic power, ie people in business and finance and the Tory party. These are not people you will bump into at a BLM protest, believe me.
The whole misuse of the concept of "elites" by people like HYUFD strikes me as so much playing with fire. To hear populist narratives coming out of the mouths of "conservatives" is disturbing.
The danger is that normalising such language opens the door of the town hall to far worse people than either the stupid conservatives speaking like this or the stupid people they are trying to attack.
Populism isn't a plaything. It's a vicious weapon that should only be unleashed when it's really, really needed. If your target is tweedy academics and pride flags, you can be damn sure it's not needed.
Yes, reading the Spectator these days is like reading a student Trotskyist pamphlet: full of talk of 'our rulers', 'the ruling class', 'the ruling elite' etc. My theory is that a certain type of middle-class conservative bitterly regrets letting the 1970s and punk rock pass them by and is desperate for another go.
The above concept of the "elite" is cribbed from Rob Henderson's theory of "luxury beliefs".
Paraphrasing, we have an overproduction of "elites" i.e. university educated people who in previous times would have demanded high salaries for jobs such as journalism or academia, but due to the change in the job market and the increasing precariousness of the middle class, we have produced too many humanities graduates who are educated but no longer command large salaries. This overly large class of people can no longer compete on traditional wealth based status symbols, so they use their belief system as a signifier of their class.
What is a luxury belief? I've heard people call "gender ideology" a "luxury belief" - despite the fact the vast majority of trans people are working class and poor, disproportionately homeless and suffer from mental health issues related to being ostracised by society; doesn't sound very "luxury" to me. Whereas I would say "trickle down economics" is a pretty "luxury belief" - only the rich can believe it, it justifies their existence and their hoarding of wealth, and it patently doesn't work. Is "equal rights" a luxury belief? "Human rights"? "Society"?
The issue is that on economics, there is no other game in town. History did end, capitalism won. Corbyn and Bernie get called bloody Marxists for wanting to do low level social democratic reforms which are all in aid of keeping capitalism from falling apart under it's own contradictions. So when capitalism is clearly failing but it's easier to imagine the end of the world then it is the end of capitalism, what do you have left?
Social democracy won (even if social democratic parties are vanishing). Most rich world economies have public spending at 40-50% of GDP and extensive welfare states.
Thatcher called Blair her heir. The welfare state has been cut year on year since 2008. Public spending is high due to bungs to private corporations and military spending - and public coffers are empty because of tax cuts after tax cuts. If social democracy is an incrementalistic approach to socialist equality via the ballot box, why is wealth inequality higher now than 50 years ago? You're looking at technological gains and saying that the quality of life is better for most people, therefore society must have improved, but the gap between the richest and poorest is astronomically greater than previously.
I am not sure what planet you are living on but it isn't this one.
Military spending is now less as a % of GDP than it has been in decades. It was 7% in the 1960s and is now 2%. And taxes are higher as a % of GDP than they have been at any time in the last 50 years.
Yes but @148grss's basic observation is right: the gap between rich and poor has ballooned, under both Labour and Tory administrations.
So what?
It makes no difference to my life whether Elon Musk or Richard Branson can afford one flight into space or 1000.
It does make a difference to my life whether my own life is getting better or worse.
Closing the gap by making us all poorer is not progress.
Making us all richer, even if some get much richer than others, is progress.
Inequality is an issue when ~20% of the population skip meals because they can't afford to eat all the time, and have to choose between eating and paying the bills, when other people have the resources to buy luxury yachts and private jets.
The wealth is being created - but it is being redistributed up to the owning class, not to those who actually do the labour. Elon Musk or Richard Branson don't do anything - they buy the means of production and the workers do the work. Relative poverty, affording the basics to engage in society, has increased in the last 40 years, not decreased.
No. 20% of the population skipping meals is a problem in its own right, not because of inequality.
If we were more equal and 60% of the population were skipping meals instead would that be better or worse?
The wealth exists. That some people have astronomically more, and others have so little that they are skipping meals, is a problem. The wealth that the rich have could go to those who do not have it and are therefore having a worse standard of living. There is no conceivable way that wealth redistribution from the richest people who have ridiculous amounts of money, inconceivable amounts of money, money that when put into context is absolutely absurd, would lead to 60% of the population of the population skipping meals - but it could easily make that 0%.
You're assuming we could make that 0% but never assume it makes an ass out of u and me.
Countries that have attempted to abolish rather than reduce or ameliorate inequality have invariably and inevitably always ended up with more people skipping meals, not fewer.
So your position is that wealth redistribution from rich to poor just doesn't work, despite the fact that the most prosperous economic period of Western history was the period with the most wealth redistribution?
The current teenage scribbler for the Times, James Marriott is a little perturbed by what he calls "Centrist Populism"- i.e. the gathering wrath of moderates towards Brexit and all other works of Torydom.
I think I can explain the gathering disaster for the Conservatives in very simple terms.
The educated middle class have had more than a decade of being told that experts don´t matter (they are trying to do it again today, seeking to transfer the blame for the UK´s economic woes towards the Bank of England, rather than their own policy incompetence).
There has been decades of utter bullshit, absurd power stance policies which do not even begin to scratch the surface of under investment and misallocation of capital across the whole economy for decades.
Then there is the more than 40 years of the playground shit show of internal Tory party politics, which culminated in the travesty of "Prime Minister" Boris Johnson, but covered so much else in childish personality clashes The mass expulsion of adults, from the Conservatives by Johnson was the last chance for the Tories.
The patient people of Britain are waiting for the fat lady to sing, and she is clearing her throat.
The Tories are going to face a whole new world of pain at the next election, but more to the point I think we are going to see a long overdue period of radical change. The country in 10 years will have changed in ways- economic, political, social and constitutional- that I do not see the Tories being able to survive.
This is not just about the 2024/5 election, it will be epochal.
Good.
In 5 years we could have a high tax, even higher inflation and higher interest rates deeply unpopular Labour government plagued with even more frequent strikes and with a big deficit and rising unemployment. The idea Labour will win the next general election and be in power for all time is complacency of the first degree from you and other left liberals
I believe that Cicero is a former Tory voter ?
Complacency is the belief that the Tory party is now anything more than a parody of what once could claim to be the natural party of government.
It is complacency for any party to say they are 'the natural party of government' in a democracy, the Tories have suffered heavy defeats before in 1997, 2001. 1966, 1945, 1906, 1880 and against Palmerston on many occasions and always come back.
Not this time.
Even if Labour screw it up, which they probably will, the Conservatives deserve evisceration. The continuing criminal investigations and yet further revelations of abject unfitness for office will keep reminding people that the crisis was Torydom´s last act.
Against all expert views, you got your ridiculous Brexit, now I hope its your political epitaph.
Eviscerate the Tories and it will be a Faragite party that replaces them and when the Right get into power it will be a really nasty Nationalist government from your perspective that will make this government look like LDs
Sunak is like Louis XVI or Nicholas II, a relatively inoffensive, rather weak, leader taking the consequences of the collapse of the entire ancien regime... So Sunak will pay the price for Truss, Johnson and, yes, May.
It would be quite hard to find worse leaders, and the idea that these far-right gargoyles were anything except incompetent, irresponsible and occasionally pretty sleazy is for the birds. Farage is sharing the blame for the disaster, so despite you echoing Rees Mogg´s witterings, I see no come back for the irresponsible right under whichever brand.
Indeed I see a complete redrawing of the political map.
'@GoodwinMJ · 17h The old elite projected their social status through their wealth, estates & titles. The new elite project their status & distinguish themselves from the masses by preaching radical woke progressivism'
Goodwin is really disappearing ever deeper up his own backside.
Yes. It is quite evident that the new elite project their status & distinguish themselves from the masses by uttering mantras which *appear* to be progressive.
The reality is nothing changes, but they all give each other awards for being on message - see the revelation about how much money the Met Police spends on awarding itself awards.
Goodwin just isn't thinking structurally about who the 'elite' are. Being an academic, he probably thinks that leftie academics with pride flags in their twitter profile are a part of the elite - ie it's pure narcissism. The elite are people who control the levers of political and economic power, ie people in business and finance and the Tory party. These are not people you will bump into at a BLM protest, believe me.
The whole misuse of the concept of "elites" by people like HYUFD strikes me as so much playing with fire. To hear populist narratives coming out of the mouths of "conservatives" is disturbing.
The danger is that normalising such language opens the door of the town hall to far worse people than either the stupid conservatives speaking like this or the stupid people they are trying to attack.
Populism isn't a plaything. It's a vicious weapon that should only be unleashed when it's really, really needed. If your target is tweedy academics and pride flags, you can be damn sure it's not needed.
Why do you think populist parties are in government in Sweden, Finland, Italy, and will likely be in Spain very soon?
Because populism can work. I didn't say it's ineffective, I said it's dangerous.
'@GoodwinMJ · 17h The old elite projected their social status through their wealth, estates & titles. The new elite project their status & distinguish themselves from the masses by preaching radical woke progressivism'
Goodwin is really disappearing ever deeper up his own backside.
Yes. It is quite evident that the new elite project their status & distinguish themselves from the masses by uttering mantras which *appear* to be progressive.
The reality is nothing changes, but they all give each other awards for being on message - see the revelation about how much money the Met Police spends on awarding itself awards.
Goodwin just isn't thinking structurally about who the 'elite' are. Being an academic, he probably thinks that leftie academics with pride flags in their twitter profile are a part of the elite - ie it's pure narcissism. The elite are people who control the levers of political and economic power, ie people in business and finance and the Tory party. These are not people you will bump into at a BLM protest, believe me.
The whole misuse of the concept of "elites" by people like HYUFD strikes me as so much playing with fire. To hear populist narratives coming out of the mouths of "conservatives" is disturbing.
The danger is that normalising such language opens the door of the town hall to far worse people than either the stupid conservatives speaking like this or the stupid people they are trying to attack.
Populism isn't a plaything. It's a vicious weapon that should only be unleashed when it's really, really needed. If your target is tweedy academics and pride flags, you can be damn sure it's not needed.
Yes, reading the Spectator these days is like reading a student Trotskyist pamphlet: full of talk of 'our rulers', 'the ruling class', 'the ruling elite' etc. My theory is that a certain type of middle-class conservative bitterly regrets letting the 1970s and punk rock pass them by and is desperate for another go.
Goodwin just dislikes the evolution of societal norms. Most of Goodwin's recent book (which has very few actual citations for an academic) claims that the new "elite" are essentially just all university graduates, women, and ethnic or sexual minorities, and the old elite are white working class people and the elderly. Which is clearly not the case, that's just generational divide.
The "elite" are the same people who have owned and controlled land since their ancestors landed on these shores in 1066. The "elite" are the same narrow group of people who go to one of two or three public schools and one of two universities. The "elite" are the people who have the opportunity to leverage their preexisting wealth and networks into cushy jobs where they can publish in national newspapers on a regular basis or get a peerage before the age of 30.
What the new generation have is the ability for the old elites to hear them, because social media allows the plebs to shout at anyone. They also have more willingness to "talk back" to their "betters". Graduates may have more pluralistic attitudes because they interact with a different set of people whilst at university - people from across the country and across the world.
I want to know what significant impact the "new elite" have had. If we're talking about the press - that's overwhelming right wing in this country. The government has been right wing / centrist since Thatcher. Yes, we have progressed on open racism, sexism and homophobia - but barely and only if it is really obvious (in his book Goodwin complains that the "new elite" think doing accents and complaining that people don't speak English in the UK are racist is bad, actually, and thinks that we should define the number of people who hold racially prejudicial views on the basis of a poll that asked people if they self defined as racist).
The problem with Goodwin, HYUFD, and a lot of British conservatism is they're complaining about winning too much. They won the economic argument - everyone's a Thatcherite now. They won on the EU - we're leaving. They won most of the culture war - gay rights begins and ends with the right to act like straight people with same sex marriage, and it's more important that 5 rich people are likely dead out of their own hubris than it is 500 migrants were killed when their boat was sank. But winning doesn't make your enemies shut up and respect you, and that's what they want - for the goddamn poors and women and gays and ethnics to just accept their place in the world and stop asking for a better world. They believe it was shit for them (despite most of them living through the golden age of the welfare state and investment into their progress) and therefore demand that it must be shit for the rest of us. "Didn't do me any harm..." etc etc, bullcrap bullcrap
The liberal elite won the culture war, we have homosexual marriage, abortion near on demand up to 24 weeks, Pride days even in corporations, religious teachers sacked for teaching traditional views of gender and sexuality, migration to the UK higher than ever before even despite Brexit, statues being pulled down in big cities and museums. Social liberalism and anti Brexit views dominate the ranks of academia, the civil service, lawyers, big corporations and TV news from the BBC to Channel 4.
Even the economic argument the right was alleged to have won is looking shaky with the tax burden high and likely to get even higher under a Starmer government, increasing public spending and things which were privatised like railways now being drawn up by stealth under public ownership. While the Unions are shaking their fists again and striking for huge wage rises.
The elite is also different, the rich list in the Sunday Times is now mainly self made entrepreneurs, whereas in the early 1980s it was mainly landowners and inherited wealth. Public schools are now seeing pupils being rejected from Oxbridge more than ever, with 65% of Oxford and 70% of Cambridge students from state schools and even most Tory MPs now state educated.
"Social liberalism and anti Brexit views dominate..." - views. Opinions. Political positions. Not ability to enact wide or systemic change. Just "people who are in the modern middle class hold different opinions to people in the old middle class and old upper class". That's what this is all about.
Same sex marriage is conservative - yes it was important for same sex couples to have the same rights as any married couples, to visit the ill, to inherit, to live together - but it essentially assimilation into the heteronormative tradition. "We're here, we're queer, get used to it" used to be about difference, not assimilation. Abortion is still illegal without 2 doctors signing off on it in this country. And again, dog whistle with "religious teachers" because you don't want a Muslim to teach students fundamental Islamism - you want a specific brand of traditional Christianity imposed on kids.
Starmer is going out with his shadow chancellor on TV every day saying that he won't do anything radical on the economy because of the "economic condition". A majority of TORY voters want public ownership of necessary utilities, and the Labour party is STILL ruling it out.
You call lefties permanent victims, and then complain that the poors are being allowed into the posh people unis, and that new money are lauded like some kind of Victorian Whig. We live in the world created by Thatcherism and Reaganism, by the neoliberal consensus, by capital and capitalism. You won; get over it.
No. Same sex marriage is liberal, hence most Conservative MPs voted against it and most Labour and LD MPs voted for it. Conservative MPs wanted civil unions only at the time.
I see David Cameron has joined HYFUD’s ranks of “not a true Conservative”
So I don't support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I'm a Conservative.
'@GoodwinMJ · 17h The old elite projected their social status through their wealth, estates & titles. The new elite project their status & distinguish themselves from the masses by preaching radical woke progressivism'
I think the main difference between the old and the new elite is that the old elite was mostly honest, whereas the new elite is often dishonest. The old elite never pretended to be anything other than what it was. The new elite is often pretending to be other than what it actually is.
I'm not sure that's true, at least since the invention of newspapers. Who was the American billionaire at the turn of the 19th/20th centuries who had very good media management and cultivated an image of benefitor of the poor? I think it was Carnegie, but happy to be corrected.
'@GoodwinMJ · 17h The old elite projected their social status through their wealth, estates & titles. The new elite project their status & distinguish themselves from the masses by preaching radical woke progressivism'
Goodwin is really disappearing ever deeper up his own backside.
Yes. It is quite evident that the new elite project their status & distinguish themselves from the masses by uttering mantras which *appear* to be progressive.
The reality is nothing changes, but they all give each other awards for being on message - see the revelation about how much money the Met Police spends on awarding itself awards.
Goodwin just isn't thinking structurally about who the 'elite' are. Being an academic, he probably thinks that leftie academics with pride flags in their twitter profile are a part of the elite - ie it's pure narcissism. The elite are people who control the levers of political and economic power, ie people in business and finance and the Tory party. These are not people you will bump into at a BLM protest, believe me.
The whole misuse of the concept of "elites" by people like HYUFD strikes me as so much playing with fire. To hear populist narratives coming out of the mouths of "conservatives" is disturbing.
The danger is that normalising such language opens the door of the town hall to far worse people than either the stupid conservatives speaking like this or the stupid people they are trying to attack.
Populism isn't a plaything. It's a vicious weapon that should only be unleashed when it's really, really needed. If your target is tweedy academics and pride flags, you can be damn sure it's not needed.
Yes, reading the Spectator these days is like reading a student Trotskyist pamphlet: full of talk of 'our rulers', 'the ruling class', 'the ruling elite' etc. My theory is that a certain type of middle-class conservative bitterly regrets letting the 1970s and punk rock pass them by and is desperate for another go.
The above concept of the "elite" is cribbed from Rob Henderson's theory of "luxury beliefs".
Paraphrasing, we have an overproduction of "elites" i.e. university educated people who in previous times would have demanded high salaries for jobs such as journalism or academia, but due to the change in the job market and the increasing precariousness of the middle class, we have produced too many humanities graduates who are educated but no longer command large salaries. This overly large class of people can no longer compete on traditional wealth based status symbols, so they use their belief system as a signifier of their class.
What is a luxury belief? I've heard people call "gender ideology" a "luxury belief" - despite the fact the vast majority of trans people are working class and poor, disproportionately homeless and suffer from mental health issues related to being ostracised by society; doesn't sound very "luxury" to me. Whereas I would say "trickle down economics" is a pretty "luxury belief" - only the rich can believe it, it justifies their existence and their hoarding of wealth, and it patently doesn't work. Is "equal rights" a luxury belief? "Human rights"? "Society"?
The issue is that on economics, there is no other game in town. History did end, capitalism won. Corbyn and Bernie get called bloody Marxists for wanting to do low level social democratic reforms which are all in aid of keeping capitalism from falling apart under it's own contradictions. So when capitalism is clearly failing but it's easier to imagine the end of the world then it is the end of capitalism, what do you have left?
Social democracy won (even if social democratic parties are vanishing). Most rich world economies have public spending at 40-50% of GDP and extensive welfare states.
Thatcher called Blair her heir. The welfare state has been cut year on year since 2008. Public spending is high due to bungs to private corporations and military spending - and public coffers are empty because of tax cuts after tax cuts. If social democracy is an incrementalistic approach to socialist equality via the ballot box, why is wealth inequality higher now than 50 years ago? You're looking at technological gains and saying that the quality of life is better for most people, therefore society must have improved, but the gap between the richest and poorest is astronomically greater than previously.
I am not sure what planet you are living on but it isn't this one.
Military spending is now less as a % of GDP than it has been in decades. It was 7% in the 1960s and is now 2%. And taxes are higher as a % of GDP than they have been at any time in the last 50 years.
Yes but @148grss's basic observation is right: the gap between rich and poor has ballooned, under both Labour and Tory administrations.
So what?
It makes no difference to my life whether Elon Musk or Richard Branson can afford one flight into space or 1000.
It does make a difference to my life whether my own life is getting better or worse.
Closing the gap by making us all poorer is not progress.
Making us all richer, even if some get much richer than others, is progress.
Inequality is an issue when ~20% of the population skip meals because they can't afford to eat all the time, and have to choose between eating and paying the bills, when other people have the resources to buy luxury yachts and private jets.
The wealth is being created - but it is being redistributed up to the owning class, not to those who actually do the labour. Elon Musk or Richard Branson don't do anything - they buy the means of production and the workers do the work. Relative poverty, affording the basics to engage in society, has increased in the last 40 years, not decreased.
No. 20% of the population skipping meals is a problem in its own right, not because of inequality.
If we were more equal and 60% of the population were skipping meals instead would that be better or worse?
The wealth exists. That some people have astronomically more, and others have so little that they are skipping meals, is a problem. The wealth that the rich have could go to those who do not have it and are therefore having a worse standard of living. There is no conceivable way that wealth redistribution from the richest people who have ridiculous amounts of money, inconceivable amounts of money, money that when put into context is absolutely absurd, would lead to 60% of the population of the population skipping meals - but it could easily make that 0%.
How do you square the belief that an increasing number of people are too poor to eat with the growing levels of obesity?
Dirt cheap price of carbs relative to other forms of nutrition.
Lipids too. Vide frozen pizza etc., pineappley or not. The kind with cheesey gunge injected even into the base, like some social media influencer's lips, nay buttocks.
Although the "cyclists need insurance" brigade do have a point. Liability insurance for cyclists is quite sensible.
Adult cyclists who cycle on pavements, which is unlawful, with a "get out of my way, pedestrian scum" attitude, being too wimpy and scared to ride on the roads, need bans slapped on them by magistrates. (It would only take a few Cambridge fellows to feel the long arm of the law for the others to feel "encouraged".)
Guidance from the Police Chief's Association accepts that adults cycling on pavements is OK, when the road is too dangerous, and it is done considerately - as in the vast majority of cases. Guidance was issued in 1999 by the Home Secretary when it became an "offence", and reaffirmed in 2014. The recent case of the manslaughter of the elderly cyclist demonstrates the need, until such time as we have safe facilities everywhere:
The "cyclists need insurance" brigade have no point whatsoever, except in their own sawdust-filled heads.
Lability insurance for people riding bikes usually comes for free with a home contents policy. Some of us have extra insurance via memberships or specialist policies. I have that because I know many motorist vehicle drivers will lie to the police and then lie to the court, and I will need ferocious lawyers should the worst happen, potentially for a civil claim.
These insurance companies include liability insurance in their Home Contents policies:
Apologies for introducing evidence to the debate.
Normally placid people go absolutely bonkers when it comes to cyclists. It's utterly barmy and baffling.
The worst cyclists on the streets of London are without doubt the Just Eat/Deliveroo ones. Most cyclists at least look left then right before going through red lights - the food delivery ones don't even do this.
And I'm the idiot who stops at all the red lights as I see 83% of other cyclists race through them past me.
The powered scooter Just Eats are even worse – appear from behind a tree/wheelie bin and cut up every road user in the postcode.
'@GoodwinMJ · 17h The old elite projected their social status through their wealth, estates & titles. The new elite project their status & distinguish themselves from the masses by preaching radical woke progressivism'
Goodwin is really disappearing ever deeper up his own backside.
Yes. It is quite evident that the new elite project their status & distinguish themselves from the masses by uttering mantras which *appear* to be progressive.
The reality is nothing changes, but they all give each other awards for being on message - see the revelation about how much money the Met Police spends on awarding itself awards.
Goodwin just isn't thinking structurally about who the 'elite' are. Being an academic, he probably thinks that leftie academics with pride flags in their twitter profile are a part of the elite - ie it's pure narcissism. The elite are people who control the levers of political and economic power, ie people in business and finance and the Tory party. These are not people you will bump into at a BLM protest, believe me.
The whole misuse of the concept of "elites" by people like HYUFD strikes me as so much playing with fire. To hear populist narratives coming out of the mouths of "conservatives" is disturbing.
The danger is that normalising such language opens the door of the town hall to far worse people than either the stupid conservatives speaking like this or the stupid people they are trying to attack.
Populism isn't a plaything. It's a vicious weapon that should only be unleashed when it's really, really needed. If your target is tweedy academics and pride flags, you can be damn sure it's not needed.
Yes, reading the Spectator these days is like reading a student Trotskyist pamphlet: full of talk of 'our rulers', 'the ruling class', 'the ruling elite' etc. My theory is that a certain type of middle-class conservative bitterly regrets letting the 1970s and punk rock pass them by and is desperate for another go.
The above concept of the "elite" is cribbed from Rob Henderson's theory of "luxury beliefs".
Paraphrasing, we have an overproduction of "elites" i.e. university educated people who in previous times would have demanded high salaries for jobs such as journalism or academia, but due to the change in the job market and the increasing precariousness of the middle class, we have produced too many humanities graduates who are educated but no longer command large salaries. This overly large class of people can no longer compete on traditional wealth based status symbols, so they use their belief system as a signifier of their class.
What is a luxury belief? I've heard people call "gender ideology" a "luxury belief" - despite the fact the vast majority of trans people are working class and poor, disproportionately homeless and suffer from mental health issues related to being ostracised by society; doesn't sound very "luxury" to me. Whereas I would say "trickle down economics" is a pretty "luxury belief" - only the rich can believe it, it justifies their existence and their hoarding of wealth, and it patently doesn't work. Is "equal rights" a luxury belief? "Human rights"? "Society"?
The issue is that on economics, there is no other game in town. History did end, capitalism won. Corbyn and Bernie get called bloody Marxists for wanting to do low level social democratic reforms which are all in aid of keeping capitalism from falling apart under it's own contradictions. So when capitalism is clearly failing but it's easier to imagine the end of the world then it is the end of capitalism, what do you have left?
Social democracy won (even if social democratic parties are vanishing). Most rich world economies have public spending at 40-50% of GDP and extensive welfare states.
Thatcher called Blair her heir. The welfare state has been cut year on year since 2008. Public spending is high due to bungs to private corporations and military spending - and public coffers are empty because of tax cuts after tax cuts. If social democracy is an incrementalistic approach to socialist equality via the ballot box, why is wealth inequality higher now than 50 years ago? You're looking at technological gains and saying that the quality of life is better for most people, therefore society must have improved, but the gap between the richest and poorest is astronomically greater than previously.
I am not sure what planet you are living on but it isn't this one.
Military spending is now less as a % of GDP than it has been in decades. It was 7% in the 1960s and is now 2%. And taxes are higher as a % of GDP than they have been at any time in the last 50 years.
Yes but @148grss's basic observation is right: the gap between rich and poor has ballooned, under both Labour and Tory administrations.
So what?
It makes no difference to my life whether Elon Musk or Richard Branson can afford one flight into space or 1000.
It does make a difference to my life whether my own life is getting better or worse.
Closing the gap by making us all poorer is not progress.
Making us all richer, even if some get much richer than others, is progress.
Inequality is an issue when ~20% of the population skip meals because they can't afford to eat all the time, and have to choose between eating and paying the bills, when other people have the resources to buy luxury yachts and private jets.
The wealth is being created - but it is being redistributed up to the owning class, not to those who actually do the labour. Elon Musk or Richard Branson don't do anything - they buy the means of production and the workers do the work. Relative poverty, affording the basics to engage in society, has increased in the last 40 years, not decreased.
No. 20% of the population skipping meals is a problem in its own right, not because of inequality.
If we were more equal and 60% of the population were skipping meals instead would that be better or worse?
The wealth exists. That some people have astronomically more, and others have so little that they are skipping meals, is a problem. The wealth that the rich have could go to those who do not have it and are therefore having a worse standard of living. There is no conceivable way that wealth redistribution from the richest people who have ridiculous amounts of money, inconceivable amounts of money, money that when put into context is absolutely absurd, would lead to 60% of the population of the population skipping meals - but it could easily make that 0%.
How do you square the belief that an increasing number of people are too poor to eat with the growing levels of obesity?
Because some of the cheapest food is some of the most unhealthy.
Not to say I don't like this new to-the-right-of-Mark Francois @williamglenn but sometimes the auto-responses are a bit too lazy.
I still think you are doing this because it is an amusing role to play (cf your pre-2016 vote persona).
When you are time poor and resource poor, it's easier to buy a microwave meal or some crisps than it is to prepare steamed vegetables and lean chicken breast.
I assume these historically normal interest rates are going to kill the car lease market too, so every man and his dog isn't going to be driving round in a flash Audi? Or was depreciation 90% of the cost?
Might cause difficulty for the ULEZ plans if most people can't afford to replace their car.
I'd expect the current situation to really hurt the car industry - PCP deals are going to get more expensive at the same time as there is a massive squeeze on household incomes. I'm supprised the wheels haven't fallen off the PCP market sooner - given how leveraged the lease system is, I thought that it was quite likely to be the cause of the next crisis, rather than merely a unwilling participant. The only thing saving their bacon a bit is that used cars are amongst the things with the highest levels of inflation - I.e. the stuff coming back off lease will be worth more expected.
I'd expect sales of new cars (on finance or otherwise) to fall of a cliff, which the motor industry won't enjoy very much.
(I remain quite happy with my £500 2008 diesel VW Passat Estate - 72 mpg on a run last week, 63mpg over the last tank (~900 miles). About 10.5p/mile with no depreciation cost - that's a similar cost to an electric car charged at home, despite the huge tax arbitrarage in favour of the electric car).
There must be something wrong with our Volvo D4 engine - can’t seem to get more than 52mpg out of it, even though it mostly drives long distance runs. Trouble is, we drive so little it’s not worth the effort to get a problem like that diagnosed & fixed. Presumably a sensor has died somewhere, but which one?
(It is ULEZ compliant IIRC, did they sacrifice efficiency to meet emissions limits?)
Stuck injector or boost leak. A failed sensor will throw a code on the dash.
Although the "cyclists need insurance" brigade do have a point. Liability insurance for cyclists is quite sensible.
Adult cyclists who cycle on pavements, which is unlawful, with a "get out of my way, pedestrian scum" attitude, being too wimpy and scared to ride on the roads, need bans slapped on them by magistrates. (It would only take a few Cambridge fellows to feel the long arm of the law for the others to feel "encouraged".)
There are occasions where it makes sense to ride on pavements, for instance if there are no pedestrians around, and you have lorries coming up behind you. There shouldn't be an inflexible law relating to it in my opinion. Use commons sense.
Absolutely. I'm an experienced cyclist, and am also a driver, so I will (relatively) happily mix with the cars on the road. However, my partner's daughter, who has just started cycling to a new job and doesn't drive, is much more nervous on the road, and so it makes far more sense for her to use the pavement.
Although the "cyclists need insurance" brigade do have a point. Liability insurance for cyclists is quite sensible.
Adult cyclists who cycle on pavements, which is unlawful, with a "get out of my way, pedestrian scum" attitude, being too wimpy and scared to ride on the roads, need bans slapped on them by magistrates. (It would only take a few Cambridge fellows to feel the long arm of the law for the others to feel "encouraged".)
Guidance from the Police Chief's Association accepts that adults cycling on pavements is OK, when the road is too dangerous, and it is done considerately - as in the vast majority of cases. Guidance was issued in 1999 by the Home Secretary when it became an "offence", and reaffirmed in 2014. The recent case of the manslaughter of the elderly cyclist demonstrates the need, until such time as we have safe facilities everywhere:
The "cyclists need insurance" brigade have no point whatsoever, except in their own sawdust-filled heads.
Lability insurance for people riding bikes usually comes for free with a home contents policy. Some of us have extra insurance via memberships or specialist policies. I have that because I know many motorist vehicle drivers will lie to the police and then lie to the court, and I will need ferocious lawyers should the worst happen, potentially for a civil claim.
These insurance companies include liability insurance in their Home Contents policies:
Apologies for introducing evidence to the debate.
Normally placid people go absolutely bonkers when it comes to cyclists. It's utterly barmy and baffling.
It's jealously. Motorists see my calf muscles go momentarily insane.
I had a shout-off with some driver in a huge fuck off (but white) Jeep Cherokee this morning. I just think many drivers resent the freedom of movement of cyclists. They don't like cyclists filtering either which I think is part of this.
Unless its a London thing, I think cyclists overestimate how much drivers dislike them. Some drivers are just douchebags, some cyclists are just douchebags, and I'm more likely to get into an argument with another driver than a cyclist.
This morning I had a shout-off (or exchange of banged horns) after I indicated to show I was pulling into the right hand lane, the driver behind in the right hand-lane saw my indicator and took that as a dare to close the gap instead of letting me in, and I pulled in safely anyway. Day before I shouted at another road user to use their indicator after they went around a roundabout in a dangerous manner without using their indicator.
Before that I hadn't been annoyed with any other road use in months and its an extremely long time since a cyclist has pissed me off (red light as almost always).
Sometimes people just don't like other road users for how they're acting. Whether that be people who ride through red lights, or people who don't use their indicator or those who take the indicator as a challenge, its not about cyclist or driver per se.
'@GoodwinMJ · 17h The old elite projected their social status through their wealth, estates & titles. The new elite project their status & distinguish themselves from the masses by preaching radical woke progressivism'
Goodwin is really disappearing ever deeper up his own backside.
Yes. It is quite evident that the new elite project their status & distinguish themselves from the masses by uttering mantras which *appear* to be progressive.
The reality is nothing changes, but they all give each other awards for being on message - see the revelation about how much money the Met Police spends on awarding itself awards.
Goodwin just isn't thinking structurally about who the 'elite' are. Being an academic, he probably thinks that leftie academics with pride flags in their twitter profile are a part of the elite - ie it's pure narcissism. The elite are people who control the levers of political and economic power, ie people in business and finance and the Tory party. These are not people you will bump into at a BLM protest, believe me.
The whole misuse of the concept of "elites" by people like HYUFD strikes me as so much playing with fire. To hear populist narratives coming out of the mouths of "conservatives" is disturbing.
The danger is that normalising such language opens the door of the town hall to far worse people than either the stupid conservatives speaking like this or the stupid people they are trying to attack.
Populism isn't a plaything. It's a vicious weapon that should only be unleashed when it's really, really needed. If your target is tweedy academics and pride flags, you can be damn sure it's not needed.
Yes, reading the Spectator these days is like reading a student Trotskyist pamphlet: full of talk of 'our rulers', 'the ruling class', 'the ruling elite' etc. My theory is that a certain type of middle-class conservative bitterly regrets letting the 1970s and punk rock pass them by and is desperate for another go.
The above concept of the "elite" is cribbed from Rob Henderson's theory of "luxury beliefs".
Paraphrasing, we have an overproduction of "elites" i.e. university educated people who in previous times would have demanded high salaries for jobs such as journalism or academia, but due to the change in the job market and the increasing precariousness of the middle class, we have produced too many humanities graduates who are educated but no longer command large salaries. This overly large class of people can no longer compete on traditional wealth based status symbols, so they use their belief system as a signifier of their class.
What is a luxury belief? I've heard people call "gender ideology" a "luxury belief" - despite the fact the vast majority of trans people are working class and poor, disproportionately homeless and suffer from mental health issues related to being ostracised by society; doesn't sound very "luxury" to me. Whereas I would say "trickle down economics" is a pretty "luxury belief" - only the rich can believe it, it justifies their existence and their hoarding of wealth, and it patently doesn't work. Is "equal rights" a luxury belief? "Human rights"? "Society"?
The issue is that on economics, there is no other game in town. History did end, capitalism won. Corbyn and Bernie get called bloody Marxists for wanting to do low level social democratic reforms which are all in aid of keeping capitalism from falling apart under it's own contradictions. So when capitalism is clearly failing but it's easier to imagine the end of the world then it is the end of capitalism, what do you have left?
Social democracy won (even if social democratic parties are vanishing). Most rich world economies have public spending at 40-50% of GDP and extensive welfare states.
Thatcher called Blair her heir. The welfare state has been cut year on year since 2008. Public spending is high due to bungs to private corporations and military spending - and public coffers are empty because of tax cuts after tax cuts. If social democracy is an incrementalistic approach to socialist equality via the ballot box, why is wealth inequality higher now than 50 years ago? You're looking at technological gains and saying that the quality of life is better for most people, therefore society must have improved, but the gap between the richest and poorest is astronomically greater than previously.
I am not sure what planet you are living on but it isn't this one.
Military spending is now less as a % of GDP than it has been in decades. It was 7% in the 1960s and is now 2%. And taxes are higher as a % of GDP than they have been at any time in the last 50 years.
Yes but @148grss's basic observation is right: the gap between rich and poor has ballooned, under both Labour and Tory administrations.
So what?
It makes no difference to my life whether Elon Musk or Richard Branson can afford one flight into space or 1000.
It does make a difference to my life whether my own life is getting better or worse.
Closing the gap by making us all poorer is not progress.
Making us all richer, even if some get much richer than others, is progress.
Inequality is an issue when ~20% of the population skip meals because they can't afford to eat all the time, and have to choose between eating and paying the bills, when other people have the resources to buy luxury yachts and private jets.
The wealth is being created - but it is being redistributed up to the owning class, not to those who actually do the labour. Elon Musk or Richard Branson don't do anything - they buy the means of production and the workers do the work. Relative poverty, affording the basics to engage in society, has increased in the last 40 years, not decreased.
No. 20% of the population skipping meals is a problem in its own right, not because of inequality.
If we were more equal and 60% of the population were skipping meals instead would that be better or worse?
The wealth exists. That some people have astronomically more, and others have so little that they are skipping meals, is a problem. The wealth that the rich have could go to those who do not have it and are therefore having a worse standard of living. There is no conceivable way that wealth redistribution from the richest people who have ridiculous amounts of money, inconceivable amounts of money, money that when put into context is absolutely absurd, would lead to 60% of the population of the population skipping meals - but it could easily make that 0%.
How do you square the belief that an increasing number of people are too poor to eat with the growing levels of obesity?
Because some of the cheapest food is some of the most unhealthy.
Not to say I don't like this new to-the-right-of-Mark Francois @williamglenn but sometimes the auto-responses are a bit too lazy.
I still think you are doing this because it is an amusing role to play (cf your pre-2016 vote persona).
Yes, William has had an unusual political journey, from Trumpian Hillary hater, to left-liberal Eurofederalist to hard right-wing neobrexiteer.
Although the "cyclists need insurance" brigade do have a point. Liability insurance for cyclists is quite sensible.
Adult cyclists who cycle on pavements, which is unlawful, with a "get out of my way, pedestrian scum" attitude, being too wimpy and scared to ride on the roads, need bans slapped on them by magistrates. (It would only take a few Cambridge fellows to feel the long arm of the law for the others to feel "encouraged".)
Guidance from the Police Chief's Association accepts that adults cycling on pavements is OK, when the road is too dangerous, and it is done considerately - as in the vast majority of cases. Guidance was issued in 1999 by the Home Secretary when it became an "offence", and reaffirmed in 2014. The recent case of the manslaughter of the elderly cyclist demonstrates the need, until such time as we have safe facilities everywhere:
The "cyclists need insurance" brigade have no point whatsoever, except in their own sawdust-filled heads.
Lability insurance for people riding bikes usually comes for free with a home contents policy. Some of us have extra insurance via memberships or specialist policies. I have that because I know many motorist vehicle drivers will lie to the police and then lie to the court, and I will need ferocious lawyers should the worst happen, potentially for a civil claim.
These insurance companies include liability insurance in their Home Contents policies:
Apologies for introducing evidence to the debate.
Normally placid people go absolutely bonkers when it comes to cyclists. It's utterly barmy and baffling.
It's jealously. Motorists see my calf muscles go momentarily insane.
I had a shout-off with some driver in a huge fuck off (but white) Jeep Cherokee this morning. I just think many drivers resent the freedom of movement of cyclists. They don't like cyclists filtering either which I think is part of this.
I have to say, depending on the situation, I don't filter. It's nice not to be breathing in the fumes in the middle of the queue, but I hate the lights changing mid-filter. You don't want to be stuck inbetween two lines of cars because people feel ok undertaking when you're on the dashed lines. Which is mad, but it goes on. At traffic lights I always want to be in the middle of a lane until I've cleared the junction because it removes all temptation for the car to squeeze past.
Although the "cyclists need insurance" brigade do have a point. Liability insurance for cyclists is quite sensible.
Adult cyclists who cycle on pavements, which is unlawful, with a "get out of my way, pedestrian scum" attitude, being too wimpy and scared to ride on the roads, need bans slapped on them by magistrates. (It would only take a few Cambridge fellows to feel the long arm of the law for the others to feel "encouraged".)
Guidance from the Police Chief's Association accepts that adults cycling on pavements is OK, when the road is too dangerous, and it is done considerately - as in the vast majority of cases. Guidance was issued in 1999 by the Home Secretary when it became an "offence", and reaffirmed in 2014. The recent case of the manslaughter of the elderly cyclist demonstrates the need, until such time as we have safe facilities everywhere:
The "cyclists need insurance" brigade have no point whatsoever, except in their own sawdust-filled heads.
Lability insurance for people riding bikes usually comes for free with a home contents policy. Some of us have extra insurance via memberships or specialist policies. I have that because I know many motorist vehicle drivers will lie to the police and then lie to the court, and I will need ferocious lawyers should the worst happen, potentially for a civil claim.
These insurance companies include liability insurance in their Home Contents policies:
Apologies for introducing evidence to the debate.
Normally placid people go absolutely bonkers when it comes to cyclists. It's utterly barmy and baffling.
The worst cyclists on the streets of London are without doubt the Just Eat/Deliveroo ones. Most cyclists at least look left then right before going through red lights - the food delivery ones don't even do this.
And I'm the idiot who stops at all the red lights as I see 83% of other cyclists race through them past me.
You'll be glad to hear that they are fully insured too.
They are arseholes though. A little sympathy: it's a tough job on very little pay.
'@GoodwinMJ · 17h The old elite projected their social status through their wealth, estates & titles. The new elite project their status & distinguish themselves from the masses by preaching radical woke progressivism'
I think the main difference between the old and the new elite is that the old elite was mostly honest, whereas the new elite is often dishonest. The old elite never pretended to be anything other than what it was. The new elite is often pretending to be other than what it actually is.
I'm not sure that's true, at least since the invention of newspapers. Who was the American billionaire at the turn of the 19th/20th centuries who had very good media management and cultivated an image of benefitor of the poor? I think it was Carnegie, but happy to be corrected.
Scots-American. Libraries all over Scotland, a Carnegie fund which is still working, etc. etc. Edit: all very muich self-help, wortk hard and you can be a rich bastard like me etc. (NB. Have not read his writings in detail to check how far he qualified that message.)
His idea of a holiday but and ben was Skibo Castle.
The Carnegie Birthplace is quite something, to be seen on a day out to Dunfermline besides the abbey and palace.
He was born in *one* of those two weaver's cottages. To which he added this commeorative extension ...
And he funded the Diplodocus dinosaur skeleton excavation, now in the museum at Pittsburgh, and the many plaster casts given to crowned heads (in preference) across the world.
Though not sure about his PR skills re such things as the Pittsburgh steel strike and armed putdown.
I assume these historically normal interest rates are going to kill the car lease market too, so every man and his dog isn't going to be driving round in a flash Audi? Or was depreciation 90% of the cost?
Might cause difficulty for the ULEZ plans if most people can't afford to replace their car.
Only a tiny minority need to replace their car for ULEZ on he numbers, afaics.
Take London.
For a start only a smallish minority of Londoners own a car (2.56m cars, 5m electorate approx, 8-9m population), then in every single Outer London Borough more than 80% of private cars are already ULEZ compliant.
Plus there is a remarkable range of short term or long term exceptions.
IMO the Conservatives are nuts trying to weaponise it for their Hail Mary pass.
'@GoodwinMJ · 17h The old elite projected their social status through their wealth, estates & titles. The new elite project their status & distinguish themselves from the masses by preaching radical woke progressivism'
Goodwin is really disappearing ever deeper up his own backside.
Yes. It is quite evident that the new elite project their status & distinguish themselves from the masses by uttering mantras which *appear* to be progressive.
The reality is nothing changes, but they all give each other awards for being on message - see the revelation about how much money the Met Police spends on awarding itself awards.
Goodwin just isn't thinking structurally about who the 'elite' are. Being an academic, he probably thinks that leftie academics with pride flags in their twitter profile are a part of the elite - ie it's pure narcissism. The elite are people who control the levers of political and economic power, ie people in business and finance and the Tory party. These are not people you will bump into at a BLM protest, believe me.
The whole misuse of the concept of "elites" by people like HYUFD strikes me as so much playing with fire. To hear populist narratives coming out of the mouths of "conservatives" is disturbing.
The danger is that normalising such language opens the door of the town hall to far worse people than either the stupid conservatives speaking like this or the stupid people they are trying to attack.
Populism isn't a plaything. It's a vicious weapon that should only be unleashed when it's really, really needed. If your target is tweedy academics and pride flags, you can be damn sure it's not needed.
Yes, reading the Spectator these days is like reading a student Trotskyist pamphlet: full of talk of 'our rulers', 'the ruling class', 'the ruling elite' etc. My theory is that a certain type of middle-class conservative bitterly regrets letting the 1970s and punk rock pass them by and is desperate for another go.
The above concept of the "elite" is cribbed from Rob Henderson's theory of "luxury beliefs".
Paraphrasing, we have an overproduction of "elites" i.e. university educated people who in previous times would have demanded high salaries for jobs such as journalism or academia, but due to the change in the job market and the increasing precariousness of the middle class, we have produced too many humanities graduates who are educated but no longer command large salaries. This overly large class of people can no longer compete on traditional wealth based status symbols, so they use their belief system as a signifier of their class.
What is a luxury belief? I've heard people call "gender ideology" a "luxury belief" - despite the fact the vast majority of trans people are working class and poor, disproportionately homeless and suffer from mental health issues related to being ostracised by society; doesn't sound very "luxury" to me. Whereas I would say "trickle down economics" is a pretty "luxury belief" - only the rich can believe it, it justifies their existence and their hoarding of wealth, and it patently doesn't work. Is "equal rights" a luxury belief? "Human rights"? "Society"?
The issue is that on economics, there is no other game in town. History did end, capitalism won. Corbyn and Bernie get called bloody Marxists for wanting to do low level social democratic reforms which are all in aid of keeping capitalism from falling apart under it's own contradictions. So when capitalism is clearly failing but it's easier to imagine the end of the world then it is the end of capitalism, what do you have left?
Social democracy won (even if social democratic parties are vanishing). Most rich world economies have public spending at 40-50% of GDP and extensive welfare states.
Thatcher called Blair her heir. The welfare state has been cut year on year since 2008. Public spending is high due to bungs to private corporations and military spending - and public coffers are empty because of tax cuts after tax cuts. If social democracy is an incrementalistic approach to socialist equality via the ballot box, why is wealth inequality higher now than 50 years ago? You're looking at technological gains and saying that the quality of life is better for most people, therefore society must have improved, but the gap between the richest and poorest is astronomically greater than previously.
I am not sure what planet you are living on but it isn't this one.
Military spending is now less as a % of GDP than it has been in decades. It was 7% in the 1960s and is now 2%. And taxes are higher as a % of GDP than they have been at any time in the last 50 years.
Yes but @148grss's basic observation is right: the gap between rich and poor has ballooned, under both Labour and Tory administrations.
So what?
It makes no difference to my life whether Elon Musk or Richard Branson can afford one flight into space or 1000.
It does make a difference to my life whether my own life is getting better or worse.
Closing the gap by making us all poorer is not progress.
Making us all richer, even if some get much richer than others, is progress.
Inequality is an issue when ~20% of the population skip meals because they can't afford to eat all the time, and have to choose between eating and paying the bills, when other people have the resources to buy luxury yachts and private jets.
The wealth is being created - but it is being redistributed up to the owning class, not to those who actually do the labour. Elon Musk or Richard Branson don't do anything - they buy the means of production and the workers do the work. Relative poverty, affording the basics to engage in society, has increased in the last 40 years, not decreased.
No. 20% of the population skipping meals is a problem in its own right, not because of inequality.
If we were more equal and 60% of the population were skipping meals instead would that be better or worse?
The wealth exists. That some people have astronomically more, and others have so little that they are skipping meals, is a problem. The wealth that the rich have could go to those who do not have it and are therefore having a worse standard of living. There is no conceivable way that wealth redistribution from the richest people who have ridiculous amounts of money, inconceivable amounts of money, money that when put into context is absolutely absurd, would lead to 60% of the population of the population skipping meals - but it could easily make that 0%.
There isn't an absolute amount of money which we can choose how to distribute. The more we redistribute money, the smaller the pie gets - because it goes to somewhere where it doesn't get redistributed.
I assume these historically normal interest rates are going to kill the car lease market too, so every man and his dog isn't going to be driving round in a flash Audi? Or was depreciation 90% of the cost?
Might cause difficulty for the ULEZ plans if most people can't afford to replace their car.
I'd expect the current situation to really hurt the car industry - PCP deals are going to get more expensive at the same time as there is a massive squeeze on household incomes. I'm supprised the wheels haven't fallen off the PCP market sooner - given how leveraged the lease system is, I thought that it was quite likely to be the cause of the next crisis, rather than merely a unwilling participant. The only thing saving their bacon a bit is that used cars are amongst the things with the highest levels of inflation - I.e. the stuff coming back off lease will be worth more expected.
I'd expect sales of new cars (on finance or otherwise) to fall of a cliff, which the motor industry won't enjoy very much.
(I remain quite happy with my £500 2008 diesel VW Passat Estate - 72 mpg on a run last week, 63mpg over the last tank (~900 miles). About 10.5p/mile with no depreciation cost - that's a similar cost to an electric car charged at home, despite the huge tax arbitrarage in favour of the electric car).
We're still running an 08 Passat estate. An amazing car tbh.
'@GoodwinMJ · 17h The old elite projected their social status through their wealth, estates & titles. The new elite project their status & distinguish themselves from the masses by preaching radical woke progressivism'
Goodwin is really disappearing ever deeper up his own backside.
Yes. It is quite evident that the new elite project their status & distinguish themselves from the masses by uttering mantras which *appear* to be progressive.
The reality is nothing changes, but they all give each other awards for being on message - see the revelation about how much money the Met Police spends on awarding itself awards.
Goodwin just isn't thinking structurally about who the 'elite' are. Being an academic, he probably thinks that leftie academics with pride flags in their twitter profile are a part of the elite - ie it's pure narcissism. The elite are people who control the levers of political and economic power, ie people in business and finance and the Tory party. These are not people you will bump into at a BLM protest, believe me.
The whole misuse of the concept of "elites" by people like HYUFD strikes me as so much playing with fire. To hear populist narratives coming out of the mouths of "conservatives" is disturbing.
The danger is that normalising such language opens the door of the town hall to far worse people than either the stupid conservatives speaking like this or the stupid people they are trying to attack.
Populism isn't a plaything. It's a vicious weapon that should only be unleashed when it's really, really needed. If your target is tweedy academics and pride flags, you can be damn sure it's not needed.
Yes, reading the Spectator these days is like reading a student Trotskyist pamphlet: full of talk of 'our rulers', 'the ruling class', 'the ruling elite' etc. My theory is that a certain type of middle-class conservative bitterly regrets letting the 1970s and punk rock pass them by and is desperate for another go.
The above concept of the "elite" is cribbed from Rob Henderson's theory of "luxury beliefs".
Paraphrasing, we have an overproduction of "elites" i.e. university educated people who in previous times would have demanded high salaries for jobs such as journalism or academia, but due to the change in the job market and the increasing precariousness of the middle class, we have produced too many humanities graduates who are educated but no longer command large salaries. This overly large class of people can no longer compete on traditional wealth based status symbols, so they use their belief system as a signifier of their class.
What is a luxury belief? I've heard people call "gender ideology" a "luxury belief" - despite the fact the vast majority of trans people are working class and poor, disproportionately homeless and suffer from mental health issues related to being ostracised by society; doesn't sound very "luxury" to me. Whereas I would say "trickle down economics" is a pretty "luxury belief" - only the rich can believe it, it justifies their existence and their hoarding of wealth, and it patently doesn't work. Is "equal rights" a luxury belief? "Human rights"? "Society"?
The issue is that on economics, there is no other game in town. History did end, capitalism won. Corbyn and Bernie get called bloody Marxists for wanting to do low level social democratic reforms which are all in aid of keeping capitalism from falling apart under it's own contradictions. So when capitalism is clearly failing but it's easier to imagine the end of the world then it is the end of capitalism, what do you have left?
Social democracy won (even if social democratic parties are vanishing). Most rich world economies have public spending at 40-50% of GDP and extensive welfare states.
Thatcher called Blair her heir. The welfare state has been cut year on year since 2008. Public spending is high due to bungs to private corporations and military spending - and public coffers are empty because of tax cuts after tax cuts. If social democracy is an incrementalistic approach to socialist equality via the ballot box, why is wealth inequality higher now than 50 years ago? You're looking at technological gains and saying that the quality of life is better for most people, therefore society must have improved, but the gap between the richest and poorest is astronomically greater than previously.
I am not sure what planet you are living on but it isn't this one.
Military spending is now less as a % of GDP than it has been in decades. It was 7% in the 1960s and is now 2%. And taxes are higher as a % of GDP than they have been at any time in the last 50 years.
Yes but @148grss's basic observation is right: the gap between rich and poor has ballooned, under both Labour and Tory administrations.
So what?
It makes no difference to my life whether Elon Musk or Richard Branson can afford one flight into space or 1000.
It does make a difference to my life whether my own life is getting better or worse.
Closing the gap by making us all poorer is not progress.
Making us all richer, even if some get much richer than others, is progress.
Inequality is an issue when ~20% of the population skip meals because they can't afford to eat all the time, and have to choose between eating and paying the bills, when other people have the resources to buy luxury yachts and private jets.
The wealth is being created - but it is being redistributed up to the owning class, not to those who actually do the labour. Elon Musk or Richard Branson don't do anything - they buy the means of production and the workers do the work. Relative poverty, affording the basics to engage in society, has increased in the last 40 years, not decreased.
No. 20% of the population skipping meals is a problem in its own right, not because of inequality.
If we were more equal and 60% of the population were skipping meals instead would that be better or worse?
The wealth exists. That some people have astronomically more, and others have so little that they are skipping meals, is a problem. The wealth that the rich have could go to those who do not have it and are therefore having a worse standard of living. There is no conceivable way that wealth redistribution from the richest people who have ridiculous amounts of money, inconceivable amounts of money, money that when put into context is absolutely absurd, would lead to 60% of the population of the population skipping meals - but it could easily make that 0%.
How do you square the belief that an increasing number of people are too poor to eat with the growing levels of obesity?
Because some of the cheapest food is some of the most unhealthy.
Not to say I don't like this new to-the-right-of-Mark Francois @williamglenn but sometimes the auto-responses are a bit too lazy.
I still think you are doing this because it is an amusing role to play (cf your pre-2016 vote persona).
When you are time poor and resource poor, it's easier to buy a microwave meal or some crisps than it is to prepare steamed vegetables and lean chicken breast.
The current teenage scribbler for the Times, James Marriott is a little perturbed by what he calls "Centrist Populism"- i.e. the gathering wrath of moderates towards Brexit and all other works of Torydom.
I think I can explain the gathering disaster for the Conservatives in very simple terms.
The educated middle class have had more than a decade of being told that experts don´t matter (they are trying to do it again today, seeking to transfer the blame for the UK´s economic woes towards the Bank of England, rather than their own policy incompetence).
There has been decades of utter bullshit, absurd power stance policies which do not even begin to scratch the surface of under investment and misallocation of capital across the whole economy for decades.
Then there is the more than 40 years of the playground shit show of internal Tory party politics, which culminated in the travesty of "Prime Minister" Boris Johnson, but covered so much else in childish personality clashes The mass expulsion of adults, from the Conservatives by Johnson was the last chance for the Tories.
The patient people of Britain are waiting for the fat lady to sing, and she is clearing her throat.
The Tories are going to face a whole new world of pain at the next election, but more to the point I think we are going to see a long overdue period of radical change. The country in 10 years will have changed in ways- economic, political, social and constitutional- that I do not see the Tories being able to survive.
This is not just about the 2024/5 election, it will be epochal.
Good.
In 5 years we could have a high tax, even higher inflation and higher interest rates deeply unpopular Labour government plagued with even more frequent strikes and with a big deficit and rising unemployment. The idea Labour will win the next general election and be in power for all time is complacency of the first degree from you and other left liberals
I believe that Cicero is a former Tory voter ?
Complacency is the belief that the Tory party is now anything more than a parody of what once could claim to be the natural party of government.
It is complacency for any party to say they are 'the natural party of government' in a democracy, the Tories have suffered heavy defeats before in 1997, 2001. 1966, 1945, 1906, 1880 and against Palmerston on many occasions and always come back.
Not this time.
Even if Labour screw it up, which they probably will, the Conservatives deserve evisceration. The continuing criminal investigations and yet further revelations of abject unfitness for office will keep reminding people that the crisis was Torydom´s last act.
Against all expert views, you got your ridiculous Brexit, now I hope its your political epitaph.
Eviscerate the Tories and it will be a Faragite party that replaces them and when the Right get into power it will be a really nasty Nationalist government from your perspective that will make this government look like LDs
Sunak is like Louis XVI or Nicholas II, a relatively inoffensive, rather weak, leader taking the consequences of the collapse of the entire ancien regime... So Sunak will pay the price for Truss, Johnson and, yes, May.
It would be quite hard to find worse leaders, and the idea that these far-right gargoyles were anything except incompetent, irresponsible and occasionally pretty sleazy is for the birds. Farage is sharing the blame for the disaster, so despite you echoing Rees Mogg´s witterings, I see no come back for the irresponsible right under whichever brand.
Indeed I see a complete redrawing of the political map.
So Sunak will pay the price for Truss, Johnson, May and Cameron / Osborne...
Because a lot of the issues are Brexit connected and it's the fault of the last 2 that created this mess.
If Osborne hadn't been so "clever" he would now be approaching year 5 of his time as Prime Minister...
Although the "cyclists need insurance" brigade do have a point. Liability insurance for cyclists is quite sensible.
Adult cyclists who cycle on pavements, which is unlawful, with a "get out of my way, pedestrian scum" attitude, being too wimpy and scared to ride on the roads, need bans slapped on them by magistrates. (It would only take a few Cambridge fellows to feel the long arm of the law for the others to feel "encouraged".)
There are occasions where it makes sense to ride on pavements, for instance if there are no pedestrians around, and you have lorries coming up behind you. There shouldn't be an inflexible law relating to it in my opinion. Use commons sense.
Spot on. Another example is when I'm cycling and creating a queue (because the motorists behind me are a) being courteous and b) following the law, which is now – rightly – a car's width to pass). In that scenario, I hop on to the pavement/grass verge if it's clear so they can get by safely.
'@GoodwinMJ · 17h The old elite projected their social status through their wealth, estates & titles. The new elite project their status & distinguish themselves from the masses by preaching radical woke progressivism'
Goodwin is really disappearing ever deeper up his own backside.
Yes. It is quite evident that the new elite project their status & distinguish themselves from the masses by uttering mantras which *appear* to be progressive.
The reality is nothing changes, but they all give each other awards for being on message - see the revelation about how much money the Met Police spends on awarding itself awards.
Goodwin just isn't thinking structurally about who the 'elite' are. Being an academic, he probably thinks that leftie academics with pride flags in their twitter profile are a part of the elite - ie it's pure narcissism. The elite are people who control the levers of political and economic power, ie people in business and finance and the Tory party. These are not people you will bump into at a BLM protest, believe me.
The whole misuse of the concept of "elites" by people like HYUFD strikes me as so much playing with fire. To hear populist narratives coming out of the mouths of "conservatives" is disturbing.
The danger is that normalising such language opens the door of the town hall to far worse people than either the stupid conservatives speaking like this or the stupid people they are trying to attack.
Populism isn't a plaything. It's a vicious weapon that should only be unleashed when it's really, really needed. If your target is tweedy academics and pride flags, you can be damn sure it's not needed.
Yes, reading the Spectator these days is like reading a student Trotskyist pamphlet: full of talk of 'our rulers', 'the ruling class', 'the ruling elite' etc. My theory is that a certain type of middle-class conservative bitterly regrets letting the 1970s and punk rock pass them by and is desperate for another go.
The above concept of the "elite" is cribbed from Rob Henderson's theory of "luxury beliefs".
Paraphrasing, we have an overproduction of "elites" i.e. university educated people who in previous times would have demanded high salaries for jobs such as journalism or academia, but due to the change in the job market and the increasing precariousness of the middle class, we have produced too many humanities graduates who are educated but no longer command large salaries. This overly large class of people can no longer compete on traditional wealth based status symbols, so they use their belief system as a signifier of their class.
What is a luxury belief? I've heard people call "gender ideology" a "luxury belief" - despite the fact the vast majority of trans people are working class and poor, disproportionately homeless and suffer from mental health issues related to being ostracised by society; doesn't sound very "luxury" to me. Whereas I would say "trickle down economics" is a pretty "luxury belief" - only the rich can believe it, it justifies their existence and their hoarding of wealth, and it patently doesn't work. Is "equal rights" a luxury belief? "Human rights"? "Society"?
The issue is that on economics, there is no other game in town. History did end, capitalism won. Corbyn and Bernie get called bloody Marxists for wanting to do low level social democratic reforms which are all in aid of keeping capitalism from falling apart under it's own contradictions. So when capitalism is clearly failing but it's easier to imagine the end of the world then it is the end of capitalism, what do you have left?
Social democracy won (even if social democratic parties are vanishing). Most rich world economies have public spending at 40-50% of GDP and extensive welfare states.
Thatcher called Blair her heir. The welfare state has been cut year on year since 2008. Public spending is high due to bungs to private corporations and military spending - and public coffers are empty because of tax cuts after tax cuts. If social democracy is an incrementalistic approach to socialist equality via the ballot box, why is wealth inequality higher now than 50 years ago? You're looking at technological gains and saying that the quality of life is better for most people, therefore society must have improved, but the gap between the richest and poorest is astronomically greater than previously.
I am not sure what planet you are living on but it isn't this one.
Military spending is now less as a % of GDP than it has been in decades. It was 7% in the 1960s and is now 2%. And taxes are higher as a % of GDP than they have been at any time in the last 50 years.
Yes but @148grss's basic observation is right: the gap between rich and poor has ballooned, under both Labour and Tory administrations.
So what?
It makes no difference to my life whether Elon Musk or Richard Branson can afford one flight into space or 1000.
It does make a difference to my life whether my own life is getting better or worse.
Closing the gap by making us all poorer is not progress.
Making us all richer, even if some get much richer than others, is progress.
Inequality is an issue when ~20% of the population skip meals because they can't afford to eat all the time, and have to choose between eating and paying the bills, when other people have the resources to buy luxury yachts and private jets.
The wealth is being created - but it is being redistributed up to the owning class, not to those who actually do the labour. Elon Musk or Richard Branson don't do anything - they buy the means of production and the workers do the work. Relative poverty, affording the basics to engage in society, has increased in the last 40 years, not decreased.
No. 20% of the population skipping meals is a problem in its own right, not because of inequality.
If we were more equal and 60% of the population were skipping meals instead would that be better or worse?
The wealth exists. That some people have astronomically more, and others have so little that they are skipping meals, is a problem. The wealth that the rich have could go to those who do not have it and are therefore having a worse standard of living. There is no conceivable way that wealth redistribution from the richest people who have ridiculous amounts of money, inconceivable amounts of money, money that when put into context is absolutely absurd, would lead to 60% of the population of the population skipping meals - but it could easily make that 0%.
You're assuming we could make that 0% but never assume it makes an ass out of u and me.
Countries that have attempted to abolish rather than reduce or ameliorate inequality have invariably and inevitably always ended up with more people skipping meals, not fewer.
So your position is that wealth redistribution from rich to poor just doesn't work, despite the fact that the most prosperous economic period of Western history was the period with the most wealth redistribution?
No, my position is that some redistribution from rich to poor can work and we have that in this country already.
But total redistribution or seeking to eliminate equality has never worked and can't work. Any country that has seen it attempted has had millions die from starvation, real starvation not what we have in this country where people may skip a meal but are still fed overall.
You need to operate within the system that works. Getting the balance right on the limited redistribution we can do is difficult and a matter of perpetual political debate, but inequality is not per se a bad thing, people going hungry is. Inequality can lead to fewer rather than more people going hungry - but if it is leading to more, then debate that, not the fact that inequality exists.
'@GoodwinMJ · 17h The old elite projected their social status through their wealth, estates & titles. The new elite project their status & distinguish themselves from the masses by preaching radical woke progressivism'
I think the main difference between the old and the new elite is that the old elite was mostly honest, whereas the new elite is often dishonest. The old elite never pretended to be anything other than what it was. The new elite is often pretending to be other than what it actually is.
It was put to me by someone or other that a big change in politics came over the past 30 years when the war generation of MPs died out. Previously, on all sides of the house there were plenty of WWII veterans, officers usually.
Apart from being somewhat up themselves, wearing red cords far too often, and hanging out at a select few London pubs and clubs, ex-officers of HMF are able, because they have had to during their military careers, to communicate with dukes and dustmen and understand "all walks" of society and how to get through to them. It is a surprisingly rare gift.
Most modern politicians might never had to step outside their own social environment and hence not had to learn any or many people skills.
It is a source of interest that many OEs have this ability also. Perhaps it is years of hanging out with their gamekeepers and beaters. And perhaps recent OEs have no such ability as they are often children of financiers and foreign oligarchs.
Bank has said more tightening is needed with near 6% predicted
Seems wage growth over 7% plus the 10.1% triple lock and benefits increases with rises in the national living wage have been the main drivers
The triple lock is going to become a millstone round this country’s neck as time progresses. Almost impossible to kill politically, but progressively starving the working population of the share of their own output that would enable them to afford to life in modern Britain.
I have a Labour / LibDem floating voter relative of pension age who totally agrees with you.
Although the "cyclists need insurance" brigade do have a point. Liability insurance for cyclists is quite sensible.
Adult cyclists who cycle on pavements, which is unlawful, with a "get out of my way, pedestrian scum" attitude, being too wimpy and scared to ride on the roads, need bans slapped on them by magistrates. (It would only take a few Cambridge fellows to feel the long arm of the law for the others to feel "encouraged".)
Guidance from the Police Chief's Association accepts that adults cycling on pavements is OK, when the road is too dangerous, and it is done considerately - as in the vast majority of cases. Guidance was issued in 1999 by the Home Secretary when it became an "offence", and reaffirmed in 2014. The recent case of the manslaughter of the elderly cyclist demonstrates the need, until such time as we have safe facilities everywhere:
The "cyclists need insurance" brigade have no point whatsoever, except in their own sawdust-filled heads.
Lability insurance for people riding bikes usually comes for free with a home contents policy. Some of us have extra insurance via memberships or specialist policies. I have that because I know many motorist vehicle drivers will lie to the police and then lie to the court, and I will need ferocious lawyers should the worst happen, potentially for a civil claim.
These insurance companies include liability insurance in their Home Contents policies:
Apologies for introducing evidence to the debate.
Normally placid people go absolutely bonkers when it comes to cyclists. It's utterly barmy and baffling.
The worst cyclists on the streets of London are without doubt the Just Eat/Deliveroo ones. Most cyclists at least look left then right before going through red lights - the food delivery ones don't even do this.
And I'm the idiot who stops at all the red lights as I see 83% of other cyclists race through them past me.
The powered scooter Just Eats are even worse – appear from behind a tree/wheelie bin and cut up every road user in the postcode.
'@GoodwinMJ · 17h The old elite projected their social status through their wealth, estates & titles. The new elite project their status & distinguish themselves from the masses by preaching radical woke progressivism'
Goodwin is really disappearing ever deeper up his own backside.
Yes. It is quite evident that the new elite project their status & distinguish themselves from the masses by uttering mantras which *appear* to be progressive.
The reality is nothing changes, but they all give each other awards for being on message - see the revelation about how much money the Met Police spends on awarding itself awards.
Goodwin just isn't thinking structurally about who the 'elite' are. Being an academic, he probably thinks that leftie academics with pride flags in their twitter profile are a part of the elite - ie it's pure narcissism. The elite are people who control the levers of political and economic power, ie people in business and finance and the Tory party. These are not people you will bump into at a BLM protest, believe me.
The whole misuse of the concept of "elites" by people like HYUFD strikes me as so much playing with fire. To hear populist narratives coming out of the mouths of "conservatives" is disturbing.
The danger is that normalising such language opens the door of the town hall to far worse people than either the stupid conservatives speaking like this or the stupid people they are trying to attack.
Populism isn't a plaything. It's a vicious weapon that should only be unleashed when it's really, really needed. If your target is tweedy academics and pride flags, you can be damn sure it's not needed.
Yes, reading the Spectator these days is like reading a student Trotskyist pamphlet: full of talk of 'our rulers', 'the ruling class', 'the ruling elite' etc. My theory is that a certain type of middle-class conservative bitterly regrets letting the 1970s and punk rock pass them by and is desperate for another go.
The above concept of the "elite" is cribbed from Rob Henderson's theory of "luxury beliefs".
Paraphrasing, we have an overproduction of "elites" i.e. university educated people who in previous times would have demanded high salaries for jobs such as journalism or academia, but due to the change in the job market and the increasing precariousness of the middle class, we have produced too many humanities graduates who are educated but no longer command large salaries. This overly large class of people can no longer compete on traditional wealth based status symbols, so they use their belief system as a signifier of their class.
What is a luxury belief? I've heard people call "gender ideology" a "luxury belief" - despite the fact the vast majority of trans people are working class and poor, disproportionately homeless and suffer from mental health issues related to being ostracised by society; doesn't sound very "luxury" to me. Whereas I would say "trickle down economics" is a pretty "luxury belief" - only the rich can believe it, it justifies their existence and their hoarding of wealth, and it patently doesn't work. Is "equal rights" a luxury belief? "Human rights"? "Society"?
The issue is that on economics, there is no other game in town. History did end, capitalism won. Corbyn and Bernie get called bloody Marxists for wanting to do low level social democratic reforms which are all in aid of keeping capitalism from falling apart under it's own contradictions. So when capitalism is clearly failing but it's easier to imagine the end of the world then it is the end of capitalism, what do you have left?
Social democracy won (even if social democratic parties are vanishing). Most rich world economies have public spending at 40-50% of GDP and extensive welfare states.
Thatcher called Blair her heir. The welfare state has been cut year on year since 2008. Public spending is high due to bungs to private corporations and military spending - and public coffers are empty because of tax cuts after tax cuts. If social democracy is an incrementalistic approach to socialist equality via the ballot box, why is wealth inequality higher now than 50 years ago? You're looking at technological gains and saying that the quality of life is better for most people, therefore society must have improved, but the gap between the richest and poorest is astronomically greater than previously.
I am not sure what planet you are living on but it isn't this one.
Military spending is now less as a % of GDP than it has been in decades. It was 7% in the 1960s and is now 2%. And taxes are higher as a % of GDP than they have been at any time in the last 50 years.
Yes but @148grss's basic observation is right: the gap between rich and poor has ballooned, under both Labour and Tory administrations.
So what?
It makes no difference to my life whether Elon Musk or Richard Branson can afford one flight into space or 1000.
It does make a difference to my life whether my own life is getting better or worse.
Closing the gap by making us all poorer is not progress.
Making us all richer, even if some get much richer than others, is progress.
Inequality is an issue when ~20% of the population skip meals because they can't afford to eat all the time, and have to choose between eating and paying the bills, when other people have the resources to buy luxury yachts and private jets.
The wealth is being created - but it is being redistributed up to the owning class, not to those who actually do the labour. Elon Musk or Richard Branson don't do anything - they buy the means of production and the workers do the work. Relative poverty, affording the basics to engage in society, has increased in the last 40 years, not decreased.
Although the "cyclists need insurance" brigade do have a point. Liability insurance for cyclists is quite sensible.
Adult cyclists who cycle on pavements, which is unlawful, with a "get out of my way, pedestrian scum" attitude, being too wimpy and scared to ride on the roads, need bans slapped on them by magistrates. (It would only take a few Cambridge fellows to feel the long arm of the law for the others to feel "encouraged".)
Guidance from the Police Chief's Association accepts that adults cycling on pavements is OK, when the road is too dangerous, and it is done considerately - as in the vast majority of cases. Guidance was issued in 1999 by the Home Secretary when it became an "offence", and reaffirmed in 2014. The recent case of the manslaughter of the elderly cyclist demonstrates the need, until such time as we have safe facilities everywhere:
The "cyclists need insurance" brigade have no point whatsoever, except in their own sawdust-filled heads.
Lability insurance for people riding bikes usually comes for free with a home contents policy. Some of us have extra insurance via memberships or specialist policies. I have that because I know many motorist vehicle drivers will lie to the police and then lie to the court, and I will need ferocious lawyers should the worst happen, potentially for a civil claim.
These insurance companies include liability insurance in their Home Contents policies:
Apologies for introducing evidence to the debate.
Heh. Well, guess who among us doesn't properly read their home insurance policy.
Coughs. 'Me'. Cough.
Makes sense though. The actual cost of claims brought is tiny, due to the very few claims, so why not include?
Though I do worry about @Dura_Ace with his Webley and Scott home insurance policy. Or, rather, I worry for the person DA mows down on a bike who then gets to see how DA's W&S deals with liability claims
Although the "cyclists need insurance" brigade do have a point. Liability insurance for cyclists is quite sensible.
Adult cyclists who cycle on pavements, which is unlawful, with a "get out of my way, pedestrian scum" attitude, being too wimpy and scared to ride on the roads, need bans slapped on them by magistrates. (It would only take a few Cambridge fellows to feel the long arm of the law for the others to feel "encouraged".)
Guidance from the Police Chief's Association accepts that adults cycling on pavements is OK, when the road is too dangerous, and it is done considerately - as in the vast majority of cases. Guidance was issued in 1999 by the Home Secretary when it became an "offence", and reaffirmed in 2014. The recent case of the manslaughter of the elderly cyclist demonstrates the need, until such time as we have safe facilities everywhere:
The "cyclists need insurance" brigade have no point whatsoever, except in their own sawdust-filled heads.
Lability insurance for people riding bikes usually comes for free with a home contents policy. Some of us have extra insurance via memberships or specialist policies. I have that because I know many motorist vehicle drivers will lie to the police and then lie to the court, and I will need ferocious lawyers should the worst happen, potentially for a civil claim.
These insurance companies include liability insurance in their Home Contents policies:
Apologies for introducing evidence to the debate.
Normally placid people go absolutely bonkers when it comes to cyclists. It's utterly barmy and baffling.
It's jealously. Motorists see my calf muscles go momentarily insane.
I had a shout-off with some driver in a huge fuck off (but white) Jeep Cherokee this morning. I just think many drivers resent the freedom of movement of cyclists. They don't like cyclists filtering either which I think is part of this.
I think its more to do with power and vulnerability.
I've heard people say that cycling is the closest you can feel to being a member of an outgroup in the UK. You exist at the whims of drivers and a few of them are bastards. They perceive you as less then them and are quite happy to show you this.
I assume these historically normal interest rates are going to kill the car lease market too, so every man and his dog isn't going to be driving round in a flash Audi? Or was depreciation 90% of the cost?
Might cause difficulty for the ULEZ plans if most people can't afford to replace their car.
Only a tiny minority need to replace their car for ULEZ on he numbers, afaics.
Take London.
For a start only a smallish minority of Londoners own a car (2.56m cars, 5m electorate approx, 8-9m population), then in every single Outer London Borough more than 80% of private cars are already ULEZ compliant.
Plus there is a remarkable range of short term or long term exceptions.
IMO the Conservatives are nuts trying to weaponise it for their Hail Mary pass.
There's a few blokes at my rugby club who are secretly happy about the Ulez-X because it gives them the perfect excuse to get a new motor (which the missus had previously banned – saying their 20 year old dirty diesel was perfectly functional...)
The current teenage scribbler for the Times, James Marriott is a little perturbed by what he calls "Centrist Populism"- i.e. the gathering wrath of moderates towards Brexit and all other works of Torydom.
I think I can explain the gathering disaster for the Conservatives in very simple terms.
The educated middle class have had more than a decade of being told that experts don´t matter (they are trying to do it again today, seeking to transfer the blame for the UK´s economic woes towards the Bank of England, rather than their own policy incompetence).
There has been decades of utter bullshit, absurd power stance policies which do not even begin to scratch the surface of under investment and misallocation of capital across the whole economy for decades.
Then there is the more than 40 years of the playground shit show of internal Tory party politics, which culminated in the travesty of "Prime Minister" Boris Johnson, but covered so much else in childish personality clashes The mass expulsion of adults, from the Conservatives by Johnson was the last chance for the Tories.
The patient people of Britain are waiting for the fat lady to sing, and she is clearing her throat.
The Tories are going to face a whole new world of pain at the next election, but more to the point I think we are going to see a long overdue period of radical change. The country in 10 years will have changed in ways- economic, political, social and constitutional- that I do not see the Tories being able to survive.
This is not just about the 2024/5 election, it will be epochal.
Good.
In 5 years we could have a high tax, even higher inflation and higher interest rates deeply unpopular Labour government plagued with even more frequent strikes and with a big deficit and rising unemployment. The idea Labour will win the next general election and be in power for all time is complacency of the first degree from you and other left liberals
I believe that Cicero is a former Tory voter ?
Complacency is the belief that the Tory party is now anything more than a parody of what once could claim to be the natural party of government.
It is complacency for any party to say they are 'the natural party of government' in a democracy, the Tories have suffered heavy defeats before in 1997, 2001. 1966, 1945, 1906, 1880 and against Palmerston on many occasions and always come back.
Not this time.
Even if Labour screw it up, which they probably will, the Conservatives deserve evisceration. The continuing criminal investigations and yet further revelations of abject unfitness for office will keep reminding people that the crisis was Torydom´s last act.
Against all expert views, you got your ridiculous Brexit, now I hope its your political epitaph.
Eviscerate the Tories and it will be a Faragite party that replaces them and when the Right get into power it will be a really nasty Nationalist government from your perspective that will make this government look like LDs
You say that as if that would just be the natural outcome or it would happen in a vacuum. Like it's just a consequence of a law of physics rather than a concerted political effort that people choose to make.
This is why socialists argue "socialism or barbarism". The right and centre (and capital) are much more willing to make peace with the far right than they are to give up an inch and move slightly further left. Corbyn had many faults, but his policy positions were not that radical in the grand scheme of history. They are radical now, but that's because the base line of acceptable policy is anything to the left of Thatcher / Blair on the economy is literal Communism. The outrage at the idea that maybe having functional broadband infrastructure for a modern economy as "Broadband Communism" when it was just... infrastructure spending to boost productivity and economic growth, something the New Deal would have done if it were implemented today. I know New Dealism was, at the time, considered a Communist plot by some of the most frothing at the brain right wingers, but what it did was create the broad base working and middle class of a functioning capitalist society by allowing the rich to still get very rich, but making sure that wealth was redistributed to smooth out too much profit seeking and labour discipline. It saved capitalism from itself - boom and bust cycles, monopolies and Robber Barons. That we are closer to the Gilded age then we are the post-war consensus is telling.
THIS is now confirmed by the Wall Street Journal AND the New York Times, all info released by officials of the Biden admin
"That a pandemic caused by a bat coronavirus started in the city with the world’s largest programme of research into bat coronaviruses was always intriguing. That among the first people to get ill with allegedly Covid-like symptoms in the month the pandemic began were three scientists working in that lab was highly suspicious.
"Now that we know their names, we find one of them was collecting what turned out to be the closest cousins of Sars-CoV-2 at the time, and another was doing the very experiments that could have created the virus. These revelations make it almost a slam dunk for the coronavirus lab-leak hypothesis."
Although the "cyclists need insurance" brigade do have a point. Liability insurance for cyclists is quite sensible.
It's a ludicrous idea.
We all do things that could in theory expose us to liability to a third party. Your dog might bite someone. Your lawnmower might damage a neighbour's gnome. You might knock over a shelf of pottery in a shop. You might injure someone with an ill-timed challenge in an informal game of park football.
We don't insist on people getting liability insurance for these activities because the risk of a claim arising is low, and the likelihood of it being a high value claim even if it does is low (i.e. if there is a legal claim against you, there's a good chance you'd be able to pay without claiming on insurance). We make an exception for motor insurance as the inherent risk from driving around several tonnes of metal at potentially some speed is pretty high - we don't have a high accident rate in the UK, but where they do happen the damage to property and people can be pretty catastrophic and beyond the means of the person claimed against.
That is not to diminish the fact that on very rare occasions, an irresponsible person on a bike can cause significant damage. But compared with motor vehicles it is simply incredibly unusual to have situations where lack of third party insurance is an issue for the injured party.
It’s far from ludicrous. I have liability insurance through my membership of cyclingUK. I am happy with that.
s for the rest of your rant, yeah, I know why insurance for us cyclists is optional and motorists isn’t.
Although the "cyclists need insurance" brigade do have a point. Liability insurance for cyclists is quite sensible.
Adult cyclists who cycle on pavements, which is unlawful, with a "get out of my way, pedestrian scum" attitude, being too wimpy and scared to ride on the roads, need bans slapped on them by magistrates. (It would only take a few Cambridge fellows to feel the long arm of the law for the others to feel "encouraged".)
Guidance from the Police Chief's Association accepts that adults cycling on pavements is OK, when the road is too dangerous, and it is done considerately - as in the vast majority of cases. Guidance was issued in 1999 by the Home Secretary when it became an "offence", and reaffirmed in 2014. The recent case of the manslaughter of the elderly cyclist demonstrates the need, until such time as we have safe facilities everywhere:
The "cyclists need insurance" brigade have no point whatsoever, except in their own sawdust-filled heads.
Lability insurance for people riding bikes usually comes for free with a home contents policy. Some of us have extra insurance via memberships or specialist policies. I have that because I know many motorist vehicle drivers will lie to the police and then lie to the court, and I will need ferocious lawyers should the worst happen, potentially for a civil claim.
These insurance companies include liability insurance in their Home Contents policies:
Apologies for introducing evidence to the debate.
Normally placid people go absolutely bonkers when it comes to cyclists. It's utterly barmy and baffling.
It's jealously. Motorists see my calf muscles go momentarily insane.
I had a shout-off with some driver in a huge fuck off (but white) Jeep Cherokee this morning. I just think many drivers resent the freedom of movement of cyclists. They don't like cyclists filtering either which I think is part of this.
Unless its a London thing, I think cyclists overestimate how much drivers dislike them. Some drivers are just douchebags, some cyclists are just douchebags, and I'm more likely to get into an argument with another driver than a cyclist.
This morning I had a shout-off (or exchange of banged horns) after I indicated to show I was pulling into the right hand lane, the driver behind in the right hand-lane saw my indicator and took that as a dare to close the gap instead of letting me in, and I pulled in safely anyway. Day before I shouted at another road user to use their indicator after they went around a roundabout in a dangerous manner without using their indicator.
Before that I hadn't been annoyed with any other road use in months and its an extremely long time since a cyclist has pissed me off (red light as almost always).
Sometimes people just don't like other road users for how they're acting. Whether that be people who ride through red lights, or people who don't use their indicator or those who take the indicator as a challenge, its not about cyclist or driver per se.
It's a numbers game, really. As a cyclist you spend a lot of time being overtaken by cars for obvious reasons. So 99 go past perfectly normally and 1 idiot comes too close or shouts at you just for being there, and that's the one you remember. It's easy to feel like everyone hates you because that's just how memory works.
This applies to lots of other situations too, of course. The memorability of extreme examples the main engine of all polarisation.
Bank has said more tightening is needed with near 6% predicted
Seems wage growth over 7% plus the 10.1% triple lock and benefits increases with rises in the national living wage have been the main drivers
The triple lock is going to become a millstone round this country’s neck as time progresses. Almost impossible to kill politically, but progressively starving the working population of the share of their own output that would enable them to afford to life in modern Britain.
I have a Labour / LibDem floating voter relative of pension age who totally agrees with you.
What's worst is that the triple lock isn't helping the poorest pensioners but making the life of relatively well off pensioners even better off..
Although the "cyclists need insurance" brigade do have a point. Liability insurance for cyclists is quite sensible.
Adult cyclists who cycle on pavements, which is unlawful, with a "get out of my way, pedestrian scum" attitude, being too wimpy and scared to ride on the roads, need bans slapped on them by magistrates. (It would only take a few Cambridge fellows to feel the long arm of the law for the others to feel "encouraged".)
There are occasions where it makes sense to ride on pavements, for instance if there are no pedestrians around, and you have lorries coming up behind you. There shouldn't be an inflexible law relating to it in my opinion. Use commons sense.
As I hope I have illustrated by my other post, that *is* the legal position, with considerate riding to be accepted where deemed necessary by the person riding the cycle. Arguably inconsiderate riding needs to be enforced on just like anti-social driving / parking.
One issue is that we have the Daily Mail, Spectator, Daily Telegraph, GB News etc, and various politicians / lobbyists (hello Howard Cox) pumping out BS to their gullible audiences.
Although the "cyclists need insurance" brigade do have a point. Liability insurance for cyclists is quite sensible.
Adult cyclists who cycle on pavements, which is unlawful, with a "get out of my way, pedestrian scum" attitude, being too wimpy and scared to ride on the roads, need bans slapped on them by magistrates. (It would only take a few Cambridge fellows to feel the long arm of the law for the others to feel "encouraged".)
Guidance from the Police Chief's Association accepts that adults cycling on pavements is OK, when the road is too dangerous, and it is done considerately - as in the vast majority of cases. Guidance was issued in 1999 by the Home Secretary when it became an "offence", and reaffirmed in 2014. The recent case of the manslaughter of the elderly cyclist demonstrates the need, until such time as we have safe facilities everywhere:
The "cyclists need insurance" brigade have no point whatsoever, except in their own sawdust-filled heads.
Lability insurance for people riding bikes usually comes for free with a home contents policy. Some of us have extra insurance via memberships or specialist policies. I have that because I know many motorist vehicle drivers will lie to the police and then lie to the court, and I will need ferocious lawyers should the worst happen, potentially for a civil claim.
These insurance companies include liability insurance in their Home Contents policies:
Apologies for introducing evidence to the debate.
Normally placid people go absolutely bonkers when it comes to cyclists. It's utterly barmy and baffling.
As someone who walks, cycles and drives, I'd put it like this: cycling on pavements is okay *at times*. Forcing pedestrians on pavements to make way for you *is not okay*, especially if you are going it at speed.
And this happens a lot. It is all about consideration for others: cyclists want (reasonably) to be treated with respect by other road users. They should also consider other road - and pavement - users. This seems a strange concept to some of the cycling lobby, for whom the main demand appears to be for *them* to get as quickly from A to B as they can, and sod anyone else.
THIS is now confirmed by the Wall Street Journal AND the New York Times, all released by officials of the Biden admin
"That a pandemic caused by a bat coronavirus started in the city with the world’s largest programme of research into bat coronaviruses was always intriguing. That among the first people to get ill with allegedly Covid-like symptoms in the month the pandemic began were three scientists working in that lab was highly suspicious.
"Now that we know their names, we find one of them was collecting what turned out to be the closest cousins of Sars-CoV-2 at the time, and another was doing the very experiments that could have created the virus. These revelations make it almost a slam dunk for the coronavirus lab-leak hypothesis."
Although the "cyclists need insurance" brigade do have a point. Liability insurance for cyclists is quite sensible.
Adult cyclists who cycle on pavements, which is unlawful, with a "get out of my way, pedestrian scum" attitude, being too wimpy and scared to ride on the roads, need bans slapped on them by magistrates. (It would only take a few Cambridge fellows to feel the long arm of the law for the others to feel "encouraged".)
Guidance from the Police Chief's Association accepts that adults cycling on pavements is OK, when the road is too dangerous, and it is done considerately - as in the vast majority of cases. Guidance was issued in 1999 by the Home Secretary when it became an "offence", and reaffirmed in 2014. The recent case of the manslaughter of the elderly cyclist demonstrates the need, until such time as we have safe facilities everywhere:
The "cyclists need insurance" brigade have no point whatsoever, except in their own sawdust-filled heads.
Lability insurance for people riding bikes usually comes for free with a home contents policy. Some of us have extra insurance via memberships or specialist policies. I have that because I know many motorist vehicle drivers will lie to the police and then lie to the court, and I will need ferocious lawyers should the worst happen, potentially for a civil claim.
These insurance companies include liability insurance in their Home Contents policies:
Apologies for introducing evidence to the debate.
Normally placid people go absolutely bonkers when it comes to cyclists. It's utterly barmy and baffling.
It's jealously. Motorists see my calf muscles go momentarily insane.
I had a shout-off with some driver in a huge fuck off (but white) Jeep Cherokee this morning. I just think many drivers resent the freedom of movement of cyclists. They don't like cyclists filtering either which I think is part of this.
I think its more to do with power and vulnerability.
I've heard people say that cycling is the closest you can feel to being a member of an outgroup in the UK. You exist at the whims of drivers and a few of them are bastards. They perceive you as less then them and are quite happy to show you this.
Yes, we are certainly less than them – in terms of body weight
Although the "cyclists need insurance" brigade do have a point. Liability insurance for cyclists is quite sensible.
Adult cyclists who cycle on pavements, which is unlawful, with a "get out of my way, pedestrian scum" attitude, being too wimpy and scared to ride on the roads, need bans slapped on them by magistrates. (It would only take a few Cambridge fellows to feel the long arm of the law for the others to feel "encouraged".)
Guidance from the Police Chief's Association accepts that adults cycling on pavements is OK, when the road is too dangerous, and it is done considerately - as in the vast majority of cases. Guidance was issued in 1999 by the Home Secretary when it became an "offence", and reaffirmed in 2014. The recent case of the manslaughter of the elderly cyclist demonstrates the need, until such time as we have safe facilities everywhere:
The "cyclists need insurance" brigade have no point whatsoever, except in their own sawdust-filled heads.
Lability insurance for people riding bikes usually comes for free with a home contents policy. Some of us have extra insurance via memberships or specialist policies. I have that because I know many motorist vehicle drivers will lie to the police and then lie to the court, and I will need ferocious lawyers should the worst happen, potentially for a civil claim.
These insurance companies include liability insurance in their Home Contents policies:
Apologies for introducing evidence to the debate.
Normally placid people go absolutely bonkers when it comes to cyclists. It's utterly barmy and baffling.
The worst cyclists on the streets of London are without doubt the Just Eat/Deliveroo ones. Most cyclists at least look left then right before going through red lights - the food delivery ones don't even do this.
And I'm the idiot who stops at all the red lights as I see 83% of other cyclists race through them past me.
The angriest I've ever gotten is when a driver yelled at me (whilst he was idling at the red light) for cycling rather than walking across a 'pedestrian' crossing. It connected two sections of assigned pavement cycle path, and had a cycle lane on the crossing as well (that is I was going from side to side not from behind or cutting across). It's not even like it was a regular crossing peoplecare supposed to dismount at but don't.
On the flip side its true many cyclists are mad when it comes to red lights.
THIS is now confirmed by the Wall Street Journal AND the New York Times, all released by officials of the Biden admin
"That a pandemic caused by a bat coronavirus started in the city with the world’s largest programme of research into bat coronaviruses was always intriguing. That among the first people to get ill with allegedly Covid-like symptoms in the month the pandemic began were three scientists working in that lab was highly suspicious.
"Now that we know their names, we find one of them was collecting what turned out to be the closest cousins of Sars-CoV-2 at the time, and another was doing the very experiments that could have created the virus. These revelations make it almost a slam dunk for the coronavirus lab-leak hypothesis."
The votes are probably more efficiently split for the yellows and reds too
Yes I think so. For a variety of reasons which some of you definitely don't want me re-treading, there is a considerable anti-Conservative vote. Fury and despair are two words to describe it.
Objectively, current national polling has the combined Lab-LibDem vote share between 55-58% and it's holding pretty steady at almost twice the Conservative vote share.
I remain convinced that this is going to be a tory bloodbath.
'@GoodwinMJ · 17h The old elite projected their social status through their wealth, estates & titles. The new elite project their status & distinguish themselves from the masses by preaching radical woke progressivism'
I think the main difference between the old and the new elite is that the old elite was mostly honest, whereas the new elite is often dishonest. The old elite never pretended to be anything other than what it was. The new elite is often pretending to be other than what it actually is.
It was put to me by someone or other that a big change in politics came over the past 30 years when the war generation of MPs died out. Previously, on all sides of the house there were plenty of WWII veterans, officers usually.
Apart from being somewhat up themselves, wearing red cords far too often, and hanging out at a select few London pubs and clubs, ex-officers of HMF are able, because they have had to during their military careers, to communicate with dukes and dustmen and understand "all walks" of society and how to get through to them. It is a surprisingly rare gift.
Most modern politicians might never had to step outside their own social environment and hence not had to learn any or many people skills.
It is a source of interest that many OEs have this ability also. Perhaps it is years of hanging out with their gamekeepers and beaters. And perhaps recent OEs have no such ability as they are often children of financiers and foreign oligarchs.
Not entirely orficers [edit] as you inded say. Quite a few MPs had been ORs or naval ratings, and probably the odd CO too - Arthur Woodburn, Fenner Brockway for instance.
I recall that the attitude to actually fighting wars also changed on that timescale. Mrs T's cabinet, not to mention the odd Archbishop, had a considerable cadre of former servicemen, often with combat experience.
'@GoodwinMJ · 17h The old elite projected their social status through their wealth, estates & titles. The new elite project their status & distinguish themselves from the masses by preaching radical woke progressivism'
Goodwin is really disappearing ever deeper up his own backside.
Yes. It is quite evident that the new elite project their status & distinguish themselves from the masses by uttering mantras which *appear* to be progressive.
The reality is nothing changes, but they all give each other awards for being on message - see the revelation about how much money the Met Police spends on awarding itself awards.
Goodwin just isn't thinking structurally about who the 'elite' are. Being an academic, he probably thinks that leftie academics with pride flags in their twitter profile are a part of the elite - ie it's pure narcissism. The elite are people who control the levers of political and economic power, ie people in business and finance and the Tory party. These are not people you will bump into at a BLM protest, believe me.
The whole misuse of the concept of "elites" by people like HYUFD strikes me as so much playing with fire. To hear populist narratives coming out of the mouths of "conservatives" is disturbing.
The danger is that normalising such language opens the door of the town hall to far worse people than either the stupid conservatives speaking like this or the stupid people they are trying to attack.
Populism isn't a plaything. It's a vicious weapon that should only be unleashed when it's really, really needed. If your target is tweedy academics and pride flags, you can be damn sure it's not needed.
Yes, reading the Spectator these days is like reading a student Trotskyist pamphlet: full of talk of 'our rulers', 'the ruling class', 'the ruling elite' etc. My theory is that a certain type of middle-class conservative bitterly regrets letting the 1970s and punk rock pass them by and is desperate for another go.
The above concept of the "elite" is cribbed from Rob Henderson's theory of "luxury beliefs".
Paraphrasing, we have an overproduction of "elites" i.e. university educated people who in previous times would have demanded high salaries for jobs such as journalism or academia, but due to the change in the job market and the increasing precariousness of the middle class, we have produced too many humanities graduates who are educated but no longer command large salaries. This overly large class of people can no longer compete on traditional wealth based status symbols, so they use their belief system as a signifier of their class.
What is a luxury belief? I've heard people call "gender ideology" a "luxury belief" - despite the fact the vast majority of trans people are working class and poor, disproportionately homeless and suffer from mental health issues related to being ostracised by society; doesn't sound very "luxury" to me. Whereas I would say "trickle down economics" is a pretty "luxury belief" - only the rich can believe it, it justifies their existence and their hoarding of wealth, and it patently doesn't work. Is "equal rights" a luxury belief? "Human rights"? "Society"?
The issue is that on economics, there is no other game in town. History did end, capitalism won. Corbyn and Bernie get called bloody Marxists for wanting to do low level social democratic reforms which are all in aid of keeping capitalism from falling apart under it's own contradictions. So when capitalism is clearly failing but it's easier to imagine the end of the world then it is the end of capitalism, what do you have left?
Social democracy won (even if social democratic parties are vanishing). Most rich world economies have public spending at 40-50% of GDP and extensive welfare states.
Thatcher called Blair her heir. The welfare state has been cut year on year since 2008. Public spending is high due to bungs to private corporations and military spending - and public coffers are empty because of tax cuts after tax cuts. If social democracy is an incrementalistic approach to socialist equality via the ballot box, why is wealth inequality higher now than 50 years ago? You're looking at technological gains and saying that the quality of life is better for most people, therefore society must have improved, but the gap between the richest and poorest is astronomically greater than previously.
I am not sure what planet you are living on but it isn't this one.
Military spending is now less as a % of GDP than it has been in decades. It was 7% in the 1960s and is now 2%. And taxes are higher as a % of GDP than they have been at any time in the last 50 years.
Yes but @148grss's basic observation is right: the gap between rich and poor has ballooned, under both Labour and Tory administrations.
So what?
It makes no difference to my life whether Elon Musk or Richard Branson can afford one flight into space or 1000.
It does make a difference to my life whether my own life is getting better or worse.
Closing the gap by making us all poorer is not progress.
Making us all richer, even if some get much richer than others, is progress.
Inequality is an issue when ~20% of the population skip meals because they can't afford to eat all the time, and have to choose between eating and paying the bills, when other people have the resources to buy luxury yachts and private jets.
The wealth is being created - but it is being redistributed up to the owning class, not to those who actually do the labour. Elon Musk or Richard Branson don't do anything - they buy the means of production and the workers do the work. Relative poverty, affording the basics to engage in society, has increased in the last 40 years, not decreased.
No. 20% of the population skipping meals is a problem in its own right, not because of inequality.
If we were more equal and 60% of the population were skipping meals instead would that be better or worse?
The wealth exists. That some people have astronomically more, and others have so little that they are skipping meals, is a problem. The wealth that the rich have could go to those who do not have it and are therefore having a worse standard of living. There is no conceivable way that wealth redistribution from the richest people who have ridiculous amounts of money, inconceivable amounts of money, money that when put into context is absolutely absurd, would lead to 60% of the population of the population skipping meals - but it could easily make that 0%.
There isn't an absolute amount of money which we can choose how to distribute. The more we redistribute money, the smaller the pie gets - because it goes to somewhere where it doesn't get redistributed.
Are you saying that states do not have the mechanisms to get at that money if they wished to? Of course they can; and they often do when freezing assets or imposing sanctions and what not. If the value is being made by labour in this country, but the capital is "officially" in a tax haven - who gives a shit. And if outside capital disappears - the people still exist, the labour can still be leveraged, value can be made without capital; the state could choose to direct it. That's what happens for war time economies.
Even if inflation falls Sunak can hardly bring out the bunting given to get there it would have driven many people to lose their homes .
On another note am I the only one fed up of the moralizing crap from people who seek to judge those who just wanted to own their own home . The situation was vastly different 20 years ago .
People took out mortgages and could never have envisaged the rapid change in interest rates over the space of just over a year.
There seems to be a lot of mean spiritedness about which I find appalling when some people are going to be sick with worry over what will happen to their mortgages .
Indeed. PB at its curtain-twitching worst.
Yuk.
It boils my piss.
If you are under the age of 45 the economy has handed you a shit sandwich and getting onto the housing ladder has been the only, narrow window for material advancement.
As usual, the boomers have no idea and merely pour scorn on those that follow. This, even as their last great idea, Brexit, is widely understood as an absolute disaster.
Although the "cyclists need insurance" brigade do have a point. Liability insurance for cyclists is quite sensible.
Adult cyclists who cycle on pavements, which is unlawful, with a "get out of my way, pedestrian scum" attitude, being too wimpy and scared to ride on the roads, need bans slapped on them by magistrates. (It would only take a few Cambridge fellows to feel the long arm of the law for the others to feel "encouraged".)
Guidance from the Police Chief's Association accepts that adults cycling on pavements is OK, when the road is too dangerous, and it is done considerately - as in the vast majority of cases. Guidance was issued in 1999 by the Home Secretary when it became an "offence", and reaffirmed in 2014. The recent case of the manslaughter of the elderly cyclist demonstrates the need, until such time as we have safe facilities everywhere:
The "cyclists need insurance" brigade have no point whatsoever, except in their own sawdust-filled heads.
Lability insurance for people riding bikes usually comes for free with a home contents policy. Some of us have extra insurance via memberships or specialist policies. I have that because I know many motorist vehicle drivers will lie to the police and then lie to the court, and I will need ferocious lawyers should the worst happen, potentially for a civil claim.
These insurance companies include liability insurance in their Home Contents policies:
Apologies for introducing evidence to the debate.
Normally placid people go absolutely bonkers when it comes to cyclists. It's utterly barmy and baffling.
As someone who walks, cycles and drives, I'd put it like this: cycling on pavements is okay *at times*. Forcing pedestrians on pavements to make way for you *is not okay*, especially if you are going it at speed.
And this happens a lot. It is all about consideration for others: cyclists want (reasonably) to be treated with respect by other road users. They should also consider other road - and pavement - users. This seems a strange concept to some of the cycling lobby, for whom the main demand appears to be for *them* to get as quickly from A to B as they can, and sod anyone else.
I think your position is a pretty standard one for most people who cycle. We want protection against dangerous idiots in motor vehicles and we want to not be a danger for pedestrians. That's totally normal. Just like most motorists want everyone to be able to use the roads and are usually patient when they encounter pedestrians and cyclists. Most people are essentially good.
Although the "cyclists need insurance" brigade do have a point. Liability insurance for cyclists is quite sensible.
Adult cyclists who cycle on pavements, which is unlawful, with a "get out of my way, pedestrian scum" attitude, being too wimpy and scared to ride on the roads, need bans slapped on them by magistrates. (It would only take a few Cambridge fellows to feel the long arm of the law for the others to feel "encouraged".)
Guidance from the Police Chief's Association accepts that adults cycling on pavements is OK, when the road is too dangerous, and it is done considerately - as in the vast majority of cases. Guidance was issued in 1999 by the Home Secretary when it became an "offence", and reaffirmed in 2014. The recent case of the manslaughter of the elderly cyclist demonstrates the need, until such time as we have safe facilities everywhere:
The "cyclists need insurance" brigade have no point whatsoever, except in their own sawdust-filled heads.
Lability insurance for people riding bikes usually comes for free with a home contents policy. Some of us have extra insurance via memberships or specialist policies. I have that because I know many motorist vehicle drivers will lie to the police and then lie to the court, and I will need ferocious lawyers should the worst happen, potentially for a civil claim.
These insurance companies include liability insurance in their Home Contents policies:
Apologies for introducing evidence to the debate.
Normally placid people go absolutely bonkers when it comes to cyclists. It's utterly barmy and baffling.
It's jealously. Motorists see my calf muscles go momentarily insane.
I had a shout-off with some driver in a huge fuck off (but white) Jeep Cherokee this morning. I just think many drivers resent the freedom of movement of cyclists. They don't like cyclists filtering either which I think is part of this.
Unless its a London thing, I think cyclists overestimate how much drivers dislike them. Some drivers are just douchebags, some cyclists are just douchebags, and I'm more likely to get into an argument with another driver than a cyclist.
This morning I had a shout-off (or exchange of banged horns) after I indicated to show I was pulling into the right hand lane, the driver behind in the right hand-lane saw my indicator and took that as a dare to close the gap instead of letting me in, and I pulled in safely anyway. Day before I shouted at another road user to use their indicator after they went around a roundabout in a dangerous manner without using their indicator.
Before that I hadn't been annoyed with any other road use in months and its an extremely long time since a cyclist has pissed me off (red light as almost always).
Sometimes people just don't like other road users for how they're acting. Whether that be people who ride through red lights, or people who don't use their indicator or those who take the indicator as a challenge, its not about cyclist or driver per se.
It's a numbers game, really. As a cyclist you spend a lot of time being overtaken by cars for obvious reasons. So 99 go past perfectly normally and 1 idiot comes too close or shouts at you just for being there, and that's the one you remember. It's easy to feel like everyone hates you because that's just how memory works.
This applies to lots of other situations too, of course. The memorability of extreme examples the main engine of all polarisation.
My last exchange of words as a cyclist with a motorist was while we were both stopped at a set of lights and was to thank him for being so considerate when he had very carefully overtaken me beforehand
Although the "cyclists need insurance" brigade do have a point. Liability insurance for cyclists is quite sensible.
Adult cyclists who cycle on pavements, which is unlawful, with a "get out of my way, pedestrian scum" attitude, being too wimpy and scared to ride on the roads, need bans slapped on them by magistrates. (It would only take a few Cambridge fellows to feel the long arm of the law for the others to feel "encouraged".)
Guidance from the Police Chief's Association accepts that adults cycling on pavements is OK, when the road is too dangerous, and it is done considerately - as in the vast majority of cases. Guidance was issued in 1999 by the Home Secretary when it became an "offence", and reaffirmed in 2014. The recent case of the manslaughter of the elderly cyclist demonstrates the need, until such time as we have safe facilities everywhere:
The "cyclists need insurance" brigade have no point whatsoever, except in their own sawdust-filled heads.
Lability insurance for people riding bikes usually comes for free with a home contents policy. Some of us have extra insurance via memberships or specialist policies. I have that because I know many motorist vehicle drivers will lie to the police and then lie to the court, and I will need ferocious lawyers should the worst happen, potentially for a civil claim.
These insurance companies include liability insurance in their Home Contents policies:
Apologies for introducing evidence to the debate.
Normally placid people go absolutely bonkers when it comes to cyclists. It's utterly barmy and baffling.
It's jealously. Motorists see my calf muscles go momentarily insane.
I had a shout-off with some driver in a huge fuck off (but white) Jeep Cherokee this morning. I just think many drivers resent the freedom of movement of cyclists. They don't like cyclists filtering either which I think is part of this.
Unless its a London thing, I think cyclists overestimate how much drivers dislike them. Some drivers are just douchebags, some cyclists are just douchebags, and I'm more likely to get into an argument with another driver than a cyclist.
This morning I had a shout-off (or exchange of banged horns) after I indicated to show I was pulling into the right hand lane, the driver behind in the right hand-lane saw my indicator and took that as a dare to close the gap instead of letting me in, and I pulled in safely anyway. Day before I shouted at another road user to use their indicator after they went around a roundabout in a dangerous manner without using their indicator.
Before that I hadn't been annoyed with any other road use in months and its an extremely long time since a cyclist has pissed me off (red light as almost always).
Sometimes people just don't like other road users for how they're acting. Whether that be people who ride through red lights, or people who don't use their indicator or those who take the indicator as a challenge, its not about cyclist or driver per se.
It's a numbers game, really. As a cyclist you spend a lot of time being overtaken by cars for obvious reasons. So 99 go past perfectly normally and 1 idiot comes too close or shouts at you just for being there, and that's the one you remember. It's easy to feel like everyone hates you because that's just how memory works.
This applies to lots of other situations too, of course. The memorability of extreme examples the main engine of all polarisation.
Exactly! Completely agreed!
It happens in lots of situations as you said.
I enjoy strategy games and play some online which rely upon an RNG for dice rolls or equivalent. The amount of people who complain online that the RNG is "broken" because they rolled a 1 or skull or double 1 or whatever at a critical moment is always amusing. They remember every critical failure but don't think about all their critical successes they got.
If you roll a d6 100 times, you should expect ~17 of them to be a 1. You can expect ~3-4 pairs to be double-1. When it happens it doesn't mean you're unlucky overall or the RNG is broken because it happened - your memory is just playing tricks with you.
Although the "cyclists need insurance" brigade do have a point. Liability insurance for cyclists is quite sensible.
Adult cyclists who cycle on pavements, which is unlawful, with a "get out of my way, pedestrian scum" attitude, being too wimpy and scared to ride on the roads, need bans slapped on them by magistrates. (It would only take a few Cambridge fellows to feel the long arm of the law for the others to feel "encouraged".)
Guidance from the Police Chief's Association accepts that adults cycling on pavements is OK, when the road is too dangerous, and it is done considerately - as in the vast majority of cases. Guidance was issued in 1999 by the Home Secretary when it became an "offence", and reaffirmed in 2014. The recent case of the manslaughter of the elderly cyclist demonstrates the need, until such time as we have safe facilities everywhere:
The "cyclists need insurance" brigade have no point whatsoever, except in their own sawdust-filled heads.
Lability insurance for people riding bikes usually comes for free with a home contents policy. Some of us have extra insurance via memberships or specialist policies. I have that because I know many motorist vehicle drivers will lie to the police and then lie to the court, and I will need ferocious lawyers should the worst happen, potentially for a civil claim.
These insurance companies include liability insurance in their Home Contents policies:
Apologies for introducing evidence to the debate.
Normally placid people go absolutely bonkers when it comes to cyclists. It's utterly barmy and baffling.
Indeed but the bonkers replies to my quite harmless post about cycling liability insurance has come from a couple of cyclists it would seem.
I’m a cyclist myself. I have liability insurance through cycling U.K.
I’m afraid, as much as there are cycling hating car drivers the same is true aim reverse about some cyclists. Bordering on the deranged when it comes to car drivers.
The way to avoid populism and populist parties is for the traditional parties to avoid straying too far from what ordinary people believe on most issues. There weren't any fringe populist parties in the 1980s because Margaret Thatcher's Tories were mostly in touch with conservative-minded voters. At the 1983 and 1987 elections it's notable how almost every constituency had just 3 candidates (or 4 in Scotland and Wales). Conservative, Labour, SDP/Liberal Alliance were the only parties standing in the vast majority of seats.
Although the "cyclists need insurance" brigade do have a point. Liability insurance for cyclists is quite sensible.
Adult cyclists who cycle on pavements, which is unlawful, with a "get out of my way, pedestrian scum" attitude, being too wimpy and scared to ride on the roads, need bans slapped on them by magistrates. (It would only take a few Cambridge fellows to feel the long arm of the law for the others to feel "encouraged".)
Guidance from the Police Chief's Association accepts that adults cycling on pavements is OK, when the road is too dangerous, and it is done considerately - as in the vast majority of cases. Guidance was issued in 1999 by the Home Secretary when it became an "offence", and reaffirmed in 2014. The recent case of the manslaughter of the elderly cyclist demonstrates the need, until such time as we have safe facilities everywhere:
The "cyclists need insurance" brigade have no point whatsoever, except in their own sawdust-filled heads.
Lability insurance for people riding bikes usually comes for free with a home contents policy. Some of us have extra insurance via memberships or specialist policies. I have that because I know many motorist vehicle drivers will lie to the police and then lie to the court, and I will need ferocious lawyers should the worst happen, potentially for a civil claim.
These insurance companies include liability insurance in their Home Contents policies:
Apologies for introducing evidence to the debate.
Normally placid people go absolutely bonkers when it comes to cyclists. It's utterly barmy and baffling.
It's jealously. Motorists see my calf muscles go momentarily insane.
I had a shout-off with some driver in a huge fuck off (but white) Jeep Cherokee this morning. I just think many drivers resent the freedom of movement of cyclists. They don't like cyclists filtering either which I think is part of this.
I think its more to do with power and vulnerability.
I've heard people say that cycling is the closest you can feel to being a member of an outgroup in the UK. You exist at the whims of drivers and a few of them are bastards. They perceive you as less then them and are quite happy to show you this.
Pedestrians, surely. Cyclists all too often have the car driver attitude to pedestrians.
Although the "cyclists need insurance" brigade do have a point. Liability insurance for cyclists is quite sensible.
Adult cyclists who cycle on pavements, which is unlawful, with a "get out of my way, pedestrian scum" attitude, being too wimpy and scared to ride on the roads, need bans slapped on them by magistrates. (It would only take a few Cambridge fellows to feel the long arm of the law for the others to feel "encouraged".)
Guidance from the Police Chief's Association accepts that adults cycling on pavements is OK, when the road is too dangerous, and it is done considerately - as in the vast majority of cases. Guidance was issued in 1999 by the Home Secretary when it became an "offence", and reaffirmed in 2014. The recent case of the manslaughter of the elderly cyclist demonstrates the need, until such time as we have safe facilities everywhere:
The "cyclists need insurance" brigade have no point whatsoever, except in their own sawdust-filled heads.
Lability insurance for people riding bikes usually comes for free with a home contents policy. Some of us have extra insurance via memberships or specialist policies. I have that because I know many motorist vehicle drivers will lie to the police and then lie to the court, and I will need ferocious lawyers should the worst happen, potentially for a civil claim.
These insurance companies include liability insurance in their Home Contents policies:
Apologies for introducing evidence to the debate.
Normally placid people go absolutely bonkers when it comes to cyclists. It's utterly barmy and baffling.
It's jealously. Motorists see my calf muscles go momentarily insane.
I had a shout-off with some driver in a huge fuck off (but white) Jeep Cherokee this morning. I just think many drivers resent the freedom of movement of cyclists. They don't like cyclists filtering either which I think is part of this.
I have to say, depending on the situation, I don't filter. It's nice not to be breathing in the fumes in the middle of the queue, but I hate the lights changing mid-filter. You don't want to be stuck inbetween two lines of cars because people feel ok undertaking when you're on the dashed lines. Which is mad, but it goes on. At traffic lights I always want to be in the middle of a lane until I've cleared the junction because it removes all temptation for the car to squeeze past.
I don't filter as a matter of course. On my (motor)bike yes of course I did but I still idly pondered who many thousands of cars I passed when only one of them would have to be not paying attention and do something stupid to take me out.
There are known choke points in London where filtering makes sense because either there is no cycle bit or someone has blocked it. I don't love it but otherwise you are stuck behind a white van parked on the left with nowhere to squeeze through.
Although the "cyclists need insurance" brigade do have a point. Liability insurance for cyclists is quite sensible.
Adult cyclists who cycle on pavements, which is unlawful, with a "get out of my way, pedestrian scum" attitude, being too wimpy and scared to ride on the roads, need bans slapped on them by magistrates. (It would only take a few Cambridge fellows to feel the long arm of the law for the others to feel "encouraged".)
Guidance from the Police Chief's Association accepts that adults cycling on pavements is OK, when the road is too dangerous, and it is done considerately - as in the vast majority of cases. Guidance was issued in 1999 by the Home Secretary when it became an "offence", and reaffirmed in 2014. The recent case of the manslaughter of the elderly cyclist demonstrates the need, until such time as we have safe facilities everywhere:
The "cyclists need insurance" brigade have no point whatsoever, except in their own sawdust-filled heads.
Lability insurance for people riding bikes usually comes for free with a home contents policy. Some of us have extra insurance via memberships or specialist policies. I have that because I know many motorist vehicle drivers will lie to the police and then lie to the court, and I will need ferocious lawyers should the worst happen, potentially for a civil claim.
These insurance companies include liability insurance in their Home Contents policies:
Apologies for introducing evidence to the debate.
Normally placid people go absolutely bonkers when it comes to cyclists. It's utterly barmy and baffling.
It's jealously. Motorists see my calf muscles go momentarily insane.
I had a shout-off with some driver in a huge fuck off (but white) Jeep Cherokee this morning. I just think many drivers resent the freedom of movement of cyclists. They don't like cyclists filtering either which I think is part of this.
Unless its a London thing, I think cyclists overestimate how much drivers dislike them. Some drivers are just douchebags, some cyclists are just douchebags, and I'm more likely to get into an argument with another driver than a cyclist.
This morning I had a shout-off (or exchange of banged horns) after I indicated to show I was pulling into the right hand lane, the driver behind in the right hand-lane saw my indicator and took that as a dare to close the gap instead of letting me in, and I pulled in safely anyway. Day before I shouted at another road user to use their indicator after they went around a roundabout in a dangerous manner without using their indicator.
Before that I hadn't been annoyed with any other road use in months and its an extremely long time since a cyclist has pissed me off (red light as almost always).
Sometimes people just don't like other road users for how they're acting. Whether that be people who ride through red lights, or people who don't use their indicator or those who take the indicator as a challenge, its not about cyclist or driver per se.
It's a numbers game, really. As a cyclist you spend a lot of time being overtaken by cars for obvious reasons. So 99 go past perfectly normally and 1 idiot comes too close or shouts at you just for being there, and that's the one you remember. It's easy to feel like everyone hates you because that's just how memory works.
This applies to lots of other situations too, of course. The memorability of extreme examples the main engine of all polarisation.
I'm just back from a cycling holiday and we only had one bad pass the whole time out of hundreds. We were on a Sustrans route and we even had drivers stopping and asking us how we were getting on, telling us about good pubs etc.
That one pass nearly killed us though, so it does stick in the mind.
THIS is now confirmed by the Wall Street Journal AND the New York Times, all released by officials of the Biden admin
"That a pandemic caused by a bat coronavirus started in the city with the world’s largest programme of research into bat coronaviruses was always intriguing. That among the first people to get ill with allegedly Covid-like symptoms in the month the pandemic began were three scientists working in that lab was highly suspicious.
"Now that we know their names, we find one of them was collecting what turned out to be the closest cousins of Sars-CoV-2 at the time, and another was doing the very experiments that could have created the virus. These revelations make it almost a slam dunk for the coronavirus lab-leak hypothesis."
THIS is now confirmed by the Wall Street Journal AND the New York Times, all released by officials of the Biden admin
"That a pandemic caused by a bat coronavirus started in the city with the world’s largest programme of research into bat coronaviruses was always intriguing. That among the first people to get ill with allegedly Covid-like symptoms in the month the pandemic began were three scientists working in that lab was highly suspicious.
"Now that we know their names, we find one of them was collecting what turned out to be the closest cousins of Sars-CoV-2 at the time, and another was doing the very experiments that could have created the virus. These revelations make it almost a slam dunk for the coronavirus lab-leak hypothesis."
Although the "cyclists need insurance" brigade do have a point. Liability insurance for cyclists is quite sensible.
It's a ludicrous idea.
We all do things that could in theory expose us to liability to a third party. Your dog might bite someone. Your lawnmower might damage a neighbour's gnome. You might knock over a shelf of pottery in a shop. You might injure someone with an ill-timed challenge in an informal game of park football.
We don't insist on people getting liability insurance for these activities because the risk of a claim arising is low, and the likelihood of it being a high value claim even if it does is low (i.e. if there is a legal claim against you, there's a good chance you'd be able to pay without claiming on insurance). We make an exception for motor insurance as the inherent risk from driving around several tonnes of metal at potentially some speed is pretty high - we don't have a high accident rate in the UK, but where they do happen the damage to property and people can be pretty catastrophic and beyond the means of the person claimed against.
That is not to diminish the fact that on very rare occasions, an irresponsible person on a bike can cause significant damage. But compared with motor vehicles it is simply incredibly unusual to have situations where lack of third party insurance is an issue for the injured party.
Dog owners should probably have third party liability insurance.
Bank has said more tightening is needed with near 6% predicted
Seems wage growth over 7% plus the 10.1% triple lock and benefits increases with rises in the national living wage have been the main drivers
The triple lock is going to become a millstone round this country’s neck as time progresses. Almost impossible to kill politically, but progressively starving the working population of the share of their own output that would enable them to afford to life in modern Britain.
I have a Labour / LibDem floating voter relative of pension age who totally agrees with you.
What's worst is that the triple lock isn't helping the poorest pensioners but making the life of relatively well off pensioners even better off..
I think you mean what is best about it, from a politicians perspective.
Although the "cyclists need insurance" brigade do have a point. Liability insurance for cyclists is quite sensible.
Adult cyclists who cycle on pavements, which is unlawful, with a "get out of my way, pedestrian scum" attitude, being too wimpy and scared to ride on the roads, need bans slapped on them by magistrates. (It would only take a few Cambridge fellows to feel the long arm of the law for the others to feel "encouraged".)
Guidance from the Police Chief's Association accepts that adults cycling on pavements is OK, when the road is too dangerous, and it is done considerately - as in the vast majority of cases. Guidance was issued in 1999 by the Home Secretary when it became an "offence", and reaffirmed in 2014. The recent case of the manslaughter of the elderly cyclist demonstrates the need, until such time as we have safe facilities everywhere:
The "cyclists need insurance" brigade have no point whatsoever, except in their own sawdust-filled heads.
Lability insurance for people riding bikes usually comes for free with a home contents policy. Some of us have extra insurance via memberships or specialist policies. I have that because I know many motorist vehicle drivers will lie to the police and then lie to the court, and I will need ferocious lawyers should the worst happen, potentially for a civil claim.
These insurance companies include liability insurance in their Home Contents policies:
Apologies for introducing evidence to the debate.
Normally placid people go absolutely bonkers when it comes to cyclists. It's utterly barmy and baffling.
It's jealously. Motorists see my calf muscles go momentarily insane.
I had a shout-off with some driver in a huge fuck off (but white) Jeep Cherokee this morning. I just think many drivers resent the freedom of movement of cyclists. They don't like cyclists filtering either which I think is part of this.
I think its more to do with power and vulnerability.
I've heard people say that cycling is the closest you can feel to being a member of an outgroup in the UK. You exist at the whims of drivers and a few of them are bastards. They perceive you as less then them and are quite happy to show you this.
Interesting. I actually feel superior to them and that's not just because I very likely am superior to them regardless of transport mode: I feel superior as a cyclist to them as a motorist because unless there is an open road (rare in London) I am going to at least match if not beat them over the next two miles and I am having much more fun cycling than they are driving.
Even if inflation falls Sunak can hardly bring out the bunting given to get there it would have driven many people to lose their homes .
On another note am I the only one fed up of the moralizing crap from people who seek to judge those who just wanted to own their own home . The situation was vastly different 20 years ago .
People took out mortgages and could never have envisaged the rapid change in interest rates over the space of just over a year.
There seems to be a lot of mean spiritedness about which I find appalling when some people are going to be sick with worry over what will happen to their mortgages .
Indeed. PB at its curtain-twitching worst.
Yuk.
It boils my piss.
If you are under the age of 45 the economy has handed you a shit sandwich and getting onto the housing ladder has been the only, narrow window for material advancement.
As usual, the boomers have no idea and merely pour scorn on those that follow. This, even as their last great idea, Brexit, is widely understood as an absolute disaster.
As someone in my early 30s I also find it increasingly annoying that we have not only been handed a shitty economy but that if any of us argue for a better one, or a better future in general, we often get called entitled or (as we have been discussing today) "elites".
'@GoodwinMJ · 17h The old elite projected their social status through their wealth, estates & titles. The new elite project their status & distinguish themselves from the masses by preaching radical woke progressivism'
Goodwin is really disappearing ever deeper up his own backside.
Yes. It is quite evident that the new elite project their status & distinguish themselves from the masses by uttering mantras which *appear* to be progressive.
The reality is nothing changes, but they all give each other awards for being on message - see the revelation about how much money the Met Police spends on awarding itself awards.
Goodwin just isn't thinking structurally about who the 'elite' are. Being an academic, he probably thinks that leftie academics with pride flags in their twitter profile are a part of the elite - ie it's pure narcissism. The elite are people who control the levers of political and economic power, ie people in business and finance and the Tory party. These are not people you will bump into at a BLM protest, believe me.
The whole misuse of the concept of "elites" by people like HYUFD strikes me as so much playing with fire. To hear populist narratives coming out of the mouths of "conservatives" is disturbing.
The danger is that normalising such language opens the door of the town hall to far worse people than either the stupid conservatives speaking like this or the stupid people they are trying to attack.
Populism isn't a plaything. It's a vicious weapon that should only be unleashed when it's really, really needed. If your target is tweedy academics and pride flags, you can be damn sure it's not needed.
Yes, reading the Spectator these days is like reading a student Trotskyist pamphlet: full of talk of 'our rulers', 'the ruling class', 'the ruling elite' etc. My theory is that a certain type of middle-class conservative bitterly regrets letting the 1970s and punk rock pass them by and is desperate for another go.
Goodwin just dislikes the evolution of societal norms. Most of Goodwin's recent book (which has very few actual citations for an academic) claims that the new "elite" are essentially just all university graduates, women, and ethnic or sexual minorities, and the old elite are white working class people and the elderly. Which is clearly not the case, that's just generational divide.
The "elite" are the same people who have owned and controlled land since their ancestors landed on these shores in 1066. The "elite" are the same narrow group of people who go to one of two or three public schools and one of two universities. The "elite" are the people who have the opportunity to leverage their preexisting wealth and networks into cushy jobs where they can publish in national newspapers on a regular basis or get a peerage before the age of 30.
What the new generation have is the ability for the old elites to hear them, because social media allows the plebs to shout at anyone. They also have more willingness to "talk back" to their "betters". Graduates may have more pluralistic attitudes because they interact with a different set of people whilst at university - people from across the country and across the world.
I want to know what significant impact the "new elite" have had. If we're talking about the press - that's overwhelming right wing in this country. The government has been right wing / centrist since Thatcher. Yes, we have progressed on open racism, sexism and homophobia - but barely and only if it is really obvious (in his book Goodwin complains that the "new elite" think doing accents and complaining that people don't speak English in the UK are racist is bad, actually, and thinks that we should define the number of people who hold racially prejudicial views on the basis of a poll that asked people if they self defined as racist).
The problem with Goodwin, HYUFD, and a lot of British conservatism is they're complaining about winning too much. They won the economic argument - everyone's a Thatcherite now. They won on the EU - we're leaving. They won most of the culture war - gay rights begins and ends with the right to act like straight people with same sex marriage, and it's more important that 5 rich people are likely dead out of their own hubris than it is 500 migrants were killed when their boat was sank. But winning doesn't make your enemies shut up and respect you, and that's what they want - for the goddamn poors and women and gays and ethnics to just accept their place in the world and stop asking for a better world. They believe it was shit for them (despite most of them living through the golden age of the welfare state and investment into their progress) and therefore demand that it must be shit for the rest of us. "Didn't do me any harm..." etc etc, bullcrap bullcrap
The liberal elite won the culture war, we have homosexual marriage, abortion near on demand up to 24 weeks, Pride days even in corporations, religious teachers sacked for teaching traditional views of gender and sexuality, migration to the UK higher than ever before even despite Brexit, statues being pulled down in big cities and museums. Social liberalism and anti Brexit views dominate the ranks of academia, the civil service, lawyers, big corporations and TV news from the BBC to Channel 4.
Even the economic argument the right was alleged to have won is looking shaky with the tax burden high and likely to get even higher under a Starmer government, increasing public spending and things which were privatised like railways now being drawn up by stealth under public ownership. While the Unions are shaking their fists again and striking for huge wage rises.
The elite is also different, the rich list in the Sunday Times is now mainly self made entrepreneurs, whereas in the early 1980s it was mainly landowners and inherited wealth. Public schools are now seeing pupils being rejected from Oxbridge more than ever, with 65% of Oxford and 70% of Cambridge students from state schools and even most Tory MPs now state educated.
Social liberalism won the culture war. That doesn’t mean the “liberal elite” won it. Rather, the public at large threw off the social conservatism of the then elite.
High migration isn’t proof of a ruling liberal elite: high migration is the result of Conservative Party policies.
And saying 65% of Oxford’s intake is from state schools is an odd way of saying the privately educated are still massively over-represented at Oxford.
High migration is a result of the ruling elite not fulling implementing the Brexit vote to cut immigration.
The public at large was always more socially conservative than the elite, check polls on homosexuality in the 1980s or the death penalty now.
About 40% of top A grades and A* grades at A level go to private school pupils yet now over 70% of Cambridge students went to state schools. Indeed access schemes give places at some Oxbridge pupils to state school pupils with only 3 Bs
The Brexit vote was to control immigration, not to cut it. You may not have realised that, not having voted for Brexit.
Opinion polls suggest that post-Brexit most people are happy with immigration now levels now that it is controlled. The number of people concerned about immigration levels has collapsed post-Brexit referendum.
If that's what helps you sleep at night but the reality is that for many people, perhaps a majority of your fellow Brexit voters, Brexit was about reducing immigration.
"Oh but we love immigrants but just want a say in which ones we accept" is comforting for you to parrot but conflicts with the reality.
Sorry but both the rhetoric and the outcome and the numbers backs what I said.
The rhetoric was about controlled immigration.
The outcome is that immigration is now controlled, not cut.
And the numbers show most people are happy, not feeling betrayed, about that.
It wasn't a majority.
Lord Ashcroft's election day poll of 12,369 voters also discovered that 'One third (33%) [of leave voters] said the main reason was that leaving "offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders."'.[3]
Sorry, who said anything about a majority?
Either way your quote proves my point. "Control" was the rhetoric and what people voted for.
What is a majority is that a majority now that its controlled are happy with migration either as it is or higher than it is.
Since taking back control of immigration more people now want migration to stay the same or increase than to see it reduced. The polar opposite was the case pre-control. Voting for control has worked, people are happy with controlled migration, even if its at high levels, so win/win.
The media #FBPE mob do appear awfully unhappy, at the kindness of the British government, and people, towards Hong Kongers and Ukranians.
Although the "cyclists need insurance" brigade do have a point. Liability insurance for cyclists is quite sensible.
Adult cyclists who cycle on pavements, which is unlawful, with a "get out of my way, pedestrian scum" attitude, being too wimpy and scared to ride on the roads, need bans slapped on them by magistrates. (It would only take a few Cambridge fellows to feel the long arm of the law for the others to feel "encouraged".)
Guidance from the Police Chief's Association accepts that adults cycling on pavements is OK, when the road is too dangerous, and it is done considerately - as in the vast majority of cases. Guidance was issued in 1999 by the Home Secretary when it became an "offence", and reaffirmed in 2014. The recent case of the manslaughter of the elderly cyclist demonstrates the need, until such time as we have safe facilities everywhere:
The "cyclists need insurance" brigade have no point whatsoever, except in their own sawdust-filled heads.
Lability insurance for people riding bikes usually comes for free with a home contents policy. Some of us have extra insurance via memberships or specialist policies. I have that because I know many motorist vehicle drivers will lie to the police and then lie to the court, and I will need ferocious lawyers should the worst happen, potentially for a civil claim.
These insurance companies include liability insurance in their Home Contents policies:
Apologies for introducing evidence to the debate.
Normally placid people go absolutely bonkers when it comes to cyclists. It's utterly barmy and baffling.
It's jealously. Motorists see my calf muscles go momentarily insane.
I had a shout-off with some driver in a huge fuck off (but white) Jeep Cherokee this morning. I just think many drivers resent the freedom of movement of cyclists. They don't like cyclists filtering either which I think is part of this.
Unless its a London thing, I think cyclists overestimate how much drivers dislike them. Some drivers are just douchebags, some cyclists are just douchebags, and I'm more likely to get into an argument with another driver than a cyclist.
This morning I had a shout-off (or exchange of banged horns) after I indicated to show I was pulling into the right hand lane, the driver behind in the right hand-lane saw my indicator and took that as a dare to close the gap instead of letting me in, and I pulled in safely anyway. Day before I shouted at another road user to use their indicator after they went around a roundabout in a dangerous manner without using their indicator.
Before that I hadn't been annoyed with any other road use in months and its an extremely long time since a cyclist has pissed me off (red light as almost always).
Sometimes people just don't like other road users for how they're acting. Whether that be people who ride through red lights, or people who don't use their indicator or those who take the indicator as a challenge, its not about cyclist or driver per se.
It's a numbers game, really. As a cyclist you spend a lot of time being overtaken by cars for obvious reasons. So 99 go past perfectly normally and 1 idiot comes too close or shouts at you just for being there, and that's the one you remember. It's easy to feel like everyone hates you because that's just how memory works.
This applies to lots of other situations too, of course. The memorability of extreme examples the main engine of all polarisation.
I'm just back from a cycling holiday and we only had one bad pass the whole time out of hundreds. We were on a Sustrans route and we even had drivers stopping and asking us how we were getting on, telling us about good pubs etc.
That one pass nearly killed us though, so it does stick in the mind.
THIS is now confirmed by the Wall Street Journal AND the New York Times, all released by officials of the Biden admin
"That a pandemic caused by a bat coronavirus started in the city with the world’s largest programme of research into bat coronaviruses was always intriguing. That among the first people to get ill with allegedly Covid-like symptoms in the month the pandemic began were three scientists working in that lab was highly suspicious.
"Now that we know their names, we find one of them was collecting what turned out to be the closest cousins of Sars-CoV-2 at the time, and another was doing the very experiments that could have created the virus. These revelations make it almost a slam dunk for the coronavirus lab-leak hypothesis."
I am available for personal apologies via DM, if that is emotionally impossible, you can buy me a bottle of decent Englush fizz. Thanks
Oh God, you've said this 6 trillion times. We get it. Enuff
To be fair to Leon, there are STILL some posters that airily say, “oh, it must have been the market because..”
I know, it's incredible. And I bet - as I have said - that some will STILL say this, or modified versions of it. "Oh we can never know, and most viruses are zoonotic", "we haven't really got hard evidence", all that shite
The fact is, the first three people to catch a genetically modified novel bat coronavirus were the three scientists genetically modifying a novel bat coronavirus: in the only lab in the world which was genetically modifying a novel bat coronavirus
In a courtroom, that would get a conviction. It is now beyond reasonable doubt. But there will still be unreasonable doubt, just you watch
Although the "cyclists need insurance" brigade do have a point. Liability insurance for cyclists is quite sensible.
Adult cyclists who cycle on pavements, which is unlawful, with a "get out of my way, pedestrian scum" attitude, being too wimpy and scared to ride on the roads, need bans slapped on them by magistrates. (It would only take a few Cambridge fellows to feel the long arm of the law for the others to feel "encouraged".)
Guidance from the Police Chief's Association accepts that adults cycling on pavements is OK, when the road is too dangerous, and it is done considerately - as in the vast majority of cases. Guidance was issued in 1999 by the Home Secretary when it became an "offence", and reaffirmed in 2014. The recent case of the manslaughter of the elderly cyclist demonstrates the need, until such time as we have safe facilities everywhere:
The "cyclists need insurance" brigade have no point whatsoever, except in their own sawdust-filled heads.
Lability insurance for people riding bikes usually comes for free with a home contents policy. Some of us have extra insurance via memberships or specialist policies. I have that because I know many motorist vehicle drivers will lie to the police and then lie to the court, and I will need ferocious lawyers should the worst happen, potentially for a civil claim.
These insurance companies include liability insurance in their Home Contents policies:
Apologies for introducing evidence to the debate.
Normally placid people go absolutely bonkers when it comes to cyclists. It's utterly barmy and baffling.
It's jealously. Motorists see my calf muscles go momentarily insane.
I had a shout-off with some driver in a huge fuck off (but white) Jeep Cherokee this morning. I just think many drivers resent the freedom of movement of cyclists. They don't like cyclists filtering either which I think is part of this.
I think its more to do with power and vulnerability.
I've heard people say that cycling is the closest you can feel to being a member of an outgroup in the UK. You exist at the whims of drivers and a few of them are bastards. They perceive you as less then them and are quite happy to show you this.
Pedestrians, surely. Cyclists all too often have the car driver attitude to pedestrians.
Not sure. Maybe its the same bastards in cars as on bikes, certainly the same mindset.
I would say its harder to dehumanise a pedestrian as it is a cyclist as pretty much everyone walks somewhere.
THIS is now confirmed by the Wall Street Journal AND the New York Times, all info released by officials of the Biden admin
"That a pandemic caused by a bat coronavirus started in the city with the world’s largest programme of research into bat coronaviruses was always intriguing. That among the first people to get ill with allegedly Covid-like symptoms in the month the pandemic began were three scientists working in that lab was highly suspicious.
"Now that we know their names, we find one of them was collecting what turned out to be the closest cousins of Sars-CoV-2 at the time, and another was doing the very experiments that could have created the virus. These revelations make it almost a slam dunk for the coronavirus lab-leak hypothesis."
I am available for personal apologies via DM, if that is emotionally impossible, you can buy me a bottle of decent English fizz. Thanks
It did seem very likely to me that this was one 'conspiracy theory' that might turn out to be true. Although I'm not convinced the sources here are any better than the UFO ones, so I'd like to see some confirmation from something other than a whispered conversation in a car park over a cigarette.
Assuming it is true, who will be paying the highest reparation? Russia or China?
THIS is now confirmed by the Wall Street Journal AND the New York Times, all info released by officials of the Biden admin
"That a pandemic caused by a bat coronavirus started in the city with the world’s largest programme of research into bat coronaviruses was always intriguing. That among the first people to get ill with allegedly Covid-like symptoms in the month the pandemic began were three scientists working in that lab was highly suspicious.
"Now that we know their names, we find one of them was collecting what turned out to be the closest cousins of Sars-CoV-2 at the time, and another was doing the very experiments that could have created the virus. These revelations make it almost a slam dunk for the coronavirus lab-leak hypothesis."
I am available for personal apologies via DM, if that is emotionally impossible, you can buy me a bottle of decent English fizz. Thanks
Did that many people think it was that ludicrous an hypothesis? I certainly didn't. Assuming this is correct, I am not sure it exactly makes you Nostradamus.
I think we would all owe you an apology if we did wake up and realise that our government had genuinely been taken over by the lizard people (no obvious jokes please) and that flying saucers had gained regular slots at Heathrow.
I think one of your other attempts at futurology involved advice to me that there was no need for me to book any skiing holidays as we would all be blown back to the dark ages by Putin's nuclear wrath by mid February. I ignored that advice, funnily enough.
If two or three more of your doom forecasts come true, then we will all become believers in Leon The Clairvoyant One. But not until Old Chap.
THIS is now confirmed by the Wall Street Journal AND the New York Times, all released by officials of the Biden admin
"That a pandemic caused by a bat coronavirus started in the city with the world’s largest programme of research into bat coronaviruses was always intriguing. That among the first people to get ill with allegedly Covid-like symptoms in the month the pandemic began were three scientists working in that lab was highly suspicious.
"Now that we know their names, we find one of them was collecting what turned out to be the closest cousins of Sars-CoV-2 at the time, and another was doing the very experiments that could have created the virus. These revelations make it almost a slam dunk for the coronavirus lab-leak hypothesis."
I am available for personal apologies via DM, if that is emotionally impossible, you can buy me a bottle of decent Englush fizz. Thanks
Oh God, you've said this 6 trillion times. We get it. Enuff
To be fair to Leon, there are STILL some posters that airily say, “oh, it must have been the market because..”
I know, it's incredible. And I bet - as I have said - that some will STILL say this, or modified versions of it. "Oh we can never know, and most viruses are zoonotic", "we haven't really got hard evidence", all that shite
The fact is, the first three people to catch a genetically modified novel bat coronavirus were the three scientists genetically modifying a novel bat coronavirus: in the only lab in the world which was genetically modifying a novel bat coronavirus
In a courtroom, that would get a conviction. It is now beyond reasonable doubt. But there will still be unreasonable doubt, just you watch
Why did they try to stop people saying this all along?
Even if inflation falls Sunak can hardly bring out the bunting given to get there it would have driven many people to lose their homes .
On another note am I the only one fed up of the moralizing crap from people who seek to judge those who just wanted to own their own home . The situation was vastly different 20 years ago .
People took out mortgages and could never have envisaged the rapid change in interest rates over the space of just over a year.
There seems to be a lot of mean spiritedness about which I find appalling when some people are going to be sick with worry over what will happen to their mortgages .
Indeed. PB at its curtain-twitching worst.
Yuk.
It boils my piss.
If you are under the age of 45 the economy has handed you a shit sandwich and getting onto the housing ladder has been the only, narrow window for material advancement.
As usual, the boomers have no idea and merely pour scorn on those that follow. This, even as their last great idea, Brexit, is widely understood as an absolute disaster.
As someone in my early 30s I also find it increasingly annoying that we have not only been handed a shitty economy but that if any of us argue for a better one, or a better future in general, we often get called entitled or (as we have been discussing today) "elites".
It's weird that the sub 30s make up a small part of the population, and have only been economically active a short time, yet its their profligacy and entitlement which must be addressed to fix things.
Lord knows post Millennials have their annoyances but I think detective poirot can search for other suspects.
Although the "cyclists need insurance" brigade do have a point. Liability insurance for cyclists is quite sensible.
Adult cyclists who cycle on pavements, which is unlawful, with a "get out of my way, pedestrian scum" attitude, being too wimpy and scared to ride on the roads, need bans slapped on them by magistrates. (It would only take a few Cambridge fellows to feel the long arm of the law for the others to feel "encouraged".)
Guidance from the Police Chief's Association accepts that adults cycling on pavements is OK, when the road is too dangerous, and it is done considerately - as in the vast majority of cases. Guidance was issued in 1999 by the Home Secretary when it became an "offence", and reaffirmed in 2014. The recent case of the manslaughter of the elderly cyclist demonstrates the need, until such time as we have safe facilities everywhere:
The "cyclists need insurance" brigade have no point whatsoever, except in their own sawdust-filled heads.
Lability insurance for people riding bikes usually comes for free with a home contents policy. Some of us have extra insurance via memberships or specialist policies. I have that because I know many motorist vehicle drivers will lie to the police and then lie to the court, and I will need ferocious lawyers should the worst happen, potentially for a civil claim.
These insurance companies include liability insurance in their Home Contents policies:
Apologies for introducing evidence to the debate.
Normally placid people go absolutely bonkers when it comes to cyclists. It's utterly barmy and baffling.
It's jealously. Motorists see my calf muscles go momentarily insane.
I had a shout-off with some driver in a huge fuck off (but white) Jeep Cherokee this morning. I just think many drivers resent the freedom of movement of cyclists. They don't like cyclists filtering either which I think is part of this.
Unless its a London thing, I think cyclists overestimate how much drivers dislike them. Some drivers are just douchebags, some cyclists are just douchebags, and I'm more likely to get into an argument with another driver than a cyclist.
This morning I had a shout-off (or exchange of banged horns) after I indicated to show I was pulling into the right hand lane, the driver behind in the right hand-lane saw my indicator and took that as a dare to close the gap instead of letting me in, and I pulled in safely anyway. Day before I shouted at another road user to use their indicator after they went around a roundabout in a dangerous manner without using their indicator.
Before that I hadn't been annoyed with any other road use in months and its an extremely long time since a cyclist has pissed me off (red light as almost always).
Sometimes people just don't like other road users for how they're acting. Whether that be people who ride through red lights, or people who don't use their indicator or those who take the indicator as a challenge, its not about cyclist or driver per se.
It’s probably a London, or big city, thing. Angry cycling twitter does seem to be predominantly London based and I get the impression some of the cyclists go looking for stuff to post about and complain about.
People seem to have more problems in 1 week than I have had in the last decade.
I’ve had to block Jeremy Vine as he keeps being tweeted into my timeline. The guy seems deranged in his view of motorists.
THIS is now confirmed by the Wall Street Journal AND the New York Times, all info released by officials of the Biden admin
"That a pandemic caused by a bat coronavirus started in the city with the world’s largest programme of research into bat coronaviruses was always intriguing. That among the first people to get ill with allegedly Covid-like symptoms in the month the pandemic began were three scientists working in that lab was highly suspicious.
"Now that we know their names, we find one of them was collecting what turned out to be the closest cousins of Sars-CoV-2 at the time, and another was doing the very experiments that could have created the virus. These revelations make it almost a slam dunk for the coronavirus lab-leak hypothesis."
THIS is now confirmed by the Wall Street Journal AND the New York Times, all released by officials of the Biden admin
"That a pandemic caused by a bat coronavirus started in the city with the world’s largest programme of research into bat coronaviruses was always intriguing. That among the first people to get ill with allegedly Covid-like symptoms in the month the pandemic began were three scientists working in that lab was highly suspicious.
"Now that we know their names, we find one of them was collecting what turned out to be the closest cousins of Sars-CoV-2 at the time, and another was doing the very experiments that could have created the virus. These revelations make it almost a slam dunk for the coronavirus lab-leak hypothesis."
I am available for personal apologies via DM, if that is emotionally impossible, you can buy me a bottle of decent Englush fizz. Thanks
Oh God, you've said this 6 trillion times. We get it. Enuff
To be fair to Leon, there are STILL some posters that airily say, “oh, it must have been the market because..”
I know, it's incredible. And I bet - as I have said - that some will STILL say this, or modified versions of it. "Oh we can never know, and most viruses are zoonotic", "we haven't really got hard evidence", all that shite
The fact is, the first three people to catch a genetically modified novel bat coronavirus were the three scientists genetically modifying a novel bat coronavirus: in the only lab in the world which was genetically modifying a novel bat coronavirus
In a courtroom, that would get a conviction. It is now beyond reasonable doubt. But there will still be unreasonable doubt, just you watch
Why did they try to stop people saying this all along?
Although the "cyclists need insurance" brigade do have a point. Liability insurance for cyclists is quite sensible.
Adult cyclists who cycle on pavements, which is unlawful, with a "get out of my way, pedestrian scum" attitude, being too wimpy and scared to ride on the roads, need bans slapped on them by magistrates. (It would only take a few Cambridge fellows to feel the long arm of the law for the others to feel "encouraged".)
Guidance from the Police Chief's Association accepts that adults cycling on pavements is OK, when the road is too dangerous, and it is done considerately - as in the vast majority of cases. Guidance was issued in 1999 by the Home Secretary when it became an "offence", and reaffirmed in 2014. The recent case of the manslaughter of the elderly cyclist demonstrates the need, until such time as we have safe facilities everywhere:
The "cyclists need insurance" brigade have no point whatsoever, except in their own sawdust-filled heads.
Lability insurance for people riding bikes usually comes for free with a home contents policy. Some of us have extra insurance via memberships or specialist policies. I have that because I know many motorist vehicle drivers will lie to the police and then lie to the court, and I will need ferocious lawyers should the worst happen, potentially for a civil claim.
These insurance companies include liability insurance in their Home Contents policies:
Apologies for introducing evidence to the debate.
Normally placid people go absolutely bonkers when it comes to cyclists. It's utterly barmy and baffling.
It's jealously. Motorists see my calf muscles go momentarily insane.
I had a shout-off with some driver in a huge fuck off (but white) Jeep Cherokee this morning. I just think many drivers resent the freedom of movement of cyclists. They don't like cyclists filtering either which I think is part of this.
I think its more to do with power and vulnerability.
I've heard people say that cycling is the closest you can feel to being a member of an outgroup in the UK. You exist at the whims of drivers and a few of them are bastards. They perceive you as less then them and are quite happy to show you this.
Pedestrians, surely. Cyclists all too often have the car driver attitude to pedestrians.
Not sure. Maybe its the same bastards in cars as on bikes, certainly the same mindset.
I would say its harder to dehumanise a pedestrian as it is a cyclist as pretty much everyone walks somewhere.
This is true - a highly effective way to highlight driver behaviour that endangers cyclists is to do it from a pedestrian perspective. Make sure your bike isn't in the photo.
All the chat about cyclists (tax, insurance, bans) completely is out of proportion. Between 2005 and 2018, 548 pedestrians were killed on pavements. Only 6 of those were by cyclists.
THIS is now confirmed by the Wall Street Journal AND the New York Times, all info released by officials of the Biden admin
"That a pandemic caused by a bat coronavirus started in the city with the world’s largest programme of research into bat coronaviruses was always intriguing. That among the first people to get ill with allegedly Covid-like symptoms in the month the pandemic began were three scientists working in that lab was highly suspicious.
"Now that we know their names, we find one of them was collecting what turned out to be the closest cousins of Sars-CoV-2 at the time, and another was doing the very experiments that could have created the virus. These revelations make it almost a slam dunk for the coronavirus lab-leak hypothesis."
I am available for personal apologies via DM, if that is emotionally impossible, you can buy me a bottle of decent English fizz. Thanks
It did seem very likely that this was one 'conspiracy theory' that might turn out to be true. Although I'm not convinced the sources here are any better than the UFO ones, so I'd like to see some confirmation from something other than a whispered conversation in a car park over a cigarette.
Assuming it is true, who will be paying the highest reparation? Russia or China?
Don't forget the American involvement. The NIH, via Antony Fauci, funded much of the GOF research at Wuhan. Fauci specifically offshored it to avoid the US ban on this dangerous virology
This is one reason that getting the (obvious) truth into the open has been so ludicrously hard. Neither the Chinese nor the Americans are keen on a real investigation
Comments
Yuk.
That's what I did, and the motorist very quickly paid up to replace my bike. Yes, it was entirely their fault too, as the police CCTV would have shown if they'd care to chance it.
Last thing the Banks want is to foreclose on a loan that's bigger than what they'll get from the asset. They're losing money if they do that. Ride it out to the other side as best as can be done is better and leaves the economy in a much healthier place.
Not to say I don't like this new to-the-right-of-Mark Francois @williamglenn but sometimes the auto-responses are a bit too lazy.
I still think you are doing this because it is an amusing role to play (cf your pre-2016 vote persona).
Countries that have attempted to abolish rather than reduce or ameliorate inequality have invariably and inevitably always ended up with more people skipping meals, not fewer.
So I don't support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I'm a Conservative.
https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2011/oct/05/david-cameron-conservative-party-speech
Likely: 52% (+7)
Unlikely: 29% (-5)
via @YouGov, 17-19 Jun
(Changes with 24 Apr)
https://twitter.com/OprosUK/status/1671863328413564928
And I'm the idiot who stops at all the red lights as I see 83% of other cyclists race through them past me.
That's why you see in the US, for example, lots of anti immigrant rhetoric from the right, but when someone like De Santis implements a policy of fining companies $10000 for each illegal immigrant they are found to be using as labour you a) have food shortages in Florida and b) lots of companies (who spend lots of money in GOP primaries) crying that their profits are going down.
It would be quite hard to find worse leaders, and the idea that these far-right gargoyles were anything except incompetent, irresponsible and occasionally pretty sleazy is for the birds. Farage is sharing the blame for the disaster, so despite you echoing Rees Mogg´s witterings, I see no come back for the irresponsible right under whichever brand.
Indeed I see a complete redrawing of the political map.
"Pint of hot whisky and lemon, landlord," says the pony.
"That's an unusual order," says the barman.
"I am a little hoarse."
This morning I had a shout-off (or exchange of banged horns) after I indicated to show I was pulling into the right hand lane, the driver behind in the right hand-lane saw my indicator and took that as a dare to close the gap instead of letting me in, and I pulled in safely anyway. Day before I shouted at another road user to use their indicator after they went around a roundabout in a dangerous manner without using their indicator.
Before that I hadn't been annoyed with any other road use in months and its an extremely long time since a cyclist has pissed me off (red light as almost always).
Sometimes people just don't like other road users for how they're acting. Whether that be people who ride through red lights, or people who don't use their indicator or those who take the indicator as a challenge, its not about cyclist or driver per se.
It's almost as if it's a spoof account!!
They are arseholes though. A little sympathy: it's a tough job on very little pay.
His idea of a holiday but and ben was Skibo Castle.
The Carnegie Birthplace is quite something, to be seen on a day out to Dunfermline besides the abbey and palace.
He was born in *one* of those two weaver's cottages. To which he added this commeorative extension ...
And he funded the Diplodocus dinosaur skeleton excavation, now in the museum at Pittsburgh, and the many plaster casts given to crowned heads (in preference) across the world.
Though not sure about his PR skills re such things as the Pittsburgh steel strike and armed putdown.
https://www.google.com/maps/@56.067968,-3.4616145,3a,90y,82.76h,77.49t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sQCSZa6slmlWn6St5MUQBaQ!2e0!6shttps://streetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com/v1/thumbnail?panoid=QCSZa6slmlWn6St5MUQBaQ&cb_client=maps_sv.tactile.gps&w=203&h=100&yaw=156.65083&pitch=0&thumbfov=100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Andrew+Carnegie+Birthplace+Museum/@56.0679273,-3.4614135,60m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x4887d2208aae94ad:0xc79246be42aba1c0!8m2!3d56.0679133!4d-3.4611761!16s/g/1wd3vmqg?entry=ttu
Take London.
For a start only a smallish minority of Londoners own a car (2.56m cars, 5m electorate approx, 8-9m population), then in every single Outer London Borough more than 80% of private cars are already ULEZ compliant.
Plus there is a remarkable range of short term or long term exceptions.
IMO the Conservatives are nuts trying to weaponise it for their Hail Mary pass.
Because a lot of the issues are Brexit connected and it's the fault of the last 2 that created this mess.
If Osborne hadn't been so "clever" he would now be approaching year 5 of his time as Prime Minister...
But total redistribution or seeking to eliminate equality has never worked and can't work. Any country that has seen it attempted has had millions die from starvation, real starvation not what we have in this country where people may skip a meal but are still fed overall.
You need to operate within the system that works. Getting the balance right on the limited redistribution we can do is difficult and a matter of perpetual political debate, but inequality is not per se a bad thing, people going hungry is. Inequality can lead to fewer rather than more people going hungry - but if it is leading to more, then debate that, not the fact that inequality exists.
Apart from being somewhat up themselves, wearing red cords far too often, and hanging out at a select few London pubs and clubs, ex-officers of HMF are able, because they have had to during their military careers, to communicate with dukes and dustmen and understand "all walks" of society and how to get through to them. It is a surprisingly rare gift.
Most modern politicians might never had to step outside their own social environment and hence not had to learn any or many people skills.
It is a source of interest that many OEs have this ability also. Perhaps it is years of hanging out with their gamekeepers and beaters. And perhaps recent OEs have no such ability as they are often children of financiers and foreign oligarchs.
I’m no big fan of either of those men, but it’s silly to claim they don’t do anything. Both men are talented at creating businesses.
Coughs. 'Me'. Cough.
Makes sense though. The actual cost of claims brought is tiny, due to the very few claims, so why not include?
Though I do worry about @Dura_Ace with his Webley and Scott home insurance policy. Or, rather, I worry for the person DA mows down on a bike who then gets to see how DA's W&S deals with liability claims
I've heard people say that cycling is the closest you can feel to being a member of an outgroup in the UK. You exist at the whims of drivers and a few of them are bastards. They perceive you as less then them and are quite happy to show you this.
This is why socialists argue "socialism or barbarism". The right and centre (and capital) are much more willing to make peace with the far right than they are to give up an inch and move slightly further left. Corbyn had many faults, but his policy positions were not that radical in the grand scheme of history. They are radical now, but that's because the base line of acceptable policy is anything to the left of Thatcher / Blair on the economy is literal Communism. The outrage at the idea that maybe having functional broadband infrastructure for a modern economy as "Broadband Communism" when it was just... infrastructure spending to boost productivity and economic growth, something the New Deal would have done if it were implemented today. I know New Dealism was, at the time, considered a Communist plot by some of the most frothing at the brain right wingers, but what it did was create the broad base working and middle class of a functioning capitalist society by allowing the rich to still get very rich, but making sure that wealth was redistributed to smooth out too much profit seeking and labour discipline. It saved capitalism from itself - boom and bust cycles, monopolies and Robber Barons. That we are closer to the Gilded age then we are the post-war consensus is telling.
"That a pandemic caused by a bat coronavirus started in the city with the world’s largest programme of research into bat coronaviruses was always intriguing. That among the first people to get ill with allegedly Covid-like symptoms in the month the pandemic began were three scientists working in that lab was highly suspicious.
"Now that we know their names, we find one of them was collecting what turned out to be the closest cousins of Sars-CoV-2 at the time, and another was doing the very experiments that could have created the virus. These revelations make it almost a slam dunk for the coronavirus lab-leak hypothesis."
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/wuhan-clan-we-finally-know-the-identity-of-the-scientists-in-the-lab-linked-to-covid/
That's it. Game over
I am available for personal apologies via DM, if that is emotionally impossible, you can buy me a bottle of decent English fizz. Thanks
s for the rest of your rant, yeah, I know why insurance for us cyclists is optional and motorists isn’t.
This applies to lots of other situations too, of course. The memorability of extreme examples the main engine of all polarisation.
One issue is that we have the Daily Mail, Spectator, Daily Telegraph, GB News etc, and various politicians / lobbyists (hello Howard Cox) pumping out BS to their gullible audiences.
And this happens a lot. It is all about consideration for others: cyclists want (reasonably) to be treated with respect by other road users. They should also consider other road - and pavement - users. This seems a strange concept to some of the cycling lobby, for whom the main demand appears to be for *them* to get as quickly from A to B as they can, and sod anyone else.
On the flip side its true many cyclists are mad when it comes to red lights.
Objectively, current national polling has the combined Lab-LibDem vote share between 55-58% and it's holding pretty steady at almost twice the Conservative vote share.
I remain convinced that this is going to be a tory bloodbath.
I recall that the attitude to actually fighting wars also changed on that timescale. Mrs T's cabinet, not to mention the odd Archbishop, had a considerable cadre of former servicemen, often with combat experience.
If you are under the age of 45 the economy has handed you a shit sandwich and getting onto the housing ladder has been the only, narrow window for material advancement.
As usual, the boomers have no idea and merely pour scorn on those that follow. This, even as their last great idea, Brexit, is widely understood as an absolute disaster.
It happens in lots of situations as you said.
I enjoy strategy games and play some online which rely upon an RNG for dice rolls or equivalent. The amount of people who complain online that the RNG is "broken" because they rolled a 1 or skull or double 1 or whatever at a critical moment is always amusing. They remember every critical failure but don't think about all their critical successes they got.
If you roll a d6 100 times, you should expect ~17 of them to be a 1. You can expect ~3-4 pairs to be double-1. When it happens it doesn't mean you're unlucky overall or the RNG is broken because it happened - your memory is just playing tricks with you.
I’m a cyclist myself. I have liability insurance through cycling U.K.
I’m afraid, as much as there are cycling hating car drivers the same is true aim reverse about some cyclists. Bordering on the deranged when it comes to car drivers.
@Nigelb
@Foxy
@kinabalu
@Malmesbury
@turbotubbs
@JosiasJessop
To start with. My righteous and vindicated wrath might - MIGHT - be mollified with large sums of cash, in brown envelopes. Maybe. If you're lucky
There are known choke points in London where filtering makes sense because either there is no cycle bit or someone has blocked it. I don't love it but otherwise you are stuck behind a white van parked on the left with nowhere to squeeze through.
That one pass nearly killed us though, so it does stick in the mind.
I'm not going to demand one though as its not going to be forthcoming.
Ok, I'm on board.
The fact is, the first three people to catch a genetically modified novel bat coronavirus were the three scientists genetically modifying a novel bat coronavirus: in the only lab in the world which was genetically modifying a novel bat coronavirus
In a courtroom, that would get a conviction. It is now beyond reasonable doubt. But there will still be unreasonable doubt, just you watch
I would say its harder to dehumanise a pedestrian as it is a cyclist as pretty much everyone walks somewhere.
1m
EXC: Tory mayoral candidate flees into wrong pub to avoid questions on Mirror Partygate tape
https://twitter.com/soph_husk/status/1671869561988173824
Assuming it is true, who will be paying the highest reparation? Russia or China?
I think we would all owe you an apology if we did wake up and realise that our government had genuinely been taken over by the lizard people (no obvious jokes please) and that flying saucers had gained regular slots at Heathrow.
I think one of your other attempts at futurology involved advice to me that there was no need for me to book any skiing holidays as we would all be blown back to the dark ages by Putin's nuclear wrath by mid February. I ignored that advice, funnily enough.
If two or three more of your doom forecasts come true, then we will all become believers in Leon The Clairvoyant One. But not until Old Chap.
Lord knows post Millennials have their annoyances but I think detective poirot can search for other suspects.
People seem to have more problems in 1 week than I have had in the last decade.
I’ve had to block Jeremy Vine as he keeps being tweeted into my timeline. The guy seems deranged in his view of motorists.
All the chat about cyclists (tax, insurance, bans) completely is out of proportion. Between 2005 and 2018, 548 pedestrians were killed on pavements. Only 6 of those were by cyclists.
This is one reason that getting the (obvious) truth into the open has been so ludicrously hard. Neither the Chinese nor the Americans are keen on a real investigation