Have to say that SKS was presumably grateful for the interruption of his speech by protesters yesterday as it broke the tedium and made it vaguely newsworthy. He didn’t have that advantage on R4 in the morning and boy that was grim. Platitudes and generalities piled high with not a detail in sight. He’s going to be poor in the election campaign, possibly even worse than Sunak if you can imagine such a thing.
Though when he broke from the script to engage with the protestors he came over well. That bodes well for the unpredictability of a campaign.
I am no Starmer fan, and he is still rather an enigma to me. What does he actually want to do as PM? He seems to be both over-prepared and over timid.
On the other hand, he is wise not to interrupt a government bent on self destruction.
It’s amazing how many people had no problem admitting that Elon Musk is seriously smart - until he revealed that he is quite right wing. At which point he miraculously morphed into a stuttering moron who just keeps getting lucky
Musk strikes me as one of those super smart people who is also a bit dumb in certain respects, certainly in his dealings with people. Spending time in academia and then finance I have come across many people who fall into this category, Musk just seems one of the more extreme examples.
He’s likes to think he's autistic and he’s confessed this. That’s the issue
FTFY
Do one, actually. Autism is hard enough to deal with without creepy insinuations that it's a lifestyle choice. And is there anything more pathetic than that ftfy thing?
Absolutely right. It’s not fun and it’s something people admit easily and Musk has - as I correctly surmised - publicly discussed his autism. I salute him for that alone
Asperger's isn't even a term used these days. So that's profoundly unhelpful.
Fuck me. So in leftieland he's not allowed to self identfy as Asperger's? tho it's OK for people with cocks to self identify as "women"?
No. Nowt to do with politics. It's been removed as of 2013 from DSM-5, as no satisfactory distinction from other forms of autism could be made. Hence the term ASD which it was merged with in 2021 under ICD-11. Autistic Spectrum Disorder. So. From 2013 you couldn't be diagnosed with Asperger's. You can self identify as whatever you like as ever. But it ain't very helpful.
It's his fucking choice. Dipshit
And there is massive controvery in autist-land over the removal of these terms: Asperger's, high functioning, etc
Don't call me a dipshit. I don't identify as such. Glad to see you defend someone's choice to self identify in the teeth of medical opinion. Imho. As a professional working in the area, ADHD is under diagnosed. And ASD over. Like anxiety and depression a few years back. Similarly, the two are often overlapping and can be confused.
Fair enough. But this issue makes me personally angry
Probably because a very close relative of mine has recently been officially diagnosed as ASD and this person was told "we would once have diagnosed you as Aspie, and high functioning, but this is no longer officially allowed even though we think it useful", then this person went away and read up on all of it and decided "fuck yeah, I'm Aspie": - ie: high functioning, socially awkward, doesn't need much or any help with daily living, but has real and grave problems in certain situations, highly intelligent etc
This person, close to me, has self identified as Aspie and it brings this person a lot of consolation - and also practical assistance: because this person now reaches out to other self-identified "Aspies" and finds common ground, AND a social network. And Elon Musk is therefore a bit of an inspiration. The richest-ish man in the world says he's Aspie. Yay
Good luck to them all
Self-diagnosed Aspergers has been fashionable amongst a certain type of tech nerd since the internet decided decades ago Bill Gates had it (also the "richest-ish man in the world"). Self-diagnosed ADHD was also popular in the United States after the amphetamines used to treat it became known as "smart drugs".
People often like to validate themselves with a medicalised diagnosis. Sometimes it is helpful in accessing support, sometimes it is an obstacle and people say "I can't do that because I am X diagnosis" or just a licence to behave in an unusual manner
A label like this can be quite restricting, and not all personality traits need to be medicalised. We should treat people as they are, whether they carry a medical label or not.
Yes, but more. Labels help because they reify a set of traits, making it easier to connect with other people with a similar experience and to look up information. (I say that as someone with a physical health spectrum disorder.)
Sure, labelling can be useful, but it can also be restricting. People sometimes use it as an excuse to avoid an activity, rather than a spur to work harder than most at an activity.
Some people find reading and writing difficult, some people find social interaction difficult, some people find unpredictability difficult, some people find noise difficult. Labelling these personality traits can help people mitigate the traits, but it can also cause people to retreat from their potential.
In any case, a lot of people do search for these medical labels. No one is allowed to simply be "eccentric" any more.
I entirely agree that diagnoses can lead to one using it as an excuse to not do something (I do that with my physical health condition), or as an excuse for shitty behaviour. However, that sense of not being alone in one’s experience is very powerful, and to not be alone, one needs a label for one’s experience to find others.
Have to say that SKS was presumably grateful for the interruption of his speech by protesters yesterday as it broke the tedium and made it vaguely newsworthy. He didn’t have that advantage on R4 in the morning and boy that was grim. Platitudes and generalities piled high with not a detail in sight. He’s going to be poor in the election campaign, possibly even worse than Sunak if you can imagine such a thing.
Though when he broke from the script to engage with the protestors he came over well. That bodes well for the unpredictability of a campaign.
I am no Starmer fan, and he is still rather an enigma to me. What does he actually want to do as PM? He seems to be both over-prepared and over timid.
On the other hand, he is wise not to interrupt a government bent on self destruction.
It was telling that yesterday was apparently the 5th of his priorities. The first 4 have rather passed me by. I would agree that he seemed much more relatable when dealing with the protestors than when giving his speech but that is a very low bar.
Your last point is of course the key. He is going to win because his opponents seem determined to lose.
It’s amazing how many people had no problem admitting that Elon Musk is seriously smart - until he revealed that he is quite right wing. At which point he miraculously morphed into a stuttering moron who just keeps getting lucky
Musk strikes me as one of those super smart people who is also a bit dumb in certain respects, certainly in his dealings with people. Spending time in academia and then finance I have come across many people who fall into this category, Musk just seems one of the more extreme examples.
He’s likes to think he's autistic and he’s confessed this. That’s the issue
FTFY
Do one, actually. Autism is hard enough to deal with without creepy insinuations that it's a lifestyle choice. And is there anything more pathetic than that ftfy thing?
Absolutely right. It’s not fun and it’s something people admit easily and Musk has - as I correctly surmised - publicly discussed his autism. I salute him for that alone
Asperger's isn't even a term used these days. So that's profoundly unhelpful.
Fuck me. So in leftieland he's not allowed to self identfy as Asperger's? tho it's OK for people with cocks to self identify as "women"?
No. Nowt to do with politics. It's been removed as of 2013 from DSM-5, as no satisfactory distinction from other forms of autism could be made. Hence the term ASD which it was merged with in 2021 under ICD-11. Autistic Spectrum Disorder. So. From 2013 you couldn't be diagnosed with Asperger's. You can self identify as whatever you like as ever. But it ain't very helpful.
It's his fucking choice. Dipshit
And there is massive controvery in autist-land over the removal of these terms: Asperger's, high functioning, etc
Don't call me a dipshit. I don't identify as such. Glad to see you defend someone's choice to self identify in the teeth of medical opinion. Imho. As a professional working in the area, ADHD is under diagnosed. And ASD over. Like anxiety and depression a few years back. Similarly, the two are often overlapping and can be confused.
Fair enough. But this issue makes me personally angry
Probably because a very close relative of mine has recently been officially diagnosed as ASD and this person was told "we would once have diagnosed you as Aspie, and high functioning, but this is no longer officially allowed even though we think it useful", then this person went away and read up on all of it and decided "fuck yeah, I'm Aspie": - ie: high functioning, socially awkward, doesn't need much or any help with daily living, but has real and grave problems in certain situations, highly intelligent etc
This person, close to me, has self identified as Aspie and it brings this person a lot of consolation - and also practical assistance: because this person now reaches out to other self-identified "Aspies" and finds common ground, AND a social network. And Elon Musk is therefore a bit of an inspiration. The richest-ish man in the world says he's Aspie. Yay
Good luck to them all
Self-diagnosed Aspergers has been fashionable amongst a certain type of tech nerd since the internet decided decades ago Bill Gates had it (also the "richest-ish man in the world"). Self-diagnosed ADHD was also popular in the United States after the amphetamines used to treat it became known as "smart drugs".
People often like to validate themselves with a medicalised diagnosis. Sometimes it is helpful in accessing support, sometimes it is an obstacle and people say "I can't do that because I am X diagnosis" or just a licence to behave in an unusual manner
A label like this can be quite restricting, and not all personality traits need to be medicalised. We should treat people as they are, whether they carry a medical label or not.
Yes, but more. Labels help because they reify a set of traits, making it easier to connect with other people with a similar experience and to look up information. (I say that as someone with a physical health spectrum disorder.)
Sure, labelling can be useful, but it can also be restricting. People sometimes use it as an excuse to avoid an activity, rather than a spur to work harder than most at an activity.
Some people find reading and writing difficult, some people find social interaction difficult, some people find unpredictability difficult, some people find noise difficult. Labelling these personality traits can help people mitigate the traits, but it can also cause people to retreat from their potential.
In any case, a lot of people do search for these medical labels. No one is allowed to simply be "eccentric" any more.
I entirely agree that diagnoses can lead to one using it as an excuse to not do something (I do that with my physical health condition), or as an excuse for shitty behaviour. However, that sense of not being alone in one’s experience is very powerful, and to not be alone, one needs a label for one’s experience to find others.
I agree 100% and in the modern world it is much easier to find like minded people. That is the positive side of social media etc.
It’s amazing how many people had no problem admitting that Elon Musk is seriously smart - until he revealed that he is quite right wing. At which point he miraculously morphed into a stuttering moron who just keeps getting lucky
Musk strikes me as one of those super smart people who is also a bit dumb in certain respects, certainly in his dealings with people. Spending time in academia and then finance I have come across many people who fall into this category, Musk just seems one of the more extreme examples.
He’s likes to think he's autistic and he’s confessed this. That’s the issue
FTFY
Do one, actually. Autism is hard enough to deal with without creepy insinuations that it's a lifestyle choice. And is there anything more pathetic than that ftfy thing?
Absolutely right. It’s not fun and it’s something people admit easily and Musk has - as I correctly surmised - publicly discussed his autism. I salute him for that alone
Asperger's isn't even a term used these days. So that's profoundly unhelpful.
Fuck me. So in leftieland he's not allowed to self identfy as Asperger's? tho it's OK for people with cocks to self identify as "women"?
No. Nowt to do with politics. It's been removed as of 2013 from DSM-5, as no satisfactory distinction from other forms of autism could be made. Hence the term ASD which it was merged with in 2021 under ICD-11. Autistic Spectrum Disorder. So. From 2013 you couldn't be diagnosed with Asperger's. You can self identify as whatever you like as ever. But it ain't very helpful.
It's his fucking choice. Dipshit
And there is massive controvery in autist-land over the removal of these terms: Asperger's, high functioning, etc
Don't call me a dipshit. I don't identify as such. Glad to see you defend someone's choice to self identify in the teeth of medical opinion. Imho. As a professional working in the area, ADHD is under diagnosed. And ASD over. Like anxiety and depression a few years back. Similarly, the two are often overlapping and can be confused.
Fair enough. But this issue makes me personally angry
Probably because a very close relative of mine has recently been officially diagnosed as ASD and this person was told "we would once have diagnosed you as Aspie, and high functioning, but this is no longer officially allowed even though we think it useful", then this person went away and read up on all of it and decided "fuck yeah, I'm Aspie": - ie: high functioning, socially awkward, doesn't need much or any help with daily living, but has real and grave problems in certain situations, highly intelligent etc
This person, close to me, has self identified as Aspie and it brings this person a lot of consolation - and also practical assistance: because this person now reaches out to other self-identified "Aspies" and finds common ground, AND a social network. And Elon Musk is therefore a bit of an inspiration. The richest-ish man in the world says he's Aspie. Yay
Good luck to them all
Self-diagnosed Aspergers has been fashionable amongst a certain type of tech nerd since the internet decided decades ago Bill Gates had it (also the "richest-ish man in the world"). Self-diagnosed ADHD was also popular in the United States after the amphetamines used to treat it became known as "smart drugs".
People often like to validate themselves with a medicalised diagnosis. Sometimes it is helpful in accessing support, sometimes it is an obstacle and people say "I can't do that because I am X diagnosis" or just a licence to behave in an unusual manner
A label like this can be quite restricting, and not all personality traits need to be medicalised. We should treat people as they are, whether they carry a medical label or not.
I'm far from being an expert on autism and Asperger's, but many people I know in tech are probably in some ways on the spectrum. Mrs J probably is, as she readily acknowledges.
Perhaps people go into tech because the sort of laser-focus the job requires suits certain autism traits?
But what annoys me is people using such diagnoses (esp. self diagnosis) as an excuse for sh*tty behaviour. Something that makes other people think such sh*tty behaviour is typical of people with that diagnosis, when it is not.
There isn't a way of telling between behaviour that is deliberately bad and behaviour over which the subject has no control; no-one knows even if there is such a distinction to be made.
How would it be done?
As this hasn't been resolved in thousands of years of discussion, it probably isn't going to be soon.
It’s amazing how many people had no problem admitting that Elon Musk is seriously smart - until he revealed that he is quite right wing. At which point he miraculously morphed into a stuttering moron who just keeps getting lucky
Musk strikes me as one of those super smart people who is also a bit dumb in certain respects, certainly in his dealings with people. Spending time in academia and then finance I have come across many people who fall into this category, Musk just seems one of the more extreme examples.
He’s likes to think he's autistic and he’s confessed this. That’s the issue
FTFY
Do one, actually. Autism is hard enough to deal with without creepy insinuations that it's a lifestyle choice. And is there anything more pathetic than that ftfy thing?
Absolutely right. It’s not fun and it’s something people admit easily and Musk has - as I correctly surmised - publicly discussed his autism. I salute him for that alone
Asperger's isn't even a term used these days. So that's profoundly unhelpful.
Fuck me. So in leftieland he's not allowed to self identfy as Asperger's? tho it's OK for people with cocks to self identify as "women"?
No. Nowt to do with politics. It's been removed as of 2013 from DSM-5, as no satisfactory distinction from other forms of autism could be made. Hence the term ASD which it was merged with in 2021 under ICD-11. Autistic Spectrum Disorder. So. From 2013 you couldn't be diagnosed with Asperger's. You can self identify as whatever you like as ever. But it ain't very helpful.
It's his fucking choice. Dipshit
And there is massive controvery in autist-land over the removal of these terms: Asperger's, high functioning, etc
Don't call me a dipshit. I don't identify as such. Glad to see you defend someone's choice to self identify in the teeth of medical opinion. Imho. As a professional working in the area, ADHD is under diagnosed. And ASD over. Like anxiety and depression a few years back. Similarly, the two are often overlapping and can be confused.
Fair enough. But this issue makes me personally angry
Probably because a very close relative of mine has recently been officially diagnosed as ASD and this person was told "we would once have diagnosed you as Aspie, and high functioning, but this is no longer officially allowed even though we think it useful", then this person went away and read up on all of it and decided "fuck yeah, I'm Aspie": - ie: high functioning, socially awkward, doesn't need much or any help with daily living, but has real and grave problems in certain situations, highly intelligent etc
This person, close to me, has self identified as Aspie and it brings this person a lot of consolation - and also practical assistance: because this person now reaches out to other self-identified "Aspies" and finds common ground, AND a social network. And Elon Musk is therefore a bit of an inspiration. The richest-ish man in the world says he's Aspie. Yay
Good luck to them all
Self-diagnosed Aspergers has been fashionable amongst a certain type of tech nerd since the internet decided decades ago Bill Gates had it (also the "richest-ish man in the world"). Self-diagnosed ADHD was also popular in the United States after the amphetamines used to treat it became known as "smart drugs".
People often like to validate themselves with a medicalised diagnosis. Sometimes it is helpful in accessing support, sometimes it is an obstacle and people say "I can't do that because I am X diagnosis" or just a licence to behave in an unusual manner
A label like this can be quite restricting, and not all personality traits need to be medicalised. We should treat people as they are, whether they carry a medical label or not.
I'm far from being an expert on autism and Asperger's, but many people I know in tech are probably in some ways on the spectrum. Mrs J probably is, as she readily acknowledges.
Perhaps people go into tech because the sort of laser-focus the job requires suits certain autism traits?
But what annoys me is people using such diagnoses (esp. self diagnosis) as an excuse for sh*tty behaviour. Something that makes other people think such sh*tty behaviour is typical of people with that diagnosis, when it is not.
There isn't a way of telling between behaviour that is deliberately bad and behaviour over which the subject has no control; no-one knows even if there is such a distinction to be made.
How would it be done?
As this hasn't been resolved in thousands of years of discussion, it probably isn't going to be soon.
It’s amazing how many people had no problem admitting that Elon Musk is seriously smart - until he revealed that he is quite right wing. At which point he miraculously morphed into a stuttering moron who just keeps getting lucky
Musk strikes me as one of those super smart people who is also a bit dumb in certain respects, certainly in his dealings with people. Spending time in academia and then finance I have come across many people who fall into this category, Musk just seems one of the more extreme examples.
He’s likes to think he's autistic and he’s confessed this. That’s the issue
FTFY
Do one, actually. Autism is hard enough to deal with without creepy insinuations that it's a lifestyle choice. And is there anything more pathetic than that ftfy thing?
Absolutely right. It’s not fun and it’s something people admit easily and Musk has - as I correctly surmised - publicly discussed his autism. I salute him for that alone
Asperger's isn't even a term used these days. So that's profoundly unhelpful.
Fuck me. So in leftieland he's not allowed to self identfy as Asperger's? tho it's OK for people with cocks to self identify as "women"?
No. Nowt to do with politics. It's been removed as of 2013 from DSM-5, as no satisfactory distinction from other forms of autism could be made. Hence the term ASD which it was merged with in 2021 under ICD-11. Autistic Spectrum Disorder. So. From 2013 you couldn't be diagnosed with Asperger's. You can self identify as whatever you like as ever. But it ain't very helpful.
It's his fucking choice. Dipshit
And there is massive controvery in autist-land over the removal of these terms: Asperger's, high functioning, etc
Don't call me a dipshit. I don't identify as such. Glad to see you defend someone's choice to self identify in the teeth of medical opinion. Imho. As a professional working in the area, ADHD is under diagnosed. And ASD over. Like anxiety and depression a few years back. Similarly, the two are often overlapping and can be confused.
Fair enough. But this issue makes me personally angry
Probably because a very close relative of mine has recently been officially diagnosed as ASD and this person was told "we would once have diagnosed you as Aspie, and high functioning, but this is no longer officially allowed even though we think it useful", then this person went away and read up on all of it and decided "fuck yeah, I'm Aspie": - ie: high functioning, socially awkward, doesn't need much or any help with daily living, but has real and grave problems in certain situations, highly intelligent etc
This person, close to me, has self identified as Aspie and it brings this person a lot of consolation - and also practical assistance: because this person now reaches out to other self-identified "Aspies" and finds common ground, AND a social network. And Elon Musk is therefore a bit of an inspiration. The richest-ish man in the world says he's Aspie. Yay
Good luck to them all
Self-diagnosed Aspergers has been fashionable amongst a certain type of tech nerd since the internet decided decades ago Bill Gates had it (also the "richest-ish man in the world"). Self-diagnosed ADHD was also popular in the United States after the amphetamines used to treat it became known as "smart drugs".
People often like to validate themselves with a medicalised diagnosis. Sometimes it is helpful in accessing support, sometimes it is an obstacle and people say "I can't do that because I am X diagnosis" or just a licence to behave in an unusual manner
A label like this can be quite restricting, and not all personality traits need to be medicalised. We should treat people as they are, whether they carry a medical label or not.
I'm far from being an expert on autism and Asperger's, but many people I know in tech are probably in some ways on the spectrum. Mrs J probably is, as she readily acknowledges.
Perhaps people go into tech because the sort of laser-focus the job requires suits certain autism traits?
But what annoys me is people using such diagnoses (esp. self diagnosis) as an excuse for sh*tty behaviour. Something that makes other people think such sh*tty behaviour is typical of people with that diagnosis, when it is not.
There isn't a way of telling between behaviour that is deliberately bad and behaviour over which the subject has no control; no-one knows even if there is such a distinction to be made.
How would it be done?
As this hasn't been resolved in thousands of years of discussion, it probably isn't going to be soon.
I think that the way of telling is by continued observation. If someone modifies such behaviour when it has adverse consequences for them then it is more likely to be voluntary behaviour than involuntary.
It’s amazing how many people had no problem admitting that Elon Musk is seriously smart - until he revealed that he is quite right wing. At which point he miraculously morphed into a stuttering moron who just keeps getting lucky
Musk strikes me as one of those super smart people who is also a bit dumb in certain respects, certainly in his dealings with people. Spending time in academia and then finance I have come across many people who fall into this category, Musk just seems one of the more extreme examples.
He’s likes to think he's autistic and he’s confessed this. That’s the issue
FTFY
Do one, actually. Autism is hard enough to deal with without creepy insinuations that it's a lifestyle choice. And is there anything more pathetic than that ftfy thing?
Absolutely right. It’s not fun and it’s something people admit easily and Musk has - as I correctly surmised - publicly discussed his autism. I salute him for that alone
Asperger's isn't even a term used these days. So that's profoundly unhelpful.
Fuck me. So in leftieland he's not allowed to self identfy as Asperger's? tho it's OK for people with cocks to self identify as "women"?
No. Nowt to do with politics. It's been removed as of 2013 from DSM-5, as no satisfactory distinction from other forms of autism could be made. Hence the term ASD which it was merged with in 2021 under ICD-11. Autistic Spectrum Disorder. So. From 2013 you couldn't be diagnosed with Asperger's. You can self identify as whatever you like as ever. But it ain't very helpful.
It's his fucking choice. Dipshit
And there is massive controvery in autist-land over the removal of these terms: Asperger's, high functioning, etc
Don't call me a dipshit. I don't identify as such. Glad to see you defend someone's choice to self identify in the teeth of medical opinion. Imho. As a professional working in the area, ADHD is under diagnosed. And ASD over. Like anxiety and depression a few years back. Similarly, the two are often overlapping and can be confused.
Fair enough. But this issue makes me personally angry
Probably because a very close relative of mine has recently been officially diagnosed as ASD and this person was told "we would once have diagnosed you as Aspie, and high functioning, but this is no longer officially allowed even though we think it useful", then this person went away and read up on all of it and decided "fuck yeah, I'm Aspie": - ie: high functioning, socially awkward, doesn't need much or any help with daily living, but has real and grave problems in certain situations, highly intelligent etc
This person, close to me, has self identified as Aspie and it brings this person a lot of consolation - and also practical assistance: because this person now reaches out to other self-identified "Aspies" and finds common ground, AND a social network. And Elon Musk is therefore a bit of an inspiration. The richest-ish man in the world says he's Aspie. Yay
Good luck to them all
Self-diagnosed Aspergers has been fashionable amongst a certain type of tech nerd since the internet decided decades ago Bill Gates had it (also the "richest-ish man in the world"). Self-diagnosed ADHD was also popular in the United States after the amphetamines used to treat it became known as "smart drugs".
People often like to validate themselves with a medicalised diagnosis. Sometimes it is helpful in accessing support, sometimes it is an obstacle and people say "I can't do that because I am X diagnosis" or just a licence to behave in an unusual manner
A label like this can be quite restricting, and not all personality traits need to be medicalised. We should treat people as they are, whether they carry a medical label or not.
Leon's regular expert theses on casual ASD diagnosis is for me, with a son who's life is blighted by this condition, offensive.
ASD can be a debilitating social millstone. It is not a label to justify Elon Musk's peculiar behaviour or an unwise slur to explain Theresa May's social awkwardness.
Leon pretty much hijacks all PB threads, whether it be with photographs of his breakfast or a travelog outlining the itinerary of his latest freebie. If readers like it, great, engage whilst I scroll past. His very regular "expert" opinion on all things "on the spectrum " really, really wind me up. If people disengaged, perhaps he would change the subject back to his lunch.
It’s amazing how many people had no problem admitting that Elon Musk is seriously smart - until he revealed that he is quite right wing. At which point he miraculously morphed into a stuttering moron who just keeps getting lucky
Musk strikes me as one of those super smart people who is also a bit dumb in certain respects, certainly in his dealings with people. Spending time in academia and then finance I have come across many people who fall into this category, Musk just seems one of the more extreme examples.
He’s likes to think he's autistic and he’s confessed this. That’s the issue
FTFY
Do one, actually. Autism is hard enough to deal with without creepy insinuations that it's a lifestyle choice. And is there anything more pathetic than that ftfy thing?
Absolutely right. It’s not fun and it’s something people admit easily and Musk has - as I correctly surmised - publicly discussed his autism. I salute him for that alone
Asperger's isn't even a term used these days. So that's profoundly unhelpful.
Fuck me. So in leftieland he's not allowed to self identfy as Asperger's? tho it's OK for people with cocks to self identify as "women"?
No. Nowt to do with politics. It's been removed as of 2013 from DSM-5, as no satisfactory distinction from other forms of autism could be made. Hence the term ASD which it was merged with in 2021 under ICD-11. Autistic Spectrum Disorder. So. From 2013 you couldn't be diagnosed with Asperger's. You can self identify as whatever you like as ever. But it ain't very helpful.
It's his fucking choice. Dipshit
And there is massive controvery in autist-land over the removal of these terms: Asperger's, high functioning, etc
Don't call me a dipshit. I don't identify as such. Glad to see you defend someone's choice to self identify in the teeth of medical opinion. Imho. As a professional working in the area, ADHD is under diagnosed. And ASD over. Like anxiety and depression a few years back. Similarly, the two are often overlapping and can be confused.
Fair enough. But this issue makes me personally angry
Probably because a very close relative of mine has recently been officially diagnosed as ASD and this person was told "we would once have diagnosed you as Aspie, and high functioning, but this is no longer officially allowed even though we think it useful", then this person went away and read up on all of it and decided "fuck yeah, I'm Aspie": - ie: high functioning, socially awkward, doesn't need much or any help with daily living, but has real and grave problems in certain situations, highly intelligent etc
This person, close to me, has self identified as Aspie and it brings this person a lot of consolation - and also practical assistance: because this person now reaches out to other self-identified "Aspies" and finds common ground, AND a social network. And Elon Musk is therefore a bit of an inspiration. The richest-ish man in the world says he's Aspie. Yay
Good luck to them all
Self-diagnosed Aspergers has been fashionable amongst a certain type of tech nerd since the internet decided decades ago Bill Gates had it (also the "richest-ish man in the world"). Self-diagnosed ADHD was also popular in the United States after the amphetamines used to treat it became known as "smart drugs".
People often like to validate themselves with a medicalised diagnosis. Sometimes it is helpful in accessing support, sometimes it is an obstacle and people say "I can't do that because I am X diagnosis" or just a licence to behave in an unusual manner
A label like this can be quite restricting, and not all personality traits need to be medicalised. We should treat people as they are, whether they carry a medical label or not.
Yes, but more. Labels help because they reify a set of traits, making it easier to connect with other people with a similar experience and to look up information. (I say that as someone with a physical health spectrum disorder.)
Sure, labelling can be useful, but it can also be restricting. People sometimes use it as an excuse to avoid an activity, rather than a spur to work harder than most at an activity.
Some people find reading and writing difficult, some people find social interaction difficult, some people find unpredictability difficult, some people find noise difficult. Labelling these personality traits can help people mitigate the traits, but it can also cause people to retreat from their potential.
In any case, a lot of people do search for these medical labels. No one is allowed to simply be "eccentric" any more.
I entirely agree that diagnoses can lead to one using it as an excuse to not do something (I do that with my physical health condition), or as an excuse for shitty behaviour. However, that sense of not being alone in one’s experience is very powerful, and to not be alone, one needs a label for one’s experience to find others.
I agree 100% and in the modern world it is much easier to find like minded people. That is the positive side of social media etc.
The ability to find similar people is the best and the worst part of the Internet.
Have to say that SKS was presumably grateful for the interruption of his speech by protesters yesterday as it broke the tedium and made it vaguely newsworthy. He didn’t have that advantage on R4 in the morning and boy that was grim. Platitudes and generalities piled high with not a detail in sight. He’s going to be poor in the election campaign, possibly even worse than Sunak if you can imagine such a thing.
Though when he broke from the script to engage with the protestors he came over well. That bodes well for the unpredictability of a campaign.
I am no Starmer fan, and he is still rather an enigma to me. What does he actually want to do as PM? He seems to be both over-prepared and over timid.
On the other hand, he is wise not to interrupt a government bent on self destruction.
What does Sir K want to do? I think something like this: 1) Win the election from the social democrat centre left 2) Under promise both before and after the election 3) Blame the Tories (not hard) 4) See what can be done about the EU in a Swiss sort of way 5) Try to be a government with some integrity, honesty and competence, no quick fixes 6) See if a 10-15 year programme can engender a bit of hope and a sense of direction 7) Use the current mood to further regulate water, banks, rail etc 8) Stop some rich people's loopholes and rebalance the tax system.
He can't spend any money much because there isn't any. The above 8 items is enough when all your money is going on debt interest, pensions and NHS.
Have to say that SKS was presumably grateful for the interruption of his speech by protesters yesterday as it broke the tedium and made it vaguely newsworthy. He didn’t have that advantage on R4 in the morning and boy that was grim. Platitudes and generalities piled high with not a detail in sight. He’s going to be poor in the election campaign, possibly even worse than Sunak if you can imagine such a thing.
Though when he broke from the script to engage with the protestors he came over well. That bodes well for the unpredictability of a campaign.
I am no Starmer fan, and he is still rather an enigma to me. What does he actually want to do as PM? He seems to be both over-prepared and over timid.
On the other hand, he is wise not to interrupt a government bent on self destruction.
What does Sir K want to do? I think something like this: 1) Win the election from the social democrat centre left 2) Under promise both before and after the election 3) Blame the Tories (not hard) 4) See what can be done about the EU in a Swiss sort of way 5) Try to be a government with some integrity, honesty and competence, no quick fixes 6) See if a 10-15 year programme can engender a bit of hope and a sense of direction 7) Use the current mood to further regulate water, banks, rail etc 8) Stop some rich people's loopholes and rebalance the tax system.
He can't spend any money much because there isn't any. The above 8 items is enough when all your money is going on debt interest, pensions and NHS.
(5) seems wildly aspirational to me. When did we last have a government like that?
It’s amazing how many people had no problem admitting that Elon Musk is seriously smart - until he revealed that he is quite right wing. At which point he miraculously morphed into a stuttering moron who just keeps getting lucky
Musk strikes me as one of those super smart people who is also a bit dumb in certain respects, certainly in his dealings with people. Spending time in academia and then finance I have come across many people who fall into this category, Musk just seems one of the more extreme examples.
He’s likes to think he's autistic and he’s confessed this. That’s the issue
FTFY
Do one, actually. Autism is hard enough to deal with without creepy insinuations that it's a lifestyle choice. And is there anything more pathetic than that ftfy thing?
Absolutely right. It’s not fun and it’s something people admit easily and Musk has - as I correctly surmised - publicly discussed his autism. I salute him for that alone
Asperger's isn't even a term used these days. So that's profoundly unhelpful.
Fuck me. So in leftieland he's not allowed to self identfy as Asperger's? tho it's OK for people with cocks to self identify as "women"?
No. Nowt to do with politics. It's been removed as of 2013 from DSM-5, as no satisfactory distinction from other forms of autism could be made. Hence the term ASD which it was merged with in 2021 under ICD-11. Autistic Spectrum Disorder. So. From 2013 you couldn't be diagnosed with Asperger's. You can self identify as whatever you like as ever. But it ain't very helpful.
It's his fucking choice. Dipshit
And there is massive controvery in autist-land over the removal of these terms: Asperger's, high functioning, etc
Don't call me a dipshit. I don't identify as such. Glad to see you defend someone's choice to self identify in the teeth of medical opinion. Imho. As a professional working in the area, ADHD is under diagnosed. And ASD over. Like anxiety and depression a few years back. Similarly, the two are often overlapping and can be confused.
Fair enough. But this issue makes me personally angry
Probably because a very close relative of mine has recently been officially diagnosed as ASD and this person was told "we would once have diagnosed you as Aspie, and high functioning, but this is no longer officially allowed even though we think it useful", then this person went away and read up on all of it and decided "fuck yeah, I'm Aspie": - ie: high functioning, socially awkward, doesn't need much or any help with daily living, but has real and grave problems in certain situations, highly intelligent etc
This person, close to me, has self identified as Aspie and it brings this person a lot of consolation - and also practical assistance: because this person now reaches out to other self-identified "Aspies" and finds common ground, AND a social network. And Elon Musk is therefore a bit of an inspiration. The richest-ish man in the world says he's Aspie. Yay
Good luck to them all
Self-diagnosed Aspergers has been fashionable amongst a certain type of tech nerd since the internet decided decades ago Bill Gates had it (also the "richest-ish man in the world"). Self-diagnosed ADHD was also popular in the United States after the amphetamines used to treat it became known as "smart drugs".
People often like to validate themselves with a medicalised diagnosis. Sometimes it is helpful in accessing support, sometimes it is an obstacle and people say "I can't do that because I am X diagnosis" or just a licence to behave in an unusual manner
A label like this can be quite restricting, and not all personality traits need to be medicalised. We should treat people as they are, whether they carry a medical label or not.
Leon's regular expert theses on casual ASD diagnosis is for me, with a son who's life is blighted by this condition, offensive.
ASD can be a debilitating social millstone. It is not a label to justify Elon Musk's peculiar behaviour or an unwise slur to explain Theresa May's social awkwardness.
Leon pretty much hijacks all PB threads, whether it be with photographs of his breakfast or a travelog outlining the itinerary of his latest freebie. If readers like it great, engage whilst I scroll past. His very regular "expert" opinion on all things "on the spectrum " really, really wind me up. If people disengaged, perhaps he would change the subject back to his lunch.
Mine is a physical speciality, but it is recognised that people with learning disabilities and related conditions like ASD have much worse outcomes. In large part because it takes quite a lot of time and patience to individualise and optimise treatment for them, and to incorporate this into a therapeutic plan. Too often they are just plonked into a system that doesn't, and expects them unrealistically to accept or fail in a bog standard service.
One of the great pleasures of working in the NHS is that my Trust has supported me and some colleagues setting up bespoke services that accommodate such clients. I don't think that would be possible in a service requiring narrow financial viability.
Am amazed RCS has to ask a pack of PBers re the stupid email.
Seeing as how it took me all of 10 seconds worth of googling before I was reading it.
Or about half of it, gave up as it was way less than edifying, enlightening, entertaining or exciting (plus bunch of other e-words) than graffiti at a bus station toilet.
Agreed. I can't be bothered working out whether it's genuine or not.
OTOH Robert Jenrick is genuinely and quite luridly evil when he has the children's Disney art painted over in the refugee centres because it might make the place too "welcoming". He's Cruella De Vil. Probably kills puppy dogs for fun.
We already have Cruella in the cabinet. Maybe the Grinch? I do think that this competition to be the most obnoxious member of the cabinet is getting slightly out of hand. It is not entirely clear to me that it was even a good way of winning votes in the first place, to be honest.
They are to good governance what Jonny Bairstow is to Test wicketkeeping.
Kept in place due to previous mistakes despite a better alternative being obvious to everyone.
It’s amazing how many people had no problem admitting that Elon Musk is seriously smart - until he revealed that he is quite right wing. At which point he miraculously morphed into a stuttering moron who just keeps getting lucky
Musk strikes me as one of those super smart people who is also a bit dumb in certain respects, certainly in his dealings with people. Spending time in academia and then finance I have come across many people who fall into this category, Musk just seems one of the more extreme examples.
He’s likes to think he's autistic and he’s confessed this. That’s the issue
FTFY
Do one, actually. Autism is hard enough to deal with without creepy insinuations that it's a lifestyle choice. And is there anything more pathetic than that ftfy thing?
Absolutely right. It’s not fun and it’s something people admit easily and Musk has - as I correctly surmised - publicly discussed his autism. I salute him for that alone
Asperger's isn't even a term used these days. So that's profoundly unhelpful.
Fuck me. So in leftieland he's not allowed to self identfy as Asperger's? tho it's OK for people with cocks to self identify as "women"?
No. Nowt to do with politics. It's been removed as of 2013 from DSM-5, as no satisfactory distinction from other forms of autism could be made. Hence the term ASD which it was merged with in 2021 under ICD-11. Autistic Spectrum Disorder. So. From 2013 you couldn't be diagnosed with Asperger's. You can self identify as whatever you like as ever. But it ain't very helpful.
It's his fucking choice. Dipshit
And there is massive controvery in autist-land over the removal of these terms: Asperger's, high functioning, etc
Don't call me a dipshit. I don't identify as such. Glad to see you defend someone's choice to self identify in the teeth of medical opinion. Imho. As a professional working in the area, ADHD is under diagnosed. And ASD over. Like anxiety and depression a few years back. Similarly, the two are often overlapping and can be confused.
Fair enough. But this issue makes me personally angry
Probably because a very close relative of mine has recently been officially diagnosed as ASD and this person was told "we would once have diagnosed you as Aspie, and high functioning, but this is no longer officially allowed even though we think it useful", then this person went away and read up on all of it and decided "fuck yeah, I'm Aspie": - ie: high functioning, socially awkward, doesn't need much or any help with daily living, but has real and grave problems in certain situations, highly intelligent etc
This person, close to me, has self identified as Aspie and it brings this person a lot of consolation - and also practical assistance: because this person now reaches out to other self-identified "Aspies" and finds common ground, AND a social network. And Elon Musk is therefore a bit of an inspiration. The richest-ish man in the world says he's Aspie. Yay
Good luck to them all
Self-diagnosed Aspergers has been fashionable amongst a certain type of tech nerd since the internet decided decades ago Bill Gates had it (also the "richest-ish man in the world"). Self-diagnosed ADHD was also popular in the United States after the amphetamines used to treat it became known as "smart drugs".
People often like to validate themselves with a medicalised diagnosis. Sometimes it is helpful in accessing support, sometimes it is an obstacle and people say "I can't do that because I am X diagnosis" or just a licence to behave in an unusual manner
A label like this can be quite restricting, and not all personality traits need to be medicalised. We should treat people as they are, whether they carry a medical label or not.
Leon's regular expert theses on casual ASD diagnosis is for me, with a son who's life is blighted by this condition, offensive.
ASD can be a debilitating social millstone. It is not a label to justify Elon Musk's peculiar behaviour or an unwise slur to explain Theresa May's social awkwardness.
Leon pretty much hijacks all PB threads, whether it be with photographs of his breakfast or a travelog outlining the itinerary of his latest freebie. If readers like it great, engage whilst I scroll past. His very regular "expert" opinion on all things "on the spectrum " really, really wind me up. If people disengaged, perhaps he would change the subject back to his lunch.
Mine is a physical speciality, but it is recognised that people with learning disabilities and related conditions like ASD have much worse outcomes. In large part because it takes quite a lot of time and patience to individualise and optimise treatment for them, and to incorporate this into a therapeutic plan. Too often they are just plonked into a system that doesn't, and expects them unrealistically to accept or fail in a bog standard service.
One of the great pleasures of working in the NHS is that my Trust has supported me and some colleagues setting up bespoke services that accommodate such clients. I don't think that would be possible in a service requiring narrow financial viability.
To slightly misquote @bondegezou the lack of focus on finance is both the best and the worst thing about the NHS. When the Today program was doing the 75th anniversary thing they interviewed a nurse who had previously worked in Saudi. She identified the best thing about working in the NHS was the ability to ignore funding and concentrate on the patient's needs.
It’s amazing how many people had no problem admitting that Elon Musk is seriously smart - until he revealed that he is quite right wing. At which point he miraculously morphed into a stuttering moron who just keeps getting lucky
Musk strikes me as one of those super smart people who is also a bit dumb in certain respects, certainly in his dealings with people. Spending time in academia and then finance I have come across many people who fall into this category, Musk just seems one of the more extreme examples.
He’s likes to think he's autistic and he’s confessed this. That’s the issue
FTFY
Do one, actually. Autism is hard enough to deal with without creepy insinuations that it's a lifestyle choice. And is there anything more pathetic than that ftfy thing?
Absolutely right. It’s not fun and it’s something people admit easily and Musk has - as I correctly surmised - publicly discussed his autism. I salute him for that alone
Asperger's isn't even a term used these days. So that's profoundly unhelpful.
Fuck me. So in leftieland he's not allowed to self identfy as Asperger's? tho it's OK for people with cocks to self identify as "women"?
No. Nowt to do with politics. It's been removed as of 2013 from DSM-5, as no satisfactory distinction from other forms of autism could be made. Hence the term ASD which it was merged with in 2021 under ICD-11. Autistic Spectrum Disorder. So. From 2013 you couldn't be diagnosed with Asperger's. You can self identify as whatever you like as ever. But it ain't very helpful.
It's his fucking choice. Dipshit
And there is massive controvery in autist-land over the removal of these terms: Asperger's, high functioning, etc
Don't call me a dipshit. I don't identify as such. Glad to see you defend someone's choice to self identify in the teeth of medical opinion. Imho. As a professional working in the area, ADHD is under diagnosed. And ASD over. Like anxiety and depression a few years back. Similarly, the two are often overlapping and can be confused.
Fair enough. But this issue makes me personally angry
Probably because a very close relative of mine has recently been officially diagnosed as ASD and this person was told "we would once have diagnosed you as Aspie, and high functioning, but this is no longer officially allowed even though we think it useful", then this person went away and read up on all of it and decided "fuck yeah, I'm Aspie": - ie: high functioning, socially awkward, doesn't need much or any help with daily living, but has real and grave problems in certain situations, highly intelligent etc
This person, close to me, has self identified as Aspie and it brings this person a lot of consolation - and also practical assistance: because this person now reaches out to other self-identified "Aspies" and finds common ground, AND a social network. And Elon Musk is therefore a bit of an inspiration. The richest-ish man in the world says he's Aspie. Yay
Good luck to them all
Self-diagnosed Aspergers has been fashionable amongst a certain type of tech nerd since the internet decided decades ago Bill Gates had it (also the "richest-ish man in the world"). Self-diagnosed ADHD was also popular in the United States after the amphetamines used to treat it became known as "smart drugs".
People often like to validate themselves with a medicalised diagnosis. Sometimes it is helpful in accessing support, sometimes it is an obstacle and people say "I can't do that because I am X diagnosis" or just a licence to behave in an unusual manner
A label like this can be quite restricting, and not all personality traits need to be medicalised. We should treat people as they are, whether they carry a medical label or not.
I'm far from being an expert on autism and Asperger's, but many people I know in tech are probably in some ways on the spectrum. Mrs J probably is, as she readily acknowledges.
Perhaps people go into tech because the sort of laser-focus the job requires suits certain autism traits?
But what annoys me is people using such diagnoses (esp. self diagnosis) as an excuse for sh*tty behaviour. Something that makes other people think such sh*tty behaviour is typical of people with that diagnosis, when it is not.
There isn't a way of telling between behaviour that is deliberately bad and behaviour over which the subject has no control; no-one knows even if there is such a distinction to be made.
How would it be done?
As this hasn't been resolved in thousands of years of discussion, it probably isn't going to be soon.
I think that the way of telling is by continued observation. If someone modifies such behaviour when it has adverse consequences for them then it is more likely to be voluntary behaviour than involuntary.
Not sure. Modification of behaviour can always be analysed as response to stimulus, as ever more complex examples of removing your hand from the flame at the human level, or climbing an artificial trellis at the clematis level. No change entails (as opposed to could entail) voluntary behaviour. We don't know what voluntary behaviour is, as we don't have a way of describing how its supposed engine - the will - can possibly work.
(PS I am a voluntarist, but huge numbers of scientists and philosophers are not.)
Have to say that SKS was presumably grateful for the interruption of his speech by protesters yesterday as it broke the tedium and made it vaguely newsworthy. He didn’t have that advantage on R4 in the morning and boy that was grim. Platitudes and generalities piled high with not a detail in sight. He’s going to be poor in the election campaign, possibly even worse than Sunak if you can imagine such a thing.
Though when he broke from the script to engage with the protestors he came over well. That bodes well for the unpredictability of a campaign.
I am no Starmer fan, and he is still rather an enigma to me. What does he actually want to do as PM? He seems to be both over-prepared and over timid.
On the other hand, he is wise not to interrupt a government bent on self destruction.
It was telling that yesterday was apparently the 5th of his priorities. The first 4 have rather passed me by. I would agree that he seemed much more relatable when dealing with the protestors than when giving his speech but that is a very low bar.
Your last point is of course the key. He is going to win because his opponents seem determined to lose.
Nobody expects Sir Keir Starmer in government. His chief priority is surprise, surprise and social democracy. His two chief priorities are surprise and social democracy, and better education outcomes, wait, I'll come in again.
Am amazed RCS has to ask a pack of PBers re the stupid email.
Seeing as how it took me all of 10 seconds worth of googling before I was reading it.
Or about half of it, gave up as it was way less than edifying, enlightening, entertaining or exciting (plus bunch of other e-words) than graffiti at a bus station toilet.
Agreed. I can't be bothered working out whether it's genuine or not.
OTOH Robert Jenrick is genuinely and quite luridly evil when he has the children's Disney art painted over in the refugee centres because it might make the place too "welcoming". He's Cruella De Vil. Probably kills puppy dogs for fun.
We already have Cruella in the cabinet. Maybe the Grinch? I do think that this competition to be the most obnoxious member of the cabinet is getting slightly out of hand. It is not entirely clear to me that it was even a good way of winning votes in the first place, to be honest.
They are to good governance what Jonny Bairstow is to Test wicketkeeping.
Kept in place due to previous mistakes despite a better alternative being obvious to everyone.
I fear that @Cyclefree will see through what you did there.
Am amazed RCS has to ask a pack of PBers re the stupid email.
Seeing as how it took me all of 10 seconds worth of googling before I was reading it.
Or about half of it, gave up as it was way less than edifying, enlightening, entertaining or exciting (plus bunch of other e-words) than graffiti at a bus station toilet.
Agreed. I can't be bothered working out whether it's genuine or not.
OTOH Robert Jenrick is genuinely and quite luridly evil when he has the children's Disney art painted over in the refugee centres because it might make the place too "welcoming". He's Cruella De Vil. Probably kills puppy dogs for fun.
We already have Cruella in the cabinet. Maybe the Grinch? I do think that this competition to be the most obnoxious member of the cabinet is getting slightly out of hand. It is not entirely clear to me that it was even a good way of winning votes in the first place, to be honest.
They are to good governance what Jonny Bairstow is to Test wicketkeeping.
Kept in place due to previous mistakes despite a better alternative being obvious to everyone.
I fear that @Cyclefree will see through what you did there.
Important witness at the Post Office Inquiry Gareth Jenkins was supposed to be giving evidence yesterday. He didn't do so because at the last moment the Post Office disclosed a further 4,767 potentially relevant documents which made it impossible to fairly hear his evidence.
Stating the obvious though it may be, and with caveats around who the hosts associate with, the Gender: A Wider Lens podcast has a good episode on diagnoses. Their focus is gender but they make the good point that if you go to see an Asperger's specialist it might easily turn out that you have Asperger's; if you go and see an Autism/ADHD/ADD/etc specialist it will turn out that you have those conditions.
Not to say there isn't validity for such diagnoses but there has been a developing tendency to medicalise many conditions.
Then again if you don't (medicalise and) codify such conditions I'm not sure how effective treatment is possible.
Am amazed RCS has to ask a pack of PBers re the stupid email.
Seeing as how it took me all of 10 seconds worth of googling before I was reading it.
Or about half of it, gave up as it was way less than edifying, enlightening, entertaining or exciting (plus bunch of other e-words) than graffiti at a bus station toilet.
Agreed. I can't be bothered working out whether it's genuine or not.
OTOH Robert Jenrick is genuinely and quite luridly evil when he has the children's Disney art painted over in the refugee centres because it might make the place too "welcoming". He's Cruella De Vil. Probably kills puppy dogs for fun.
We already have Cruella in the cabinet. Maybe the Grinch? I do think that this competition to be the most obnoxious member of the cabinet is getting slightly out of hand. It is not entirely clear to me that it was even a good way of winning votes in the first place, to be honest.
They are to good governance what Jonny Bairstow is to Test wicketkeeping.
Kept in place due to previous mistakes despite a better alternative being obvious to everyone.
I fear that @Cyclefree will see through what you did there.
In terms of the self-diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder, I think for some (but by no means all), there is a lot of focus on the 'Spectrum' part - expression of a behaviours that might be stereotypical of autism, i.e 'we're all somewhere on the spectrum' etc - but very little attention is paid to the 'Disorder' aspect. That, I believe, is the difference between someone being a bit odd or struggling with social interactions, and someone having a pathology.
Am amazed RCS has to ask a pack of PBers re the stupid email.
Seeing as how it took me all of 10 seconds worth of googling before I was reading it.
Or about half of it, gave up as it was way less than edifying, enlightening, entertaining or exciting (plus bunch of other e-words) than graffiti at a bus station toilet.
Agreed. I can't be bothered working out whether it's genuine or not.
OTOH Robert Jenrick is genuinely and quite luridly evil when he has the children's Disney art painted over in the refugee centres because it might make the place too "welcoming". He's Cruella De Vil. Probably kills puppy dogs for fun.
We already have Cruella in the cabinet. Maybe the Grinch? I do think that this competition to be the most obnoxious member of the cabinet is getting slightly out of hand. It is not entirely clear to me that it was even a good way of winning votes in the first place, to be honest.
They are to good governance what Jonny Bairstow is to Test wicketkeeping.
Kept in place due to previous mistakes despite a better alternative being obvious to everyone.
I fear that @Cyclefree will see through what you did there.
Have to say that SKS was presumably grateful for the interruption of his speech by protesters yesterday as it broke the tedium and made it vaguely newsworthy. He didn’t have that advantage on R4 in the morning and boy that was grim. Platitudes and generalities piled high with not a detail in sight. He’s going to be poor in the election campaign, possibly even worse than Sunak if you can imagine such a thing.
Though when he broke from the script to engage with the protestors he came over well. That bodes well for the unpredictability of a campaign.
I am no Starmer fan, and he is still rather an enigma to me. What does he actually want to do as PM? He seems to be both over-prepared and over timid.
On the other hand, he is wise not to interrupt a government bent on self destruction.
What does Sir K want to do? I think something like this: 1) Win the election from the social democrat centre left 2) Under promise both before and after the election 3) Blame the Tories (not hard) 4) See what can be done about the EU in a Swiss sort of way 5) Try to be a government with some integrity, honesty and competence, no quick fixes 6) See if a 10-15 year programme can engender a bit of hope and a sense of direction 7) Use the current mood to further regulate water, banks, rail etc 8) Stop some rich people's loopholes and rebalance the tax system.
He can't spend any money much because there isn't any. The above 8 items is enough when all your money is going on debt interest, pensions and NHS.
(5) seems wildly aspirational to me. When did we last have a government like that?
I agree it is a lot to ask, but I have a tiny ray of hope that Sir K's stupefying dullness - that great under rated quality - and the way he remains the last man standing after hanging around through the awfulness of the Jezza years might be signs of being something like an Attlee. Attlee came to power of course when we were utterly bankrupt, but at a time of almost supernatural hope. That one is a bit of a work in progress, but at least we have the bankruptcy.
Have to say that SKS was presumably grateful for the interruption of his speech by protesters yesterday as it broke the tedium and made it vaguely newsworthy. He didn’t have that advantage on R4 in the morning and boy that was grim. Platitudes and generalities piled high with not a detail in sight. He’s going to be poor in the election campaign, possibly even worse than Sunak if you can imagine such a thing.
Though when he broke from the script to engage with the protestors he came over well. That bodes well for the unpredictability of a campaign.
I am no Starmer fan, and he is still rather an enigma to me. What does he actually want to do as PM? He seems to be both over-prepared and over timid.
On the other hand, he is wise not to interrupt a government bent on self destruction.
What does Sir K want to do? I think something like this: 1) Win the election from the social democrat centre left 2) Under promise both before and after the election 3) Blame the Tories (not hard) 4) See what can be done about the EU in a Swiss sort of way 5) Try to be a government with some integrity, honesty and competence, no quick fixes 6) See if a 10-15 year programme can engender a bit of hope and a sense of direction 7) Use the current mood to further regulate water, banks, rail etc 8) Stop some rich people's loopholes and rebalance the tax system.
He can't spend any money much because there isn't any. The above 8 items is enough when all your money is going on debt interest, pensions and NHS.
(5) seems wildly aspirational to me. When did we last have a government like that?
I think May tried to be a government with some integrity, honesty and competence, no quick fixes. At least as far as that's possible.
She failed fairly dismally- partly by not really being up to the job, partly because of the people in the tent pissing in, partly because the country rather likes quick fixes
The big question for Starmer is whether the UK is ready to accept that quick fixes aren't on the menu. I hope we are, but I'm not sure.
Am amazed RCS has to ask a pack of PBers re the stupid email.
Seeing as how it took me all of 10 seconds worth of googling before I was reading it.
Or about half of it, gave up as it was way less than edifying, enlightening, entertaining or exciting (plus bunch of other e-words) than graffiti at a bus station toilet.
Agreed. I can't be bothered working out whether it's genuine or not.
OTOH Robert Jenrick is genuinely and quite luridly evil when he has the children's Disney art painted over in the refugee centres because it might make the place too "welcoming". He's Cruella De Vil. Probably kills puppy dogs for fun.
We already have Cruella in the cabinet. Maybe the Grinch? I do think that this competition to be the most obnoxious member of the cabinet is getting slightly out of hand. It is not entirely clear to me that it was even a good way of winning votes in the first place, to be honest.
They are to good governance what Jonny Bairstow is to Test wicketkeeping.
Kept in place due to previous mistakes despite a better alternative being obvious to everyone.
I don't recall any occasional flashes of competence.
Am amazed RCS has to ask a pack of PBers re the stupid email.
Seeing as how it took me all of 10 seconds worth of googling before I was reading it.
Or about half of it, gave up as it was way less than edifying, enlightening, entertaining or exciting (plus bunch of other e-words) than graffiti at a bus station toilet.
Agreed. I can't be bothered working out whether it's genuine or not.
OTOH Robert Jenrick is genuinely and quite luridly evil when he has the children's Disney art painted over in the refugee centres because it might make the place too "welcoming". He's Cruella De Vil. Probably kills puppy dogs for fun.
We already have Cruella in the cabinet. Maybe the Grinch? I do think that this competition to be the most obnoxious member of the cabinet is getting slightly out of hand. It is not entirely clear to me that it was even a good way of winning votes in the first place, to be honest.
They are to good governance what Jonny Bairstow is to Test wicketkeeping.
Kept in place due to previous mistakes despite a better alternative being obvious to everyone.
I don't recall any occasional flashes of competence.
I hate to think what TSE will do to me if I ask which one of them you saw occasional flashes of competence in...
Not been following the Osborne story, but this ad did pop up in my feed.
On this week's #WhatsAtStake, @pentagrp partners @BDeAngelis82 and Viv O'Connor-Jemmett discuss the importance of Online Reputation Management in a lightning fast news cycle dominated by search engines and social media. Listen now!
In terms of the self-diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder, I think for some (but by no means all), there is a lot of focus on the 'Spectrum' part - expression of a behaviours that might be stereotypical of autism, i.e 'we're all somewhere on the spectrum' etc - but very little attention is paid to the 'Disorder' aspect. That, I believe, is the difference between someone being a bit odd or struggling with social interactions, and someone having a pathology.
There was a great TV series with Christophe Eccleston - The A Word - about a boy with autism. He, the boy, was quiet, introspective, listened to music, not really communicative.
On the phone-ins there were several parents of autistic children who bemoaned even this representation, to say nothing of the savant, Rain Man-type representations where someone can play Mozart 21 after hearing it on the radio once, or knows the square root of 8,937. They said that their experience of autism as manifest in their own children was of 24-hr screaming, violence and a complete absence of "rational" or communicative behaviour.
It is indeed a spectrum and it is indeed a disorder.
It’s amazing how many people had no problem admitting that Elon Musk is seriously smart - until he revealed that he is quite right wing. At which point he miraculously morphed into a stuttering moron who just keeps getting lucky
Musk strikes me as one of those super smart people who is also a bit dumb in certain respects, certainly in his dealings with people. Spending time in academia and then finance I have come across many people who fall into this category, Musk just seems one of the more extreme examples.
He’s likes to think he's autistic and he’s confessed this. That’s the issue
FTFY
Do one, actually. Autism is hard enough to deal with without creepy insinuations that it's a lifestyle choice. And is there anything more pathetic than that ftfy thing?
Absolutely right. It’s not fun and it’s something people admit easily and Musk has - as I correctly surmised - publicly discussed his autism. I salute him for that alone
Asperger's isn't even a term used these days. So that's profoundly unhelpful.
Fuck me. So in leftieland he's not allowed to self identfy as Asperger's? tho it's OK for people with cocks to self identify as "women"?
No. Nowt to do with politics. It's been removed as of 2013 from DSM-5, as no satisfactory distinction from other forms of autism could be made. Hence the term ASD which it was merged with in 2021 under ICD-11. Autistic Spectrum Disorder. So. From 2013 you couldn't be diagnosed with Asperger's. You can self identify as whatever you like as ever. But it ain't very helpful.
It's his fucking choice. Dipshit
And there is massive controvery in autist-land over the removal of these terms: Asperger's, high functioning, etc
Don't call me a dipshit. I don't identify as such. Glad to see you defend someone's choice to self identify in the teeth of medical opinion. Imho. As a professional working in the area, ADHD is under diagnosed. And ASD over. Like anxiety and depression a few years back. Similarly, the two are often overlapping and can be confused.
Fair enough. But this issue makes me personally angry
Probably because a very close relative of mine has recently been officially diagnosed as ASD and this person was told "we would once have diagnosed you as Aspie, and high functioning, but this is no longer officially allowed even though we think it useful", then this person went away and read up on all of it and decided "fuck yeah, I'm Aspie": - ie: high functioning, socially awkward, doesn't need much or any help with daily living, but has real and grave problems in certain situations, highly intelligent etc
This person, close to me, has self identified as Aspie and it brings this person a lot of consolation - and also practical assistance: because this person now reaches out to other self-identified "Aspies" and finds common ground, AND a social network. And Elon Musk is therefore a bit of an inspiration. The richest-ish man in the world says he's Aspie. Yay
Good luck to them all
Self-diagnosed Aspergers has been fashionable amongst a certain type of tech nerd since the internet decided decades ago Bill Gates had it (also the "richest-ish man in the world"). Self-diagnosed ADHD was also popular in the United States after the amphetamines used to treat it became known as "smart drugs".
People often like to validate themselves with a medicalised diagnosis. Sometimes it is helpful in accessing support, sometimes it is an obstacle and people say "I can't do that because I am X diagnosis" or just a licence to behave in an unusual manner
A label like this can be quite restricting, and not all personality traits need to be medicalised. We should treat people as they are, whether they carry a medical label or not.
Leon's regular expert theses on casual ASD diagnosis is for me, with a son who's life is blighted by this condition, offensive.
ASD can be a debilitating social millstone. It is not a label to justify Elon Musk's peculiar behaviour or an unwise slur to explain Theresa May's social awkwardness.
Leon pretty much hijacks all PB threads, whether it be with photographs of his breakfast or a travelog outlining the itinerary of his latest freebie. If readers like it great, engage whilst I scroll past. His very regular "expert" opinion on all things "on the spectrum " really, really wind me up. If people disengaged, perhaps he would change the subject back to his lunch.
Mine is a physical speciality, but it is recognised that people with learning disabilities and related conditions like ASD have much worse outcomes. In large part because it takes quite a lot of time and patience to individualise and optimise treatment for them, and to incorporate this into a therapeutic plan. Too often they are just plonked into a system that doesn't, and expects them unrealistically to accept or fail in a bog standard service.
One of the great pleasures of working in the NHS is that my Trust has supported me and some colleagues setting up bespoke services that accommodate such clients. I don't think that would be possible in a service requiring narrow financial viability.
I can safely say any expert intervention as a child was minimal. My wife did ask a consultant what advice he could give my son that would be of most value as someone with his condition, and the answer was " never say anything to a police officer whilst under caution without a lawyer present". That was the most important life lesson he felt my son needed to be aware of! As an adult there has been absolutely no assistance available. If he was addicted to alcohol or narcotics there would be intervention options left, right and centre.
It is wholly unhelpful when Theresa May's "dad dancing" is explained away by autism, or Elon Musk's success is because of his self-diagnosis as high functioning autistic. ASD should neither be an insult or a badge of honour.
And in twenty plus years of engaging with ASD help groups I have never heard the term "Aspie" used in any context, except of course by Dr Leon.
As for Starmer his R4 interview I thought was v interesting.
Began to warm to him on the breaking the class ceiling, but he then proved wholly unable to answer Nick Robinson's not really curveball, more bleedin' obvious questions about scenario analysis on funding (eg on abolishing tax breaks for private schools).
He ended up pretty automaton-ish. But he is not the Conservative Party which will be enough for many.
Have to say that SKS was presumably grateful for the interruption of his speech by protesters yesterday as it broke the tedium and made it vaguely newsworthy. He didn’t have that advantage on R4 in the morning and boy that was grim. Platitudes and generalities piled high with not a detail in sight. He’s going to be poor in the election campaign, possibly even worse than Sunak if you can imagine such a thing.
Though when he broke from the script to engage with the protestors he came over well. That bodes well for the unpredictability of a campaign.
I am no Starmer fan, and he is still rather an enigma to me. What does he actually want to do as PM? He seems to be both over-prepared and over timid.
On the other hand, he is wise not to interrupt a government bent on self destruction.
What does Sir K want to do? I think something like this: 1) Win the election from the social democrat centre left 2) Under promise both before and after the election 3) Blame the Tories (not hard) 4) See what can be done about the EU in a Swiss sort of way 5) Try to be a government with some integrity, honesty and competence, no quick fixes 6) See if a 10-15 year programme can engender a bit of hope and a sense of direction 7) Use the current mood to further regulate water, banks, rail etc 8) Stop some rich people's loopholes and rebalance the tax system.
He can't spend any money much because there isn't any. The above 8 items is enough when all your money is going on debt interest, pensions and NHS.
(5) seems wildly aspirational to me. When did we last have a government like that?
I think May tried to be a government with some integrity, honesty and competence, no quick fixes. At least as far as that's possible.
She failed fairly dismally- partly by not really being up to the job, partly because of the people in the tent pissing in, partly because the country rather likes quick fixes
The big question for Starmer is whether the UK is ready to accept that quick fixes aren't on the menu. I hope we are, but I'm not sure.
May was a fairly horrible Home Secretary, not "horrible" as in useless but horrible as in deeply unpleasant.
I find it a source of some despair that we find it so hard to combine firmness and compassion. Some unpleasant things need to do done by governments if the country is to function but that does not require us to be indifferent to, let alone relish, the consequences of our actions.
I fully appreciate that this can lead to exceptionalism which has its own problems but I want a government that actually cares. Painting over murals in case they give a moment's pleasure to desperate children is just vile. I would not trust someone who could do such a thing to make a decision about anything of moment.
Have to say that SKS was presumably grateful for the interruption of his speech by protesters yesterday as it broke the tedium and made it vaguely newsworthy. He didn’t have that advantage on R4 in the morning and boy that was grim. Platitudes and generalities piled high with not a detail in sight. He’s going to be poor in the election campaign, possibly even worse than Sunak if you can imagine such a thing.
Though when he broke from the script to engage with the protestors he came over well. That bodes well for the unpredictability of a campaign.
I am no Starmer fan, and he is still rather an enigma to me. What does he actually want to do as PM? He seems to be both over-prepared and over timid.
On the other hand, he is wise not to interrupt a government bent on self destruction.
What does Sir K want to do? I think something like this: 1) Win the election from the social democrat centre left 2) Under promise both before and after the election 3) Blame the Tories (not hard) 4) See what can be done about the EU in a Swiss sort of way 5) Try to be a government with some integrity, honesty and competence, no quick fixes 6) See if a 10-15 year programme can engender a bit of hope and a sense of direction 7) Use the current mood to further regulate water, banks, rail etc 8) Stop some rich people's loopholes and rebalance the tax system.
He can't spend any money much because there isn't any. The above 8 items is enough when all your money is going on debt interest, pensions and NHS.
(5) seems wildly aspirational to me. When did we last have a government like that?
I think May tried to be a government with some integrity, honesty and competence, no quick fixes. At least as far as that's possible.
She failed fairly dismally- partly by not really being up to the job, partly because of the people in the tent pissing in, partly because the country rather likes quick fixes
The big question for Starmer is whether the UK is ready to accept that quick fixes aren't on the menu. I hope we are, but I'm not sure.
Looking back, May's position was impossible from the beginning, and then her own 2017 election campaign made it worse.
As a remainer PM after Brexit it was politically impossible to do a sane Brexit (a Swiss or Norway approach) because her own party would not let her, and Labour was too self interested to help. So she had to try to find a middle way, pleasing no-one. It is notable that the faction that made life impossible for her has nothing worthwhile to offer now.
May would be OK in OK times; Brexit made it impossible.
L. Lin Wood, one of the key lawyers who sought to overturn former Donald Trump's 2020 election loss and faced potential disciplinary action in Georgia as a result, opted to give up his law license in the state. https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1677057353185652736
L. Lin Wood, one of the key lawyers who sought to overturn former Donald Trump's 2020 election loss and faced potential disciplinary action in Georgia as a result, opted to give up his law license in the state. https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1677057353185652736
As for Starmer his R4 interview I thought was v interesting.
Began to warm to him on the breaking the class ceiling, but he then proved wholly unable to answer Nick Robinson's not really curveball, more bleedin' obvious questions about scenario analysis on funding (eg on abolishing tax breaks for private schools).
He ended up pretty automaton-ish. But he is not the Conservative Party which will be enough for many.
Sir K is in an impossible position. He has to follow the rule that you can't win elections by promising tax rises; there isn't any money; he needs the liberal middle class votes, including the Guardianistas who talk the talk but use private schools; he can only promise to spend 10p by finding a non vote losing way of raising 10p at the same time. Automaton mode is about the only option.
The US has one of the best recoveries in the world. Inflation is now lower than g7 peers. The hot labor market has put a real dent in inequality. And Biden had a historically great midterm.
Have to say that SKS was presumably grateful for the interruption of his speech by protesters yesterday as it broke the tedium and made it vaguely newsworthy. He didn’t have that advantage on R4 in the morning and boy that was grim. Platitudes and generalities piled high with not a detail in sight. He’s going to be poor in the election campaign, possibly even worse than Sunak if you can imagine such a thing.
Though when he broke from the script to engage with the protestors he came over well. That bodes well for the unpredictability of a campaign.
I am no Starmer fan, and he is still rather an enigma to me. What does he actually want to do as PM? He seems to be both over-prepared and over timid.
On the other hand, he is wise not to interrupt a government bent on self destruction.
What does Sir K want to do? I think something like this: 1) Win the election from the social democrat centre left 2) Under promise both before and after the election 3) Blame the Tories (not hard) 4) See what can be done about the EU in a Swiss sort of way 5) Try to be a government with some integrity, honesty and competence, no quick fixes 6) See if a 10-15 year programme can engender a bit of hope and a sense of direction 7) Use the current mood to further regulate water, banks, rail etc 8) Stop some rich people's loopholes and rebalance the tax system.
He can't spend any money much because there isn't any. The above 8 items is enough when all your money is going on debt interest, pensions and NHS.
(5) seems wildly aspirational to me. When did we last have a government like that?
I think May tried to be a government with some integrity, honesty and competence, no quick fixes. At least as far as that's possible.
She failed fairly dismally- partly by not really being up to the job, partly because of the people in the tent pissing in, partly because the country rather likes quick fixes
The big question for Starmer is whether the UK is ready to accept that quick fixes aren't on the menu. I hope we are, but I'm not sure.
Looking back, May's position was impossible from the beginning, and then her own 2017 election campaign made it worse.
As a remainer PM after Brexit it was politically impossible to do a sane Brexit (a Swiss or Norway approach) because her own party would not let her, and Labour was too self interested to help. So she had to try to find a middle way, pleasing no-one. It is notable that the faction that made life impossible for her has nothing worthwhile to offer now.
May would be OK in OK times; Brexit made it impossible.
I disagree with that. She could have gone for a more reasonable Brexit approach but instead she sought to out-loon the loons. She never actually understood Brexit or its drivers and instead went for some cartoon version that no body was actually looking for.
Have to say that SKS was presumably grateful for the interruption of his speech by protesters yesterday as it broke the tedium and made it vaguely newsworthy. He didn’t have that advantage on R4 in the morning and boy that was grim. Platitudes and generalities piled high with not a detail in sight. He’s going to be poor in the election campaign, possibly even worse than Sunak if you can imagine such a thing.
Though when he broke from the script to engage with the protestors he came over well. That bodes well for the unpredictability of a campaign.
I am no Starmer fan, and he is still rather an enigma to me. What does he actually want to do as PM? He seems to be both over-prepared and over timid.
On the other hand, he is wise not to interrupt a government bent on self destruction.
What does Sir K want to do? I think something like this: 1) Win the election from the social democrat centre left 2) Under promise both before and after the election 3) Blame the Tories (not hard) 4) See what can be done about the EU in a Swiss sort of way 5) Try to be a government with some integrity, honesty and competence, no quick fixes 6) See if a 10-15 year programme can engender a bit of hope and a sense of direction 7) Use the current mood to further regulate water, banks, rail etc 8) Stop some rich people's loopholes and rebalance the tax system.
He can't spend any money much because there isn't any. The above 8 items is enough when all your money is going on debt interest, pensions and NHS.
(5) seems wildly aspirational to me. When did we last have a government like that?
I think May tried to be a government with some integrity, honesty and competence, no quick fixes. At least as far as that's possible.
She failed fairly dismally- partly by not really being up to the job, partly because of the people in the tent pissing in, partly because the country rather likes quick fixes
The big question for Starmer is whether the UK is ready to accept that quick fixes aren't on the menu. I hope we are, but I'm not sure.
May was a fairly horrible Home Secretary, not "horrible" as in useless but horrible as in deeply unpleasant.
I find it a source of some despair that we find it so hard to combine firmness and compassion. Some unpleasant things need to do done by governments if the country is to function but that does not require us to be indifferent to, let alone relish, the consequences of our actions.
I fully appreciate that this can lead to exceptionalism which has its own problems but I want a government that actually cares. Painting over murals in case they give a moment's pleasure to desperate children is just vile. I would not trust someone who could do such a thing to make a decision about anything of moment.
Oh come, come, Theresa May was Mary Poppins compared to Priti or Suella. Or Robert Jenrick for that matter.
Stating the obvious though it may be, and with caveats around who the hosts associate with, the Gender: A Wider Lens podcast has a good episode on diagnoses. Their focus is gender but they make the good point that if you go to see an Asperger's specialist it might easily turn out that you have Asperger's; if you go and see an Autism/ADHD/ADD/etc specialist it will turn out that you have those conditions.
Not to say there isn't validity for such diagnoses but there has been a developing tendency to medicalise many conditions.
Then again if you don't (medicalise and) codify such conditions I'm not sure how effective treatment is possible.
To state the obvious, people who think they have an issue will seek out sympathetic help. I have no gender confusion so am unlikely to book myself into a gender clinic!
There is a longstanding debate over what aspects of the human condition should be medicalised. There have been times where over enthusiastic practitioners have gone overboard with their hobbyhorse diagnoses, the Teeside sexual abuse scandal and Satanic Panic of a couple of decades ago for example.
I am more laissez-faire, and prefer not to label people and just take them as they are, part of the rich tapestry of life.
One of my guru's teachings is "consider that you might be wrong", and I try to follow it. So if someone finds a label helpful, then I let them use it.
As for Starmer his R4 interview I thought was v interesting.
Began to warm to him on the breaking the class ceiling, but he then proved wholly unable to answer Nick Robinson's not really curveball, more bleedin' obvious questions about scenario analysis on funding (eg on abolishing tax breaks for private schools).
He ended up pretty automaton-ish. But he is not the Conservative Party which will be enough for many.
I noticed that the interview was followed soon after with the head of Shell being asked if he would consider moving Shell’s HQ/listing from London if there were restrictions on drilling and further windfall taxes to which he said it would be sensible to keep all options open.
It’s all very well to say “we will raise x from these people” until those people bugger off, whether private school pupils or oil firms and a lot of Starmer’s plans seem to be based on funding streams that are far from guaranteed and even less guaranteed if you attack those revenue streams.
Have to say that SKS was presumably grateful for the interruption of his speech by protesters yesterday as it broke the tedium and made it vaguely newsworthy. He didn’t have that advantage on R4 in the morning and boy that was grim. Platitudes and generalities piled high with not a detail in sight. He’s going to be poor in the election campaign, possibly even worse than Sunak if you can imagine such a thing.
Though when he broke from the script to engage with the protestors he came over well. That bodes well for the unpredictability of a campaign.
I am no Starmer fan, and he is still rather an enigma to me. What does he actually want to do as PM? He seems to be both over-prepared and over timid.
On the other hand, he is wise not to interrupt a government bent on self destruction.
What does Sir K want to do? I think something like this: 1) Win the election from the social democrat centre left 2) Under promise both before and after the election 3) Blame the Tories (not hard) 4) See what can be done about the EU in a Swiss sort of way 5) Try to be a government with some integrity, honesty and competence, no quick fixes 6) See if a 10-15 year programme can engender a bit of hope and a sense of direction 7) Use the current mood to further regulate water, banks, rail etc 8) Stop some rich people's loopholes and rebalance the tax system.
He can't spend any money much because there isn't any. The above 8 items is enough when all your money is going on debt interest, pensions and NHS.
(5) seems wildly aspirational to me. When did we last have a government like that?
I think May tried to be a government with some integrity, honesty and competence, no quick fixes. At least as far as that's possible.
She failed fairly dismally- partly by not really being up to the job, partly because of the people in the tent pissing in, partly because the country rather likes quick fixes
The big question for Starmer is whether the UK is ready to accept that quick fixes aren't on the menu. I hope we are, but I'm not sure.
May was a fairly horrible Home Secretary, not "horrible" as in useless but horrible as in deeply unpleasant.
I find it a source of some despair that we find it so hard to combine firmness and compassion. Some unpleasant things need to do done by governments if the country is to function but that does not require us to be indifferent to, let alone relish, the consequences of our actions.
I fully appreciate that this can lead to exceptionalism which has its own problems but I want a government that actually cares. Painting over murals in case they give a moment's pleasure to desperate children is just vile. I would not trust someone who could do such a thing to make a decision about anything of moment.
Oh come, come, Theresa May was Mary Poppins compared to Priti or Suella. Or Robert Jenrick for that matter.
Well, that's true, but not exactly a ringing endorsement, is it?
Have to say that SKS was presumably grateful for the interruption of his speech by protesters yesterday as it broke the tedium and made it vaguely newsworthy. He didn’t have that advantage on R4 in the morning and boy that was grim. Platitudes and generalities piled high with not a detail in sight. He’s going to be poor in the election campaign, possibly even worse than Sunak if you can imagine such a thing.
Though when he broke from the script to engage with the protestors he came over well. That bodes well for the unpredictability of a campaign.
I am no Starmer fan, and he is still rather an enigma to me. What does he actually want to do as PM? He seems to be both over-prepared and over timid.
On the other hand, he is wise not to interrupt a government bent on self destruction.
What does Sir K want to do? I think something like this: 1) Win the election from the social democrat centre left 2) Under promise both before and after the election 3) Blame the Tories (not hard) 4) See what can be done about the EU in a Swiss sort of way 5) Try to be a government with some integrity, honesty and competence, no quick fixes 6) See if a 10-15 year programme can engender a bit of hope and a sense of direction 7) Use the current mood to further regulate water, banks, rail etc 8) Stop some rich people's loopholes and rebalance the tax system.
He can't spend any money much because there isn't any. The above 8 items is enough when all your money is going on debt interest, pensions and NHS.
(5) seems wildly aspirational to me. When did we last have a government like that?
Have to say that SKS was presumably grateful for the interruption of his speech by protesters yesterday as it broke the tedium and made it vaguely newsworthy. He didn’t have that advantage on R4 in the morning and boy that was grim. Platitudes and generalities piled high with not a detail in sight. He’s going to be poor in the election campaign, possibly even worse than Sunak if you can imagine such a thing.
Though when he broke from the script to engage with the protestors he came over well. That bodes well for the unpredictability of a campaign.
I am no Starmer fan, and he is still rather an enigma to me. What does he actually want to do as PM? He seems to be both over-prepared and over timid.
On the other hand, he is wise not to interrupt a government bent on self destruction.
What does Sir K want to do? I think something like this: 1) Win the election from the social democrat centre left 2) Under promise both before and after the election 3) Blame the Tories (not hard) 4) See what can be done about the EU in a Swiss sort of way 5) Try to be a government with some integrity, honesty and competence, no quick fixes 6) See if a 10-15 year programme can engender a bit of hope and a sense of direction 7) Use the current mood to further regulate water, banks, rail etc 8) Stop some rich people's loopholes and rebalance the tax system.
He can't spend any money much because there isn't any. The above 8 items is enough when all your money is going on debt interest, pensions and NHS.
(5) seems wildly aspirational to me. When did we last have a government like that?
I think May tried to be a government with some integrity, honesty and competence, no quick fixes. At least as far as that's possible.
She failed fairly dismally- partly by not really being up to the job, partly because of the people in the tent pissing in, partly because the country rather likes quick fixes
The big question for Starmer is whether the UK is ready to accept that quick fixes aren't on the menu. I hope we are, but I'm not sure.
Looking back, May's position was impossible from the beginning, and then her own 2017 election campaign made it worse.
As a remainer PM after Brexit it was politically impossible to do a sane Brexit (a Swiss or Norway approach) because her own party would not let her, and Labour was too self interested to help. So she had to try to find a middle way, pleasing no-one. It is notable that the faction that made life impossible for her has nothing worthwhile to offer now.
May would be OK in OK times; Brexit made it impossible.
I disagree with that. She could have gone for a more reasonable Brexit approach but instead she sought to out-loon the loons. She never actually understood Brexit or its drivers and instead went for some cartoon version that no body was actually looking for.
I would love to think that in 2016-2019 a reasonable Brexit approach was possible. The divisions in the HoC suggest that there was no decent approach that would have commanded a majority whatever anyone did.
It’s amazing how many people had no problem admitting that Elon Musk is seriously smart - until he revealed that he is quite right wing. At which point he miraculously morphed into a stuttering moron who just keeps getting lucky
Musk strikes me as one of those super smart people who is also a bit dumb in certain respects, certainly in his dealings with people. Spending time in academia and then finance I have come across many people who fall into this category, Musk just seems one of the more extreme examples.
He’s likes to think he's autistic and he’s confessed this. That’s the issue
FTFY
Do one, actually. Autism is hard enough to deal with without creepy insinuations that it's a lifestyle choice. And is there anything more pathetic than that ftfy thing?
Absolutely right. It’s not fun and it’s something people admit easily and Musk has - as I correctly surmised - publicly discussed his autism. I salute him for that alone
Asperger's isn't even a term used these days. So that's profoundly unhelpful.
Fuck me. So in leftieland he's not allowed to self identfy as Asperger's? tho it's OK for people with cocks to self identify as "women"?
No. Nowt to do with politics. It's been removed as of 2013 from DSM-5, as no satisfactory distinction from other forms of autism could be made. Hence the term ASD which it was merged with in 2021 under ICD-11. Autistic Spectrum Disorder. So. From 2013 you couldn't be diagnosed with Asperger's. You can self identify as whatever you like as ever. But it ain't very helpful.
It's his fucking choice. Dipshit
And there is massive controvery in autist-land over the removal of these terms: Asperger's, high functioning, etc
Don't call me a dipshit. I don't identify as such. Glad to see you defend someone's choice to self identify in the teeth of medical opinion. Imho. As a professional working in the area, ADHD is under diagnosed. And ASD over. Like anxiety and depression a few years back. Similarly, the two are often overlapping and can be confused.
Fair enough. But this issue makes me personally angry
Probably because a very close relative of mine has recently been officially diagnosed as ASD and this person was told "we would once have diagnosed you as Aspie, and high functioning, but this is no longer officially allowed even though we think it useful", then this person went away and read up on all of it and decided "fuck yeah, I'm Aspie": - ie: high functioning, socially awkward, doesn't need much or any help with daily living, but has real and grave problems in certain situations, highly intelligent etc
This person, close to me, has self identified as Aspie and it brings this person a lot of consolation - and also practical assistance: because this person now reaches out to other self-identified "Aspies" and finds common ground, AND a social network. And Elon Musk is therefore a bit of an inspiration. The richest-ish man in the world says he's Aspie. Yay
Good luck to them all
Self-diagnosed Aspergers has been fashionable amongst a certain type of tech nerd since the internet decided decades ago Bill Gates had it (also the "richest-ish man in the world"). Self-diagnosed ADHD was also popular in the United States after the amphetamines used to treat it became known as "smart drugs".
People often like to validate themselves with a medicalised diagnosis. Sometimes it is helpful in accessing support, sometimes it is an obstacle and people say "I can't do that because I am X diagnosis" or just a licence to behave in an unusual manner
A label like this can be quite restricting, and not all personality traits need to be medicalised. We should treat people as they are, whether they carry a medical label or not.
Leon's regular expert theses on casual ASD diagnosis is for me, with a son who's life is blighted by this condition, offensive.
ASD can be a debilitating social millstone. It is not a label to justify Elon Musk's peculiar behaviour or an unwise slur to explain Theresa May's social awkwardness.
Leon pretty much hijacks all PB threads, whether it be with photographs of his breakfast or a travelog outlining the itinerary of his latest freebie. If readers like it great, engage whilst I scroll past. His very regular "expert" opinion on all things "on the spectrum " really, really wind me up. If people disengaged, perhaps he would change the subject back to his lunch.
Mine is a physical speciality, but it is recognised that people with learning disabilities and related conditions like ASD have much worse outcomes. In large part because it takes quite a lot of time and patience to individualise and optimise treatment for them, and to incorporate this into a therapeutic plan. Too often they are just plonked into a system that doesn't, and expects them unrealistically to accept or fail in a bog standard service.
One of the great pleasures of working in the NHS is that my Trust has supported me and some colleagues setting up bespoke services that accommodate such clients. I don't think that would be possible in a service requiring narrow financial viability.
I can safely say any expert intervention as a child was minimal. My wife did ask a consultant what advice he could give my son that would be of most value as someone with his condition, and the answer was " never say anything to a police officer whilst under caution without a lawyer present". That was the most important life lesson he felt my son needed to be aware of! As an adult there has been absolutely no assistance available. If he was addicted to alcohol or narcotics there would be intervention options left, right and centre.
It is wholly unhelpful when Theresa May's "dad dancing" is explained away by autism, or Elon Musk's success is because of his self-diagnosis as high functioning autistic. ASD should neither be an insult or a badge of honour.
And in twenty plus years of engaging with ASD help groups I have never heard the term "Aspie" used in any context, except of course by Dr Leon.
I agree that both children's and adult mental health services are often appalling, and such individuals often get a poor deal from other services too because they are a hassle to deal with. I just do a little bit to right these historic wrongs in my own service.
Stating the obvious though it may be, and with caveats around who the hosts associate with, the Gender: A Wider Lens podcast has a good episode on diagnoses. Their focus is gender but they make the good point that if you go to see an Asperger's specialist it might easily turn out that you have Asperger's; if you go and see an Autism/ADHD/ADD/etc specialist it will turn out that you have those conditions.
Not to say there isn't validity for such diagnoses but there has been a developing tendency to medicalise many conditions.
Then again if you don't (medicalise and) codify such conditions I'm not sure how effective treatment is possible.
To state the obvious, people who think they have an issue will seek out sympathetic help. I have no gender confusion so am unlikely to book myself into a gender clinic!
There is a longstanding debate over what aspects of the human condition should be medicalised. There have been times where over enthusiastic practitioners have gone overboard with their hobbyhorse diagnoses, the Teeside sexual abuse scandal and Satanic Panic of a couple of decades ago for example.
I am more laissez-faire, and prefer not to label people and just take them as they are, part of the rich tapestry of life.
One of my guru's teachings is "consider that you might be wrong", and I try to follow it. So if someone finds a label helpful, then I let them use it.
Have to say that SKS was presumably grateful for the interruption of his speech by protesters yesterday as it broke the tedium and made it vaguely newsworthy. He didn’t have that advantage on R4 in the morning and boy that was grim. Platitudes and generalities piled high with not a detail in sight. He’s going to be poor in the election campaign, possibly even worse than Sunak if you can imagine such a thing.
Though when he broke from the script to engage with the protestors he came over well. That bodes well for the unpredictability of a campaign.
I am no Starmer fan, and he is still rather an enigma to me. What does he actually want to do as PM? He seems to be both over-prepared and over timid.
On the other hand, he is wise not to interrupt a government bent on self destruction.
What does Sir K want to do? I think something like this: 1) Win the election from the social democrat centre left 2) Under promise both before and after the election 3) Blame the Tories (not hard) 4) See what can be done about the EU in a Swiss sort of way 5) Try to be a government with some integrity, honesty and competence, no quick fixes 6) See if a 10-15 year programme can engender a bit of hope and a sense of direction 7) Use the current mood to further regulate water, banks, rail etc 8) Stop some rich people's loopholes and rebalance the tax system.
He can't spend any money much because there isn't any. The above 8 items is enough when all your money is going on debt interest, pensions and NHS.
(5) seems wildly aspirational to me. When did we last have a government like that?
I think May tried to be a government with some integrity, honesty and competence, no quick fixes. At least as far as that's possible.
She failed fairly dismally- partly by not really being up to the job, partly because of the people in the tent pissing in, partly because the country rather likes quick fixes
The big question for Starmer is whether the UK is ready to accept that quick fixes aren't on the menu. I hope we are, but I'm not sure.
Looking back, May's position was impossible from the beginning, and then her own 2017 election campaign made it worse.
As a remainer PM after Brexit it was politically impossible to do a sane Brexit (a Swiss or Norway approach) because her own party would not let her, and Labour was too self interested to help. So she had to try to find a middle way, pleasing no-one. It is notable that the faction that made life impossible for her has nothing worthwhile to offer now.
May would be OK in OK times; Brexit made it impossible.
I disagree with that. She could have gone for a more reasonable Brexit approach but instead she sought to out-loon the loons. She never actually understood Brexit or its drivers and instead went for some cartoon version that no body was actually looking for.
Well no one knew what Brexit meant until Tezzie told us. Brexit meant Brexit! And that appeared to mean cutting out all convergence with the EU, which the ERG lapped up until they decided that course of action wasn't Brexit enough.
As for Starmer his R4 interview I thought was v interesting.
Began to warm to him on the breaking the class ceiling, but he then proved wholly unable to answer Nick Robinson's not really curveball, more bleedin' obvious questions about scenario analysis on funding (eg on abolishing tax breaks for private schools).
He ended up pretty automaton-ish. But he is not the Conservative Party which will be enough for many.
I noticed that the interview was followed soon after with the head of Shell being asked if he would consider moving Shell’s HQ/listing from London if there were restrictions on drilling and further windfall taxes to which he said it would be sensible to keep all options open.
It’s all very well to say “we will raise x from these people” until those people bugger off, whether private school pupils or oil firms and a lot of Starmer’s plans seem to be based on funding streams that are far from guaranteed and even less guaranteed if you attack those revenue streams.
Starmer dismissed and refused to accept that any private school pupils would move to the state sector. Perhaps he believes that is a problem to worry about then not now. Same with Shell.
Don't forget he is dealing with the British public here so no need for too many complications.
As for Starmer his R4 interview I thought was v interesting.
Began to warm to him on the breaking the class ceiling, but he then proved wholly unable to answer Nick Robinson's not really curveball, more bleedin' obvious questions about scenario analysis on funding (eg on abolishing tax breaks for private schools).
He ended up pretty automaton-ish. But he is not the Conservative Party which will be enough for many.
I noticed that the interview was followed soon after with the head of Shell being asked if he would consider moving Shell’s HQ/listing from London if there were restrictions on drilling and further windfall taxes to which he said it would be sensible to keep all options open.
It’s all very well to say “we will raise x from these people” until those people bugger off, whether private school pupils or oil firms and a lot of Starmer’s plans seem to be based on funding streams that are far from guaranteed and even less guaranteed if you attack those revenue streams.
Starmer dismissed and refused to accept that any private school pupils would move to the state sector. Perhaps he believes that is a problem to worry about then not now. Same with Shell.
Don't forget he is dealing with the British public here so no need for too many complications.
On the private schools question he would have been better saying that they are factoring in a number of switchers but that the policy will still generate funds but also help push towards a more equal society so it’s a double win (I don’t agree) which would have sounded more genuine and not show him up as just another politician who won’t answer anything that shows their policy to be balls.
In terms of the self-diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder, I think for some (but by no means all), there is a lot of focus on the 'Spectrum' part - expression of a behaviours that might be stereotypical of autism, i.e 'we're all somewhere on the spectrum' etc - but very little attention is paid to the 'Disorder' aspect. That, I believe, is the difference between someone being a bit odd or struggling with social interactions, and someone having a pathology.
There was a great TV series with Christophe Eccleston - The A Word - about a boy with autism. He, the boy, was quiet, introspective, listened to music, not really communicative.
On the phone-ins there were several parents of autistic children who bemoaned even this representation, to say nothing of the savant, Rain Man-type representations where someone can play Mozart 21 after hearing it on the radio once, or knows the square root of 8,937. They said that their experience of autism as manifest in their own children was of 24-hr screaming, violence and a complete absence of "rational" or communicative behaviour.
It is indeed a spectrum and it is indeed a disorder.
This is where Leon might have a point. The range of disorders on the autism spectrum is so wide that one questions how useful a label it is. It might help the researcher looking for a common cause or treatment (although one does not necessarily imply the other) but for the patient? But we are where we are. We cannot go back without inventing a new terminology.
Have to say that SKS was presumably grateful for the interruption of his speech by protesters yesterday as it broke the tedium and made it vaguely newsworthy. He didn’t have that advantage on R4 in the morning and boy that was grim. Platitudes and generalities piled high with not a detail in sight. He’s going to be poor in the election campaign, possibly even worse than Sunak if you can imagine such a thing.
Though when he broke from the script to engage with the protestors he came over well. That bodes well for the unpredictability of a campaign.
I am no Starmer fan, and he is still rather an enigma to me. What does he actually want to do as PM? He seems to be both over-prepared and over timid.
On the other hand, he is wise not to interrupt a government bent on self destruction.
What does Sir K want to do? I think something like this: 1) Win the election from the social democrat centre left 2) Under promise both before and after the election 3) Blame the Tories (not hard) 4) See what can be done about the EU in a Swiss sort of way 5) Try to be a government with some integrity, honesty and competence, no quick fixes 6) See if a 10-15 year programme can engender a bit of hope and a sense of direction 7) Use the current mood to further regulate water, banks, rail etc 8) Stop some rich people's loopholes and rebalance the tax system.
He can't spend any money much because there isn't any. The above 8 items is enough when all your money is going on debt interest, pensions and NHS.
(5) seems wildly aspirational to me. When did we last have a government like that?
I think May tried to be a government with some integrity, honesty and competence, no quick fixes. At least as far as that's possible.
She failed fairly dismally- partly by not really being up to the job, partly because of the people in the tent pissing in, partly because the country rather likes quick fixes
The big question for Starmer is whether the UK is ready to accept that quick fixes aren't on the menu. I hope we are, but I'm not sure.
Looking back, May's position was impossible from the beginning, and then her own 2017 election campaign made it worse.
As a remainer PM after Brexit it was politically impossible to do a sane Brexit (a Swiss or Norway approach) because her own party would not let her, and Labour was too self interested to help. So she had to try to find a middle way, pleasing no-one. It is notable that the faction that made life impossible for her has nothing worthwhile to offer now.
May would be OK in OK times; Brexit made it impossible.
I disagree with that. She could have gone for a more reasonable Brexit approach but instead she sought to out-loon the loons. She never actually understood Brexit or its drivers and instead went for some cartoon version that no body was actually looking for.
Mrs May wasn't the most skilled or persuasive of politicians but I cut her some slack on Brexit. She was in a tough to impossible place after losing the Con majority in the election she foolishly called. And she'd have been deposed by the Party if she hadn't rejected Free Movement (and therefore SM membership).
Have to say that SKS was presumably grateful for the interruption of his speech by protesters yesterday as it broke the tedium and made it vaguely newsworthy. He didn’t have that advantage on R4 in the morning and boy that was grim. Platitudes and generalities piled high with not a detail in sight. He’s going to be poor in the election campaign, possibly even worse than Sunak if you can imagine such a thing.
Though when he broke from the script to engage with the protestors he came over well. That bodes well for the unpredictability of a campaign.
I am no Starmer fan, and he is still rather an enigma to me. What does he actually want to do as PM? He seems to be both over-prepared and over timid.
On the other hand, he is wise not to interrupt a government bent on self destruction.
Starmer can think on his feet better than Sunak, which isn't surprising given his CV and how poor Sunak is at thinking on his feet. But unlike Blair in 1997 and for that matter even Trump in 2016 he's got practically no element of a new dawn in his offering, and practically no charisma. He doesn't even measure up to Kinnock.
All the Tories need to do is introduce a bit of new and tough in conflict into their presentation. That may well mean binning Sunak, and there may be a bit of a trouble there with him hanging onto the doorframe because he's rich - so get yer popcorn ready - but they seem to have managed OK in removing the last three prime ministers when they wanted to. And it doesn't even necessarily mean getting rid of Sunak. He is young, he is not bright but he's better than his three predecessors at listening to advice, and he can be repackaged. The Tories' biggest card is Rwanda, and they will play it when they think the time is right, which isn't yet. Labour haven't really got a card to play in response, other than to say be nice and hey this is a distraction, oh please please, listen to us. Too many pundits keep comparing with 1992 and 1997, but 2024 will probably be more like 2019.
It’s amazing how many people had no problem admitting that Elon Musk is seriously smart - until he revealed that he is quite right wing. At which point he miraculously morphed into a stuttering moron who just keeps getting lucky
Musk strikes me as one of those super smart people who is also a bit dumb in certain respects, certainly in his dealings with people. Spending time in academia and then finance I have come across many people who fall into this category, Musk just seems one of the more extreme examples.
He’s likes to think he's autistic and he’s confessed this. That’s the issue
FTFY
Do one, actually. Autism is hard enough to deal with without creepy insinuations that it's a lifestyle choice. And is there anything more pathetic than that ftfy thing?
Absolutely right. It’s not fun and it’s something people admit easily and Musk has - as I correctly surmised - publicly discussed his autism. I salute him for that alone
Asperger's isn't even a term used these days. So that's profoundly unhelpful.
Fuck me. So in leftieland he's not allowed to self identfy as Asperger's? tho it's OK for people with cocks to self identify as "women"?
No. Nowt to do with politics. It's been removed as of 2013 from DSM-5, as no satisfactory distinction from other forms of autism could be made. Hence the term ASD which it was merged with in 2021 under ICD-11. Autistic Spectrum Disorder. So. From 2013 you couldn't be diagnosed with Asperger's. You can self identify as whatever you like as ever. But it ain't very helpful.
It's his fucking choice. Dipshit
And there is massive controvery in autist-land over the removal of these terms: Asperger's, high functioning, etc
Don't call me a dipshit. I don't identify as such. Glad to see you defend someone's choice to self identify in the teeth of medical opinion. Imho. As a professional working in the area, ADHD is under diagnosed. And ASD over. Like anxiety and depression a few years back. Similarly, the two are often overlapping and can be confused.
Fair enough. But this issue makes me personally angry
Probably because a very close relative of mine has recently been officially diagnosed as ASD and this person was told "we would once have diagnosed you as Aspie, and high functioning, but this is no longer officially allowed even though we think it useful", then this person went away and read up on all of it and decided "fuck yeah, I'm Aspie": - ie: high functioning, socially awkward, doesn't need much or any help with daily living, but has real and grave problems in certain situations, highly intelligent etc
This person, close to me, has self identified as Aspie and it brings this person a lot of consolation - and also practical assistance: because this person now reaches out to other self-identified "Aspies" and finds common ground, AND a social network. And Elon Musk is therefore a bit of an inspiration. The richest-ish man in the world says he's Aspie. Yay
Good luck to them all
Self-diagnosed Aspergers has been fashionable amongst a certain type of tech nerd since the internet decided decades ago Bill Gates had it (also the "richest-ish man in the world"). Self-diagnosed ADHD was also popular in the United States after the amphetamines used to treat it became known as "smart drugs".
People often like to validate themselves with a medicalised diagnosis. Sometimes it is helpful in accessing support, sometimes it is an obstacle and people say "I can't do that because I am X diagnosis" or just a licence to behave in an unusual manner
A label like this can be quite restricting, and not all personality traits need to be medicalised. We should treat people as they are, whether they carry a medical label or not.
Leon's regular expert theses on casual ASD diagnosis is for me, with a son who's life is blighted by this condition, offensive.
ASD can be a debilitating social millstone. It is not a label to justify Elon Musk's peculiar behaviour or an unwise slur to explain Theresa May's social awkwardness.
Leon pretty much hijacks all PB threads, whether it be with photographs of his breakfast or a travelog outlining the itinerary of his latest freebie. If readers like it great, engage whilst I scroll past. His very regular "expert" opinion on all things "on the spectrum " really, really wind me up. If people disengaged, perhaps he would change the subject back to his lunch.
Mine is a physical speciality, but it is recognised that people with learning disabilities and related conditions like ASD have much worse outcomes. In large part because it takes quite a lot of time and patience to individualise and optimise treatment for them, and to incorporate this into a therapeutic plan. Too often they are just plonked into a system that doesn't, and expects them unrealistically to accept or fail in a bog standard service.
One of the great pleasures of working in the NHS is that my Trust has supported me and some colleagues setting up bespoke services that accommodate such clients. I don't think that would be possible in a service requiring narrow financial viability.
I can safely say any expert intervention as a child was minimal. My wife did ask a consultant what advice he could give my son that would be of most value as someone with his condition, and the answer was " never say anything to a police officer whilst under caution without a lawyer present". That was the most important life lesson he felt my son needed to be aware of! As an adult there has been absolutely no assistance available. If he was addicted to alcohol or narcotics there would be intervention options left, right and centre.
It is wholly unhelpful when Theresa May's "dad dancing" is explained away by autism, or Elon Musk's success is because of his self-diagnosis as high functioning autistic. ASD should neither be an insult or a badge of honour.
And in twenty plus years of engaging with ASD help groups I have never heard the term "Aspie" used in any context, except of course by Dr Leon.
I agree that both children's and adult mental health services are often appalling, and such individuals often get a poor deal from other services too because they are a hassle to deal with. I just do a little bit to right these historic wrongs in my own service.
Resources are finite.
Although addiction therapy and sexual identity therapy seem more readily available than autism services both in the NHS and through lottery funding.
Seems the FED are concerned for US inflation and the markets reacted badly yesterday at the prospect of ever higher interest rates in the US, EU, and UK which could see our base rate head towards 7%
This is any government's worst nightmare and certainly will see the conservatives lose to labour but what then ?
The conservative may tear themselves apart, indeed will if they go down the ERG right wing path, but the next 5 years are going to be more than challenging and especially for a labour government who for once faces the absolute of 'there is no money left'
It was interesting that labour have again said they may not be able to agree the teachers pay review body recommendations and it looks as if the public sector are not going to find it any easier to advance pay with labour
What a mess, and yes Johnson's toxic behaviour and Truss's debacle are centre to the political fray, but ultimately Brexit, covid and the war in Ukraine have combined to deliver a devastating blow to the UK economy and with the war in Ukraine and talk of threats to grain supplies, this could continue for a long time yet
Never mind - we have the cricket to look forward to - or do we ?
Have to say that SKS was presumably grateful for the interruption of his speech by protesters yesterday as it broke the tedium and made it vaguely newsworthy. He didn’t have that advantage on R4 in the morning and boy that was grim. Platitudes and generalities piled high with not a detail in sight. He’s going to be poor in the election campaign, possibly even worse than Sunak if you can imagine such a thing.
Though when he broke from the script to engage with the protestors he came over well. That bodes well for the unpredictability of a campaign.
I am no Starmer fan, and he is still rather an enigma to me. What does he actually want to do as PM? He seems to be both over-prepared and over timid.
On the other hand, he is wise not to interrupt a government bent on self destruction.
Starmer can think on his feet better than Sunak, which isn't surprising given his CV and how poor Sunak is at thinking on his feet. But unlike Blair in 1997 and for that matter even Trump in 2016 he's got practically no element of a new dawn in his offering, and practically no charisma. He doesn't even measure up to Kinnock.
All the Tories need to do is introduce a bit of new and tough in conflict into their presentation. That may well mean binning Sunak, and there may be a bit of a trouble there with him hanging onto the doorframe because he's rich - so get yer popcorn ready - but they seem to have managed OK in removing the last three prime ministers when they wanted to. And it doesn't even necessarily mean getting rid of Sunak. He is young, he is not bright but he's better than his three predecessors at listening to advice, and he can be repackaged. The Tories' biggest card is Rwanda, and they will play it when they think the time is right, which isn't yet. Labour haven't really got a card to play in response, other than to say be nice and hey this is a distraction, oh please please, listen to us. Too many pundits keep comparing with 1992 and 1997, but 2024 will probably be more like 2019.
Rwanda? Er, where are the newsreels of grateful smiling people? As opposed to empty and fairly posh hotels?
It’s amazing how many people had no problem admitting that Elon Musk is seriously smart - until he revealed that he is quite right wing. At which point he miraculously morphed into a stuttering moron who just keeps getting lucky
Musk strikes me as one of those super smart people who is also a bit dumb in certain respects, certainly in his dealings with people. Spending time in academia and then finance I have come across many people who fall into this category, Musk just seems one of the more extreme examples.
He’s likes to think he's autistic and he’s confessed this. That’s the issue
FTFY
Do one, actually. Autism is hard enough to deal with without creepy insinuations that it's a lifestyle choice. And is there anything more pathetic than that ftfy thing?
Absolutely right. It’s not fun and it’s something people admit easily and Musk has - as I correctly surmised - publicly discussed his autism. I salute him for that alone
Asperger's isn't even a term used these days. So that's profoundly unhelpful.
Fuck me. So in leftieland he's not allowed to self identfy as Asperger's? tho it's OK for people with cocks to self identify as "women"?
No. Nowt to do with politics. It's been removed as of 2013 from DSM-5, as no satisfactory distinction from other forms of autism could be made. Hence the term ASD which it was merged with in 2021 under ICD-11. Autistic Spectrum Disorder. So. From 2013 you couldn't be diagnosed with Asperger's. You can self identify as whatever you like as ever. But it ain't very helpful.
It's his fucking choice. Dipshit
And there is massive controvery in autist-land over the removal of these terms: Asperger's, high functioning, etc
Don't call me a dipshit. I don't identify as such. Glad to see you defend someone's choice to self identify in the teeth of medical opinion. Imho. As a professional working in the area, ADHD is under diagnosed. And ASD over. Like anxiety and depression a few years back. Similarly, the two are often overlapping and can be confused.
Fair enough. But this issue makes me personally angry
Probably because a very close relative of mine has recently been officially diagnosed as ASD and this person was told "we would once have diagnosed you as Aspie, and high functioning, but this is no longer officially allowed even though we think it useful", then this person went away and read up on all of it and decided "fuck yeah, I'm Aspie": - ie: high functioning, socially awkward, doesn't need much or any help with daily living, but has real and grave problems in certain situations, highly intelligent etc
This person, close to me, has self identified as Aspie and it brings this person a lot of consolation - and also practical assistance: because this person now reaches out to other self-identified "Aspies" and finds common ground, AND a social network. And Elon Musk is therefore a bit of an inspiration. The richest-ish man in the world says he's Aspie. Yay
Good luck to them all
Self-diagnosed Aspergers has been fashionable amongst a certain type of tech nerd since the internet decided decades ago Bill Gates had it (also the "richest-ish man in the world"). Self-diagnosed ADHD was also popular in the United States after the amphetamines used to treat it became known as "smart drugs".
People often like to validate themselves with a medicalised diagnosis. Sometimes it is helpful in accessing support, sometimes it is an obstacle and people say "I can't do that because I am X diagnosis" or just a licence to behave in an unusual manner
A label like this can be quite restricting, and not all personality traits need to be medicalised. We should treat people as they are, whether they carry a medical label or not.
I'm far from being an expert on autism and Asperger's, but many people I know in tech are probably in some ways on the spectrum. Mrs J probably is, as she readily acknowledges.
Perhaps people go into tech because the sort of laser-focus the job requires suits certain autism traits?
But what annoys me is people using such diagnoses (esp. self diagnosis) as an excuse for sh*tty behaviour. Something that makes other people think such sh*tty behaviour is typical of people with that diagnosis, when it is not.
There isn't a way of telling between behaviour that is deliberately bad and behaviour over which the subject has no control; no-one knows even if there is such a distinction to be made.
How would it be done?
As this hasn't been resolved in thousands of years of discussion, it probably isn't going to be soon.
Seems the FED are concerned for US inflation and the markets reacted badly yesterday at the prospect of ever higher interest rates in the US, EU, and UK which could see our base rate head towards 7%
This is any government's worst nightmare and certainly will see the conservatives lose to labour but what then ?
The conservative may tear themselves apart, indeed will if they go down the ERG right wing path, but the next 5 years are going to be more than challenging and especially for a labour government who for once faces the absolute of 'there is no money left'
It was interesting that labour have again said they may not be able to agree the teachers pay review body recommendations and it looks as if the public sector are not going to find it any easier to advance pay with labour
What a mess, and yes Johnson's toxic behaviour and Truss's debacle are centre to the political fray, but ultimately Brexit, covid and the war in Ukraine have combined to deliver a devastating blow to the UK economy and with the war in Ukraine and talk of threats to grain supplies, this could continue for a long time yet
Never mind - we have the cricket to look forward to - or do we ?
It isn't the 'ERG Right Wing Path' that the Tories might go down, its absolutely necessary that they do. Statist Blairism doesn't work - that it what we have at the moment. We need radical approaches to reducing the costs of the nation.
Cutting the state (and then taxes) is absolutely imperative. This will cause lots of whinging from comfortably off do-gooders who want their pet projects protected (much like Brexit did). But it has to happen.
It will either be forced as part of an IMF bailout, or voluntary under a proper Conservative Govt.
Have to say that SKS was presumably grateful for the interruption of his speech by protesters yesterday as it broke the tedium and made it vaguely newsworthy. He didn’t have that advantage on R4 in the morning and boy that was grim. Platitudes and generalities piled high with not a detail in sight. He’s going to be poor in the election campaign, possibly even worse than Sunak if you can imagine such a thing.
Though when he broke from the script to engage with the protestors he came over well. That bodes well for the unpredictability of a campaign.
I am no Starmer fan, and he is still rather an enigma to me. What does he actually want to do as PM? He seems to be both over-prepared and over timid.
On the other hand, he is wise not to interrupt a government bent on self destruction.
What does Sir K want to do? I think something like this: 1) Win the election from the social democrat centre left 2) Under promise both before and after the election 3) Blame the Tories (not hard) 4) See what can be done about the EU in a Swiss sort of way 5) Try to be a government with some integrity, honesty and competence, no quick fixes 6) See if a 10-15 year programme can engender a bit of hope and a sense of direction 7) Use the current mood to further regulate water, banks, rail etc 8) Stop some rich people's loopholes and rebalance the tax system.
He can't spend any money much because there isn't any. The above 8 items is enough when all your money is going on debt interest, pensions and NHS.
(5) seems wildly aspirational to me. When did we last have a government like that?
I think May tried to be a government with some integrity, honesty and competence, no quick fixes. At least as far as that's possible.
She failed fairly dismally- partly by not really being up to the job, partly because of the people in the tent pissing in, partly because the country rather likes quick fixes
The big question for Starmer is whether the UK is ready to accept that quick fixes aren't on the menu. I hope we are, but I'm not sure.
Looking back, May's position was impossible from the beginning, and then her own 2017 election campaign made it worse.
As a remainer PM after Brexit it was politically impossible to do a sane Brexit (a Swiss or Norway approach) because her own party would not let her, and Labour was too self interested to help. So she had to try to find a middle way, pleasing no-one. It is notable that the faction that made life impossible for her has nothing worthwhile to offer now.
May would be OK in OK times; Brexit made it impossible.
I disagree with that. She could have gone for a more reasonable Brexit approach but instead she sought to out-loon the loons. She never actually understood Brexit or its drivers and instead went for some cartoon version that no body was actually looking for.
Mrs May wasn't the most skilled or persuasive of politicians but I cut her some slack on Brexit. She was in a tough to impossible place after losing the Con majority in the election she foolishly called. And she'd have been deposed by the Party if she hadn't rejected Free Movement (and therefore SM membership).
Yes, there was a triple lock on the post Brexit deal- it had to have majority support in the Commons, the Conservative Party and the EU. And with the 2017 parliament, that turned out to be a Venn diagram with no intersection.
In that sense, Johnson and Cummings were right- the only way out of the impasse was to put them in charge, and reduce the triple lock to a double lock. That simplified the negotiation to:
UK: We want this much freedom.
EU: Then you have this much access, and this much faff in the Irish Sea.
Which is what came to pass. All pretty predictable. Though not to those who thought that they could ride Cummings and Farage to get the fact of Brexit they wanted and then leave them to die in the ditch and get the liberal business-friendly type of Brexit they desired.
Have to say that SKS was presumably grateful for the interruption of his speech by protesters yesterday as it broke the tedium and made it vaguely newsworthy. He didn’t have that advantage on R4 in the morning and boy that was grim. Platitudes and generalities piled high with not a detail in sight. He’s going to be poor in the election campaign, possibly even worse than Sunak if you can imagine such a thing.
Though when he broke from the script to engage with the protestors he came over well. That bodes well for the unpredictability of a campaign.
I am no Starmer fan, and he is still rather an enigma to me. What does he actually want to do as PM? He seems to be both over-prepared and over timid.
On the other hand, he is wise not to interrupt a government bent on self destruction.
What does Sir K want to do? I think something like this: 1) Win the election from the social democrat centre left 2) Under promise both before and after the election 3) Blame the Tories (not hard) 4) See what can be done about the EU in a Swiss sort of way 5) Try to be a government with some integrity, honesty and competence, no quick fixes 6) See if a 10-15 year programme can engender a bit of hope and a sense of direction 7) Use the current mood to further regulate water, banks, rail etc 8) Stop some rich people's loopholes and rebalance the tax system.
He can't spend any money much because there isn't any. The above 8 items is enough when all your money is going on debt interest, pensions and NHS.
(5) seems wildly aspirational to me. When did we last have a government like that?
I think May tried to be a government with some integrity, honesty and competence, no quick fixes. At least as far as that's possible.
She failed fairly dismally- partly by not really being up to the job, partly because of the people in the tent pissing in, partly because the country rather likes quick fixes
The big question for Starmer is whether the UK is ready to accept that quick fixes aren't on the menu. I hope we are, but I'm not sure.
Looking back, May's position was impossible from the beginning, and then her own 2017 election campaign made it worse.
As a remainer PM after Brexit it was politically impossible to do a sane Brexit (a Swiss or Norway approach) because her own party would not let her, and Labour was too self interested to help. So she had to try to find a middle way, pleasing no-one. It is notable that the faction that made life impossible for her has nothing worthwhile to offer now.
May would be OK in OK times; Brexit made it impossible.
I disagree with that. She could have gone for a more reasonable Brexit approach but instead she sought to out-loon the loons. She never actually understood Brexit or its drivers and instead went for some cartoon version that no body was actually looking for.
Mrs May wasn't the most skilled or persuasive of politicians but I cut her some slack on Brexit. She was in a tough to impossible place after losing the Con majority in the election she foolishly called. And she'd have been deposed by the Party if she hadn't rejected Free Movement (and therefore SM membership).
She either believed in it and should therefore be judged accordingly, or she didn't believe in it but did it anyway to stay in power, and should be judged accordingly.
In my mind there's not a lot of slack to be cut for the Conservatives of that era, and I'm not wasting an inch of it on that wretch.
As for Starmer his R4 interview I thought was v interesting.
Began to warm to him on the breaking the class ceiling, but he then proved wholly unable to answer Nick Robinson's not really curveball, more bleedin' obvious questions about scenario analysis on funding (eg on abolishing tax breaks for private schools).
He ended up pretty automaton-ish. But he is not the Conservative Party which will be enough for many.
I noticed that the interview was followed soon after with the head of Shell being asked if he would consider moving Shell’s HQ/listing from London if there were restrictions on drilling and further windfall taxes to which he said it would be sensible to keep all options open.
It’s all very well to say “we will raise x from these people” until those people bugger off, whether private school pupils or oil firms and a lot of Starmer’s plans seem to be based on funding streams that are far from guaranteed and even less guaranteed if you attack those revenue streams.
Starmer dismissed and refused to accept that any private school pupils would move to the state sector. Perhaps he believes that is a problem to worry about then not now. Same with Shell.
Don't forget he is dealing with the British public here so no need for too many complications.
On the private schools question he would have been better saying that they are factoring in a number of switchers but that the policy will still generate funds but also help push towards a more equal society so it’s a double win (I don’t agree) which would have sounded more genuine and not show him up as just another politician who won’t answer anything that shows their policy to be balls.
I'm not sure 'a more equal society' is the vote winner people think it is outside the liberal bubble.
There is very little evidence of Labour doing well from the recent local by elections, yet again this week a loss to the Cons in Cambridge and a plunge in support at Maidstone. Follows a pattern week by week. This week the worst for a couple of months.
Have to say that SKS was presumably grateful for the interruption of his speech by protesters yesterday as it broke the tedium and made it vaguely newsworthy. He didn’t have that advantage on R4 in the morning and boy that was grim. Platitudes and generalities piled high with not a detail in sight. He’s going to be poor in the election campaign, possibly even worse than Sunak if you can imagine such a thing.
Though when he broke from the script to engage with the protestors he came over well. That bodes well for the unpredictability of a campaign.
I am no Starmer fan, and he is still rather an enigma to me. What does he actually want to do as PM? He seems to be both over-prepared and over timid.
On the other hand, he is wise not to interrupt a government bent on self destruction.
What does Sir K want to do? I think something like this: 1) Win the election from the social democrat centre left 2) Under promise both before and after the election 3) Blame the Tories (not hard) 4) See what can be done about the EU in a Swiss sort of way 5) Try to be a government with some integrity, honesty and competence, no quick fixes 6) See if a 10-15 year programme can engender a bit of hope and a sense of direction 7) Use the current mood to further regulate water, banks, rail etc 8) Stop some rich people's loopholes and rebalance the tax system.
He can't spend any money much because there isn't any. The above 8 items is enough when all your money is going on debt interest, pensions and NHS.
(5) seems wildly aspirational to me. When did we last have a government like that?
I think May tried to be a government with some integrity, honesty and competence, no quick fixes. At least as far as that's possible.
She failed fairly dismally- partly by not really being up to the job, partly because of the people in the tent pissing in, partly because the country rather likes quick fixes
The big question for Starmer is whether the UK is ready to accept that quick fixes aren't on the menu. I hope we are, but I'm not sure.
Looking back, May's position was impossible from the beginning, and then her own 2017 election campaign made it worse.
As a remainer PM after Brexit it was politically impossible to do a sane Brexit (a Swiss or Norway approach) because her own party would not let her, and Labour was too self interested to help. So she had to try to find a middle way, pleasing no-one. It is notable that the faction that made life impossible for her has nothing worthwhile to offer now.
May would be OK in OK times; Brexit made it impossible.
I disagree with that. She could have gone for a more reasonable Brexit approach but instead she sought to out-loon the loons. She never actually understood Brexit or its drivers and instead went for some cartoon version that no body was actually looking for.
Mrs May wasn't the most skilled or persuasive of politicians but I cut her some slack on Brexit. She was in a tough to impossible place after losing the Con majority in the election she foolishly called. And she'd have been deposed by the Party if she hadn't rejected Free Movement (and therefore SM membership).
She either believed in it and should therefore be judged accordingly, or she didn't believe in it but did it anyway to stay in power, and should be judged accordingly.
In my mind there's not a lot of slack to be cut for the Conservatives of that era, and I'm not wasting an inch of it on that wretch.
It’s amazing how many people had no problem admitting that Elon Musk is seriously smart - until he revealed that he is quite right wing. At which point he miraculously morphed into a stuttering moron who just keeps getting lucky
Musk strikes me as one of those super smart people who is also a bit dumb in certain respects, certainly in his dealings with people. Spending time in academia and then finance I have come across many people who fall into this category, Musk just seems one of the more extreme examples.
He’s likes to think he's autistic and he’s confessed this. That’s the issue
FTFY
Do one, actually. Autism is hard enough to deal with without creepy insinuations that it's a lifestyle choice. And is there anything more pathetic than that ftfy thing?
Absolutely right. It’s not fun and it’s something people admit easily and Musk has - as I correctly surmised - publicly discussed his autism. I salute him for that alone
Asperger's isn't even a term used these days. So that's profoundly unhelpful.
Fuck me. So in leftieland he's not allowed to self identfy as Asperger's? tho it's OK for people with cocks to self identify as "women"?
No. Nowt to do with politics. It's been removed as of 2013 from DSM-5, as no satisfactory distinction from other forms of autism could be made. Hence the term ASD which it was merged with in 2021 under ICD-11. Autistic Spectrum Disorder. So. From 2013 you couldn't be diagnosed with Asperger's. You can self identify as whatever you like as ever. But it ain't very helpful.
It's his fucking choice. Dipshit
And there is massive controvery in autist-land over the removal of these terms: Asperger's, high functioning, etc
Don't call me a dipshit. I don't identify as such. Glad to see you defend someone's choice to self identify in the teeth of medical opinion. Imho. As a professional working in the area, ADHD is under diagnosed. And ASD over. Like anxiety and depression a few years back. Similarly, the two are often overlapping and can be confused.
Fair enough. But this issue makes me personally angry
Probably because a very close relative of mine has recently been officially diagnosed as ASD and this person was told "we would once have diagnosed you as Aspie, and high functioning, but this is no longer officially allowed even though we think it useful", then this person went away and read up on all of it and decided "fuck yeah, I'm Aspie": - ie: high functioning, socially awkward, doesn't need much or any help with daily living, but has real and grave problems in certain situations, highly intelligent etc
This person, close to me, has self identified as Aspie and it brings this person a lot of consolation - and also practical assistance: because this person now reaches out to other self-identified "Aspies" and finds common ground, AND a social network. And Elon Musk is therefore a bit of an inspiration. The richest-ish man in the world says he's Aspie. Yay
Good luck to them all
Self-diagnosed Aspergers has been fashionable amongst a certain type of tech nerd since the internet decided decades ago Bill Gates had it (also the "richest-ish man in the world"). Self-diagnosed ADHD was also popular in the United States after the amphetamines used to treat it became known as "smart drugs".
People often like to validate themselves with a medicalised diagnosis. Sometimes it is helpful in accessing support, sometimes it is an obstacle and people say "I can't do that because I am X diagnosis" or just a licence to behave in an unusual manner
A label like this can be quite restricting, and not all personality traits need to be medicalised. We should treat people as they are, whether they carry a medical label or not.
Leon's regular expert theses on casual ASD diagnosis is for me, with a son who's life is blighted by this condition, offensive.
ASD can be a debilitating social millstone. It is not a label to justify Elon Musk's peculiar behaviour or an unwise slur to explain Theresa May's social awkwardness.
Leon pretty much hijacks all PB threads, whether it be with photographs of his breakfast or a travelog outlining the itinerary of his latest freebie. If readers like it great, engage whilst I scroll past. His very regular "expert" opinion on all things "on the spectrum " really, really wind me up. If people disengaged, perhaps he would change the subject back to his lunch.
Mine is a physical speciality, but it is recognised that people with learning disabilities and related conditions like ASD have much worse outcomes. In large part because it takes quite a lot of time and patience to individualise and optimise treatment for them, and to incorporate this into a therapeutic plan. Too often they are just plonked into a system that doesn't, and expects them unrealistically to accept or fail in a bog standard service.
One of the great pleasures of working in the NHS is that my Trust has supported me and some colleagues setting up bespoke services that accommodate such clients. I don't think that would be possible in a service requiring narrow financial viability.
I can safely say any expert intervention as a child was minimal. My wife did ask a consultant what advice he could give my son that would be of most value as someone with his condition, and the answer was " never say anything to a police officer whilst under caution without a lawyer present". That was the most important life lesson he felt my son needed to be aware of! As an adult there has been absolutely no assistance available. If he was addicted to alcohol or narcotics there would be intervention options left, right and centre.
It is wholly unhelpful when Theresa May's "dad dancing" is explained away by autism, or Elon Musk's success is because of his self-diagnosis as high functioning autistic. ASD should neither be an insult or a badge of honour.
And in twenty plus years of engaging with ASD help groups I have never heard the term "Aspie" used in any context, except of course by Dr Leon.
I agree that both children's and adult mental health services are often appalling, and such individuals often get a poor deal from other services too because they are a hassle to deal with. I just do a little bit to right these historic wrongs in my own service.
Resources are finite.
Although addiction therapy and sexual identity therapy seem more readily available than autism services both in the NHS and through lottery funding.
I think that just "the grass is greener" and those suffering from addiction or gender issues have major problems accessing services too.
It is a valid criticism of my "quiet clinic" that we could see 2-3X the number of patients if we just saw those on our routine waiting list. It is one reason that I run it only once per month.
It’s amazing how many people had no problem admitting that Elon Musk is seriously smart - until he revealed that he is quite right wing. At which point he miraculously morphed into a stuttering moron who just keeps getting lucky
Musk strikes me as one of those super smart people who is also a bit dumb in certain respects, certainly in his dealings with people. Spending time in academia and then finance I have come across many people who fall into this category, Musk just seems one of the more extreme examples.
He’s likes to think he's autistic and he’s confessed this. That’s the issue
FTFY
Do one, actually. Autism is hard enough to deal with without creepy insinuations that it's a lifestyle choice. And is there anything more pathetic than that ftfy thing?
Absolutely right. It’s not fun and it’s something people admit easily and Musk has - as I correctly surmised - publicly discussed his autism. I salute him for that alone
Asperger's isn't even a term used these days. So that's profoundly unhelpful.
Fuck me. So in leftieland he's not allowed to self identfy as Asperger's? tho it's OK for people with cocks to self identify as "women"?
No. Nowt to do with politics. It's been removed as of 2013 from DSM-5, as no satisfactory distinction from other forms of autism could be made. Hence the term ASD which it was merged with in 2021 under ICD-11. Autistic Spectrum Disorder. So. From 2013 you couldn't be diagnosed with Asperger's. You can self identify as whatever you like as ever. But it ain't very helpful.
It's his fucking choice. Dipshit
And there is massive controvery in autist-land over the removal of these terms: Asperger's, high functioning, etc
Don't call me a dipshit. I don't identify as such. Glad to see you defend someone's choice to self identify in the teeth of medical opinion. Imho. As a professional working in the area, ADHD is under diagnosed. And ASD over. Like anxiety and depression a few years back. Similarly, the two are often overlapping and can be confused.
Fair enough. But this issue makes me personally angry
Probably because a very close relative of mine has recently been officially diagnosed as ASD and this person was told "we would once have diagnosed you as Aspie, and high functioning, but this is no longer officially allowed even though we think it useful", then this person went away and read up on all of it and decided "fuck yeah, I'm Aspie": - ie: high functioning, socially awkward, doesn't need much or any help with daily living, but has real and grave problems in certain situations, highly intelligent etc
This person, close to me, has self identified as Aspie and it brings this person a lot of consolation - and also practical assistance: because this person now reaches out to other self-identified "Aspies" and finds common ground, AND a social network. And Elon Musk is therefore a bit of an inspiration. The richest-ish man in the world says he's Aspie. Yay
Good luck to them all
Self-diagnosed Aspergers has been fashionable amongst a certain type of tech nerd since the internet decided decades ago Bill Gates had it (also the "richest-ish man in the world"). Self-diagnosed ADHD was also popular in the United States after the amphetamines used to treat it became known as "smart drugs".
People often like to validate themselves with a medicalised diagnosis. Sometimes it is helpful in accessing support, sometimes it is an obstacle and people say "I can't do that because I am X diagnosis" or just a licence to behave in an unusual manner
A label like this can be quite restricting, and not all personality traits need to be medicalised. We should treat people as they are, whether they carry a medical label or not.
Leon's regular expert theses on casual ASD diagnosis is for me, with a son who's life is blighted by this condition, offensive.
ASD can be a debilitating social millstone. It is not a label to justify Elon Musk's peculiar behaviour or an unwise slur to explain Theresa May's social awkwardness.
Leon pretty much hijacks all PB threads, whether it be with photographs of his breakfast or a travelog outlining the itinerary of his latest freebie. If readers like it great, engage whilst I scroll past. His very regular "expert" opinion on all things "on the spectrum " really, really wind me up. If people disengaged, perhaps he would change the subject back to his lunch.
Mine is a physical speciality, but it is recognised that people with learning disabilities and related conditions like ASD have much worse outcomes. In large part because it takes quite a lot of time and patience to individualise and optimise treatment for them, and to incorporate this into a therapeutic plan. Too often they are just plonked into a system that doesn't, and expects them unrealistically to accept or fail in a bog standard service.
One of the great pleasures of working in the NHS is that my Trust has supported me and some colleagues setting up bespoke services that accommodate such clients. I don't think that would be possible in a service requiring narrow financial viability.
To slightly misquote @bondegezou the lack of focus on finance is both the best and the worst thing about the NHS. When the Today program was doing the 75th anniversary thing they interviewed a nurse who had previously worked in Saudi. She identified the best thing about working in the NHS was the ability to ignore funding and concentrate on the patient's needs.
Presumably Farage, or one of his friends, is going to submit an FOIA request, for the amount of public money spent on “NHS 75th Anniversary” parties?
Yes, there’s a line somewhere between a totally public and a totally private system. Doctors and nurses shoudn’t be incentivised to order tests and treatments.
I (and those close to me) think that I could very well have ADHD, which holds me back.
However I don’t know how or whether to explore it without it looking like I am just trying to get hold of “smart drugs”.
Gallowgate - I've got about a minute before a meeting. I've got a bit of experience of this with my daughter - I'll come back to you later this morning.
Have to say that SKS was presumably grateful for the interruption of his speech by protesters yesterday as it broke the tedium and made it vaguely newsworthy. He didn’t have that advantage on R4 in the morning and boy that was grim. Platitudes and generalities piled high with not a detail in sight. He’s going to be poor in the election campaign, possibly even worse than Sunak if you can imagine such a thing.
Though when he broke from the script to engage with the protestors he came over well. That bodes well for the unpredictability of a campaign.
I am no Starmer fan, and he is still rather an enigma to me. What does he actually want to do as PM? He seems to be both over-prepared and over timid.
On the other hand, he is wise not to interrupt a government bent on self destruction.
Starmer can think on his feet better than Sunak, which isn't surprising given his CV and how poor Sunak is at thinking on his feet. But unlike Blair in 1997 and for that matter even Trump in 2016 he's got practically no element of a new dawn in his offering, and practically no charisma. He doesn't even measure up to Kinnock.
All the Tories need to do is introduce a bit of new and tough in conflict into their presentation. That may well mean binning Sunak, and there may be a bit of a trouble there with him hanging onto the doorframe because he's rich - so get yer popcorn ready - but they seem to have managed OK in removing the last three prime ministers when they wanted to. And it doesn't even necessarily mean getting rid of Sunak. He is young, he is not bright but he's better than his three predecessors at listening to advice, and he can be repackaged. The Tories' biggest card is Rwanda, and they will play it when they think the time is right, which isn't yet. Labour haven't really got a card to play in response, other than to say be nice and hey this is a distraction, oh please please, listen to us. Too many pundits keep comparing with 1992 and 1997, but 2024 will probably be more like 2019.
They have managed OK in removing the last three prime ministers!!!!!
You are in denial if you think that not least with consistent large polling leads for labour
And no matter Rwanda voters will vote on their pocket books which are being picked empty by ever rising interest rates
Sunak will lead into GE24 and thereafter the conservative party can either come to their senses, or face extinction if they move hard right
Have to say that SKS was presumably grateful for the interruption of his speech by protesters yesterday as it broke the tedium and made it vaguely newsworthy. He didn’t have that advantage on R4 in the morning and boy that was grim. Platitudes and generalities piled high with not a detail in sight. He’s going to be poor in the election campaign, possibly even worse than Sunak if you can imagine such a thing.
Though when he broke from the script to engage with the protestors he came over well. That bodes well for the unpredictability of a campaign.
I am no Starmer fan, and he is still rather an enigma to me. What does he actually want to do as PM? He seems to be both over-prepared and over timid.
On the other hand, he is wise not to interrupt a government bent on self destruction.
Starmer can think on his feet better than Sunak, which isn't surprising given his CV and how poor Sunak is at thinking on his feet. But unlike Blair in 1997 and for that matter even Trump in 2016 he's got practically no element of a new dawn in his offering, and practically no charisma. He doesn't even measure up to Kinnock.
All the Tories need to do is introduce a bit of new and tough in conflict into their presentation. That may well mean binning Sunak, and there may be a bit of a trouble there with him hanging onto the doorframe because he's rich - so get yer popcorn ready - but they seem to have managed OK in removing the last three prime ministers when they wanted to. And it doesn't even necessarily mean getting rid of Sunak. He is young, he is not bright but he's better than his three predecessors at listening to advice, and he can be repackaged. The Tories' biggest card is Rwanda, and they will play it when they think the time is right, which isn't yet. Labour haven't really got a card to play in response, other than to say be nice and hey this is a distraction, oh please please, listen to us. Too many pundits keep comparing with 1992 and 1997, but 2024 will probably be more like 2019.
Ah here's my chance, been waiting a long while to say this one with some authenticity and precision ... It's a view!
Stating the obvious though it may be, and with caveats around who the hosts associate with, the Gender: A Wider Lens podcast has a good episode on diagnoses. Their focus is gender but they make the good point that if you go to see an Asperger's specialist it might easily turn out that you have Asperger's; if you go and see an Autism/ADHD/ADD/etc specialist it will turn out that you have those conditions.
Not to say there isn't validity for such diagnoses but there has been a developing tendency to medicalise many conditions.
Then again if you don't (medicalise and) codify such conditions I'm not sure how effective treatment is possible.
To state the obvious, people who think they have an issue will seek out sympathetic help. I have no gender confusion so am unlikely to book myself into a gender clinic!
There is a longstanding debate over what aspects of the human condition should be medicalised. There have been times where over enthusiastic practitioners have gone overboard with their hobbyhorse diagnoses, the Teeside sexual abuse scandal and Satanic Panic of a couple of decades ago for example.
I am more laissez-faire, and prefer not to label people and just take them as they are, part of the rich tapestry of life.
One of my guru's teachings is "consider that you might be wrong", and I try to follow it. So if someone finds a label helpful, then I let them use it.
tx
Once, when my daughter was very ill in hospital, I earwigged a conversation between the consultant running things and his team. They were having a discussion - a learning session - at the central station in a very large open plan ward, over a sandwich lunch.
While the discussion mentioned no names, it was obviously her case - from my knowing the details.
The consultant was asking “If our diagnosis had been wrong, what would the first indications have been?”
One of the students said - “But we weren’t wrong.”
The consultant - “We were right this time. We will be wrong, sometime in the future.”
I think that a very impressive attitude and method of working.
Have to say that SKS was presumably grateful for the interruption of his speech by protesters yesterday as it broke the tedium and made it vaguely newsworthy. He didn’t have that advantage on R4 in the morning and boy that was grim. Platitudes and generalities piled high with not a detail in sight. He’s going to be poor in the election campaign, possibly even worse than Sunak if you can imagine such a thing.
Though when he broke from the script to engage with the protestors he came over well. That bodes well for the unpredictability of a campaign.
I am no Starmer fan, and he is still rather an enigma to me. What does he actually want to do as PM? He seems to be both over-prepared and over timid.
On the other hand, he is wise not to interrupt a government bent on self destruction.
What does Sir K want to do? I think something like this: 1) Win the election from the social democrat centre left 2) Under promise both before and after the election 3) Blame the Tories (not hard) 4) See what can be done about the EU in a Swiss sort of way 5) Try to be a government with some integrity, honesty and competence, no quick fixes 6) See if a 10-15 year programme can engender a bit of hope and a sense of direction 7) Use the current mood to further regulate water, banks, rail etc 8) Stop some rich people's loopholes and rebalance the tax system.
He can't spend any money much because there isn't any. The above 8 items is enough when all your money is going on debt interest, pensions and NHS.
(5) seems wildly aspirational to me. When did we last have a government like that?
I think May tried to be a government with some integrity, honesty and competence, no quick fixes. At least as far as that's possible.
She failed fairly dismally- partly by not really being up to the job, partly because of the people in the tent pissing in, partly because the country rather likes quick fixes
The big question for Starmer is whether the UK is ready to accept that quick fixes aren't on the menu. I hope we are, but I'm not sure.
Looking back, May's position was impossible from the beginning, and then her own 2017 election campaign made it worse.
As a remainer PM after Brexit it was politically impossible to do a sane Brexit (a Swiss or Norway approach) because her own party would not let her, and Labour was too self interested to help. So she had to try to find a middle way, pleasing no-one. It is notable that the faction that made life impossible for her has nothing worthwhile to offer now.
May would be OK in OK times; Brexit made it impossible.
I disagree with that. She could have gone for a more reasonable Brexit approach but instead she sought to out-loon the loons. She never actually understood Brexit or its drivers and instead went for some cartoon version that no body was actually looking for.
Mrs May wasn't the most skilled or persuasive of politicians but I cut her some slack on Brexit. She was in a tough to impossible place after losing the Con majority in the election she foolishly called. And she'd have been deposed by the Party if she hadn't rejected Free Movement (and therefore SM membership).
Having Boris Johnson p*ssing inside the tent from the inside or the outside didn't help.
Had she not embarked on the 2017 GE she would have been less exposed.
It’s amazing how many people had no problem admitting that Elon Musk is seriously smart - until he revealed that he is quite right wing. At which point he miraculously morphed into a stuttering moron who just keeps getting lucky
Musk strikes me as one of those super smart people who is also a bit dumb in certain respects, certainly in his dealings with people. Spending time in academia and then finance I have come across many people who fall into this category, Musk just seems one of the more extreme examples.
He’s likes to think he's autistic and he’s confessed this. That’s the issue
FTFY
Do one, actually. Autism is hard enough to deal with without creepy insinuations that it's a lifestyle choice. And is there anything more pathetic than that ftfy thing?
Absolutely right. It’s not fun and it’s something people admit easily and Musk has - as I correctly surmised - publicly discussed his autism. I salute him for that alone
Asperger's isn't even a term used these days. So that's profoundly unhelpful.
Fuck me. So in leftieland he's not allowed to self identfy as Asperger's? tho it's OK for people with cocks to self identify as "women"?
No. Nowt to do with politics. It's been removed as of 2013 from DSM-5, as no satisfactory distinction from other forms of autism could be made. Hence the term ASD which it was merged with in 2021 under ICD-11. Autistic Spectrum Disorder. So. From 2013 you couldn't be diagnosed with Asperger's. You can self identify as whatever you like as ever. But it ain't very helpful.
It's his fucking choice. Dipshit
And there is massive controvery in autist-land over the removal of these terms: Asperger's, high functioning, etc
Don't call me a dipshit. I don't identify as such. Glad to see you defend someone's choice to self identify in the teeth of medical opinion. Imho. As a professional working in the area, ADHD is under diagnosed. And ASD over. Like anxiety and depression a few years back. Similarly, the two are often overlapping and can be confused.
Fair enough. But this issue makes me personally angry
Probably because a very close relative of mine has recently been officially diagnosed as ASD and this person was told "we would once have diagnosed you as Aspie, and high functioning, but this is no longer officially allowed even though we think it useful", then this person went away and read up on all of it and decided "fuck yeah, I'm Aspie": - ie: high functioning, socially awkward, doesn't need much or any help with daily living, but has real and grave problems in certain situations, highly intelligent etc
This person, close to me, has self identified as Aspie and it brings this person a lot of consolation - and also practical assistance: because this person now reaches out to other self-identified "Aspies" and finds common ground, AND a social network. And Elon Musk is therefore a bit of an inspiration. The richest-ish man in the world says he's Aspie. Yay
Good luck to them all
Self-diagnosed Aspergers has been fashionable amongst a certain type of tech nerd since the internet decided decades ago Bill Gates had it (also the "richest-ish man in the world"). Self-diagnosed ADHD was also popular in the United States after the amphetamines used to treat it became known as "smart drugs".
People often like to validate themselves with a medicalised diagnosis. Sometimes it is helpful in accessing support, sometimes it is an obstacle and people say "I can't do that because I am X diagnosis" or just a licence to behave in an unusual manner
A label like this can be quite restricting, and not all personality traits need to be medicalised. We should treat people as they are, whether they carry a medical label or not.
Yes, but more. Labels help because they reify a set of traits, making it easier to connect with other people with a similar experience and to look up information. (I say that as someone with a physical health spectrum disorder.)
I agree, but such a label should not necessarily be handled with the medical paradigm. I don't dispute that the label helps, I do dispute that it should be a medical label in all cases
Seems the FED are concerned for US inflation and the markets reacted badly yesterday at the prospect of ever higher interest rates in the US, EU, and UK which could see our base rate head towards 7%
This is any government's worst nightmare and certainly will see the conservatives lose to labour but what then ?
The conservative may tear themselves apart, indeed will if they go down the ERG right wing path, but the next 5 years are going to be more than challenging and especially for a labour government who for once faces the absolute of 'there is no money left'
It was interesting that labour have again said they may not be able to agree the teachers pay review body recommendations and it looks as if the public sector are not going to find it any easier to advance pay with labour
What a mess, and yes Johnson's toxic behaviour and Truss's debacle are centre to the political fray, but ultimately Brexit, covid and the war in Ukraine have combined to deliver a devastating blow to the UK economy and with the war in Ukraine and talk of threats to grain supplies, this could continue for a long time yet
Never mind - we have the cricket to look forward to - or do we ?
Despite the "devastating blow to the UK economy" we have full employment.
Have to say that SKS was presumably grateful for the interruption of his speech by protesters yesterday as it broke the tedium and made it vaguely newsworthy. He didn’t have that advantage on R4 in the morning and boy that was grim. Platitudes and generalities piled high with not a detail in sight. He’s going to be poor in the election campaign, possibly even worse than Sunak if you can imagine such a thing.
Though when he broke from the script to engage with the protestors he came over well. That bodes well for the unpredictability of a campaign.
I am no Starmer fan, and he is still rather an enigma to me. What does he actually want to do as PM? He seems to be both over-prepared and over timid.
On the other hand, he is wise not to interrupt a government bent on self destruction.
Starmer can think on his feet better than Sunak, which isn't surprising given his CV and how poor Sunak is at thinking on his feet. But unlike Blair in 1997 and for that matter even Trump in 2016 he's got practically no element of a new dawn in his offering, and practically no charisma. He doesn't even measure up to Kinnock.
All the Tories need to do is introduce a bit of new and tough in conflict into their presentation. That may well mean binning Sunak, and there may be a bit of a trouble there with him hanging onto the doorframe because he's rich - so get yer popcorn ready - but they seem to have managed OK in removing the last three prime ministers when they wanted to. And it doesn't even necessarily mean getting rid of Sunak. He is young, he is not bright but he's better than his three predecessors at listening to advice, and he can be repackaged. The Tories' biggest card is Rwanda, and they will play it when they think the time is right, which isn't yet. Labour haven't really got a card to play in response, other than to say be nice and hey this is a distraction, oh please please, listen to us. Too many pundits keep comparing with 1992 and 1997, but 2024 will probably be more like 2019.
Rwanda? Er, where are the newsreels of grateful smiling people? As opposed to empty and fairly posh hotels?
It's a matter of what the tool can transform into (with Labour having no influence on events), not what it can't transform into or debating points. Talking about a perceived level of KAPOW! against "Europe", "softness", "hands tied by legal b*llocks", faffing about, and quite possibly wig-wearing "enemies of the people", that outdoes Musk vs Zuck in Vegas and will be very electorally focused.
Remind me how the Tories won in 2019 when they make most people want to vomit, including in the north of England.
Have to say that SKS was presumably grateful for the interruption of his speech by protesters yesterday as it broke the tedium and made it vaguely newsworthy. He didn’t have that advantage on R4 in the morning and boy that was grim. Platitudes and generalities piled high with not a detail in sight. He’s going to be poor in the election campaign, possibly even worse than Sunak if you can imagine such a thing.
Though when he broke from the script to engage with the protestors he came over well. That bodes well for the unpredictability of a campaign.
I am no Starmer fan, and he is still rather an enigma to me. What does he actually want to do as PM? He seems to be both over-prepared and over timid.
On the other hand, he is wise not to interrupt a government bent on self destruction.
What does Sir K want to do? I think something like this: 1) Win the election from the social democrat centre left 2) Under promise both before and after the election 3) Blame the Tories (not hard) 4) See what can be done about the EU in a Swiss sort of way 5) Try to be a government with some integrity, honesty and competence, no quick fixes 6) See if a 10-15 year programme can engender a bit of hope and a sense of direction 7) Use the current mood to further regulate water, banks, rail etc 8) Stop some rich people's loopholes and rebalance the tax system.
He can't spend any money much because there isn't any. The above 8 items is enough when all your money is going on debt interest, pensions and NHS.
(5) seems wildly aspirational to me. When did we last have a government like that?
10 May 1940 ?
{the Air Ministry, and certain aircraft manufacturers have entered the chat}
Have to say that SKS was presumably grateful for the interruption of his speech by protesters yesterday as it broke the tedium and made it vaguely newsworthy. He didn’t have that advantage on R4 in the morning and boy that was grim. Platitudes and generalities piled high with not a detail in sight. He’s going to be poor in the election campaign, possibly even worse than Sunak if you can imagine such a thing.
Though when he broke from the script to engage with the protestors he came over well. That bodes well for the unpredictability of a campaign.
I am no Starmer fan, and he is still rather an enigma to me. What does he actually want to do as PM? He seems to be both over-prepared and over timid.
On the other hand, he is wise not to interrupt a government bent on self destruction.
What does Sir K want to do? I think something like this: 1) Win the election from the social democrat centre left 2) Under promise both before and after the election 3) Blame the Tories (not hard) 4) See what can be done about the EU in a Swiss sort of way 5) Try to be a government with some integrity, honesty and competence, no quick fixes 6) See if a 10-15 year programme can engender a bit of hope and a sense of direction 7) Use the current mood to further regulate water, banks, rail etc 8) Stop some rich people's loopholes and rebalance the tax system.
He can't spend any money much because there isn't any. The above 8 items is enough when all your money is going on debt interest, pensions and NHS.
(5) seems wildly aspirational to me. When did we last have a government like that?
I think May tried to be a government with some integrity, honesty and competence, no quick fixes. At least as far as that's possible.
She failed fairly dismally- partly by not really being up to the job, partly because of the people in the tent pissing in, partly because the country rather likes quick fixes
The big question for Starmer is whether the UK is ready to accept that quick fixes aren't on the menu. I hope we are, but I'm not sure.
Looking back, May's position was impossible from the beginning, and then her own 2017 election campaign made it worse.
As a remainer PM after Brexit it was politically impossible to do a sane Brexit (a Swiss or Norway approach) because her own party would not let her, and Labour was too self interested to help. So she had to try to find a middle way, pleasing no-one. It is notable that the faction that made life impossible for her has nothing worthwhile to offer now.
May would be OK in OK times; Brexit made it impossible.
I disagree with that. She could have gone for a more reasonable Brexit approach but instead she sought to out-loon the loons. She never actually understood Brexit or its drivers and instead went for some cartoon version that no body was actually looking for.
Mrs May wasn't the most skilled or persuasive of politicians but I cut her some slack on Brexit. She was in a tough to impossible place after losing the Con majority in the election she foolishly called. And she'd have been deposed by the Party if she hadn't rejected Free Movement (and therefore SM membership).
Having Boris Johnson p*ssing inside the tent from the inside or the outside didn't help.
Had she not embarked on the 2017 GE she would have been less exposed.
Awful decision, calling that election. Although I enjoyed the result very much!
Yes, there was a triple lock on the post Brexit deal- it had to have majority support in the Commons, the Conservative Party and the EU. And with the 2017 parliament, that turned out to be a Venn diagram with no intersection.
The Brexit Brexiteers expected, the Brexit voters voted for and the Brexit we got is still a Venn diagram with no intersection.
Only when we abandon Brexit can the Nation come together.
Have to say that SKS was presumably grateful for the interruption of his speech by protesters yesterday as it broke the tedium and made it vaguely newsworthy. He didn’t have that advantage on R4 in the morning and boy that was grim. Platitudes and generalities piled high with not a detail in sight. He’s going to be poor in the election campaign, possibly even worse than Sunak if you can imagine such a thing.
Though when he broke from the script to engage with the protestors he came over well. That bodes well for the unpredictability of a campaign.
I am no Starmer fan, and he is still rather an enigma to me. What does he actually want to do as PM? He seems to be both over-prepared and over timid.
On the other hand, he is wise not to interrupt a government bent on self destruction.
Starmer can think on his feet better than Sunak, which isn't surprising given his CV and how poor Sunak is at thinking on his feet. But unlike Blair in 1997 and for that matter even Trump in 2016 he's got practically no element of a new dawn in his offering, and practically no charisma. He doesn't even measure up to Kinnock.
All the Tories need to do is introduce a bit of new and tough in conflict into their presentation. That may well mean binning Sunak, and there may be a bit of a trouble there with him hanging onto the doorframe because he's rich - so get yer popcorn ready - but they seem to have managed OK in removing the last three prime ministers when they wanted to. And it doesn't even necessarily mean getting rid of Sunak. He is young, he is not bright but he's better than his three predecessors at listening to advice, and he can be repackaged. The Tories' biggest card is Rwanda, and they will play it when they think the time is right, which isn't yet. Labour haven't really got a card to play in response, other than to say be nice and hey this is a distraction, oh please please, listen to us. Too many pundits keep comparing with 1992 and 1997, but 2024 will probably be more like 2019.
Other views are available. To my mind the most likely Rwanda outcome is different. For centrists and centre left folk the policy is just a ghastly disaster whatever the outcome, and the fact that they don't have some magic solution either does not overcome the practical and moral problems with this one.
For those who truly and deeply support the Rwanda policy, two points: If it 'works' they are going to vote Tory or further right anyway, if it doesn't 'work' it shows up the futility.
How on earth can this government win an election by sending 1000 people to Rwanda when net migration is 600,000?
I must have read hundreds of thousands of the fucking things
This one refers to a former chancellor. It's all the rage on Twitter at the moment
(This link isn't the actual e-mail, you'll have to find it for yourself since TSE will lock me up with Max Verstappen and force feed me Pineapple Pizzas if I link to it)
Have to say that SKS was presumably grateful for the interruption of his speech by protesters yesterday as it broke the tedium and made it vaguely newsworthy. He didn’t have that advantage on R4 in the morning and boy that was grim. Platitudes and generalities piled high with not a detail in sight. He’s going to be poor in the election campaign, possibly even worse than Sunak if you can imagine such a thing.
Though when he broke from the script to engage with the protestors he came over well. That bodes well for the unpredictability of a campaign.
I am no Starmer fan, and he is still rather an enigma to me. What does he actually want to do as PM? He seems to be both over-prepared and over timid.
On the other hand, he is wise not to interrupt a government bent on self destruction.
What does Sir K want to do? I think something like this: 1) Win the election from the social democrat centre left 2) Under promise both before and after the election 3) Blame the Tories (not hard) 4) See what can be done about the EU in a Swiss sort of way 5) Try to be a government with some integrity, honesty and competence, no quick fixes 6) See if a 10-15 year programme can engender a bit of hope and a sense of direction 7) Use the current mood to further regulate water, banks, rail etc 8) Stop some rich people's loopholes and rebalance the tax system.
He can't spend any money much because there isn't any. The above 8 items is enough when all your money is going on debt interest, pensions and NHS.
(5) seems wildly aspirational to me. When did we last have a government like that?
I think May tried to be a government with some integrity, honesty and competence, no quick fixes. At least as far as that's possible.
She failed fairly dismally- partly by not really being up to the job, partly because of the people in the tent pissing in, partly because the country rather likes quick fixes
The big question for Starmer is whether the UK is ready to accept that quick fixes aren't on the menu. I hope we are, but I'm not sure.
Looking back, May's position was impossible from the beginning, and then her own 2017 election campaign made it worse.
As a remainer PM after Brexit it was politically impossible to do a sane Brexit (a Swiss or Norway approach) because her own party would not let her, and Labour was too self interested to help. So she had to try to find a middle way, pleasing no-one. It is notable that the faction that made life impossible for her has nothing worthwhile to offer now.
May would be OK in OK times; Brexit made it impossible.
I disagree with that. She could have gone for a more reasonable Brexit approach but instead she sought to out-loon the loons. She never actually understood Brexit or its drivers and instead went for some cartoon version that no body was actually looking for.
Mrs May wasn't the most skilled or persuasive of politicians but I cut her some slack on Brexit. She was in a tough to impossible place after losing the Con majority in the election she foolishly called. And she'd have been deposed by the Party if she hadn't rejected Free Movement (and therefore SM membership).
She either believed in it and should therefore be judged accordingly, or she didn't believe in it but did it anyway to stay in power, and should be judged accordingly.
In my mind there's not a lot of slack to be cut for the Conservatives of that era, and I'm not wasting an inch of it on that wretch.
Bit binary, that, for me.
She disgraced herself as Home Sec, then went on to lead a government whose principle policy she knew was wrong. Along the way she paved the way for Boris to come to power.
These days some people want to rehabilitate as a victim of Boris and hapless holder of a poisoned chalice. But she had agency, and she was amoral and self-serving. Fuck her.
I (and those close to me) think that I could very well have ADHD, which holds me back.
However I don’t know how or whether to explore it without it looking like I am just trying to get hold of “smart drugs”.
Gallowgate - I've got about a minute before a meeting. I've got a bit of experience of this with my daughter - I'll come back to you later this morning.
Have to say that SKS was presumably grateful for the interruption of his speech by protesters yesterday as it broke the tedium and made it vaguely newsworthy. He didn’t have that advantage on R4 in the morning and boy that was grim. Platitudes and generalities piled high with not a detail in sight. He’s going to be poor in the election campaign, possibly even worse than Sunak if you can imagine such a thing.
Though when he broke from the script to engage with the protestors he came over well. That bodes well for the unpredictability of a campaign.
I am no Starmer fan, and he is still rather an enigma to me. What does he actually want to do as PM? He seems to be both over-prepared and over timid.
On the other hand, he is wise not to interrupt a government bent on self destruction.
What does Sir K want to do? I think something like this: 1) Win the election from the social democrat centre left 2) Under promise both before and after the election 3) Blame the Tories (not hard) 4) See what can be done about the EU in a Swiss sort of way 5) Try to be a government with some integrity, honesty and competence, no quick fixes 6) See if a 10-15 year programme can engender a bit of hope and a sense of direction 7) Use the current mood to further regulate water, banks, rail etc 8) Stop some rich people's loopholes and rebalance the tax system.
He can't spend any money much because there isn't any. The above 8 items is enough when all your money is going on debt interest, pensions and NHS.
(5) seems wildly aspirational to me. When did we last have a government like that?
10 May 1940 ?
{the Air Ministry, and certain aircraft manufacturers have entered the chat}
Seems the FED are concerned for US inflation and the markets reacted badly yesterday at the prospect of ever higher interest rates in the US, EU, and UK which could see our base rate head towards 7%
This is any government's worst nightmare and certainly will see the conservatives lose to labour but what then ?
The conservative may tear themselves apart, indeed will if they go down the ERG right wing path, but the next 5 years are going to be more than challenging and especially for a labour government who for once faces the absolute of 'there is no money left'
It was interesting that labour have again said they may not be able to agree the teachers pay review body recommendations and it looks as if the public sector are not going to find it any easier to advance pay with labour
What a mess, and yes Johnson's toxic behaviour and Truss's debacle are centre to the political fray, but ultimately Brexit, covid and the war in Ukraine have combined to deliver a devastating blow to the UK economy and with the war in Ukraine and talk of threats to grain supplies, this could continue for a long time yet
Never mind - we have the cricket to look forward to - or do we ?
Despite the "devastating blow to the UK economy" we have full employment.
It is increasingly a divided society of winners and losers with little in between. And not just divided by £££ incomes but also age and place.
Started reading "the email" but got bored of it halfway through.
Just seems to be an amalgamation of catty links that were all already in the public domain with some bitchy comments attached. Skimmed to the end and again link after link all in the public domain already.
Seems to be something anyone could have written without knowing anything original or anyone involved or having anything to say.
Gosh. Imagine how it will kick off when I reveal there hasn't been any ADD for about a decade.
Unsurprisingly, people forgot about your post a few minutes after they read it. They were left with a brief feeling of unease which faded after a few seconds after which they had totally forgotten
Seems the FED are concerned for US inflation and the markets reacted badly yesterday at the prospect of ever higher interest rates in the US, EU, and UK which could see our base rate head towards 7%
This is any government's worst nightmare and certainly will see the conservatives lose to labour but what then ?
The conservative may tear themselves apart, indeed will if they go down the ERG right wing path, but the next 5 years are going to be more than challenging and especially for a labour government who for once faces the absolute of 'there is no money left'
It was interesting that labour have again said they may not be able to agree the teachers pay review body recommendations and it looks as if the public sector are not going to find it any easier to advance pay with labour
What a mess, and yes Johnson's toxic behaviour and Truss's debacle are centre to the political fray, but ultimately Brexit, covid and the war in Ukraine have combined to deliver a devastating blow to the UK economy and with the war in Ukraine and talk of threats to grain supplies, this could continue for a long time yet
Never mind - we have the cricket to look forward to - or do we ?
It isn't the 'ERG Right Wing Path' that the Tories might go down, its absolutely necessary that they do. Statist Blairism doesn't work - that it what we have at the moment. We need radical approaches to reducing the costs of the nation.
Cutting the state (and then taxes) is absolutely imperative. This will cause lots of whinging from comfortably off do-gooders who want their pet projects protected (much like Brexit did). But it has to happen.
It will either be forced as part of an IMF bailout, or voluntary under a proper Conservative Govt.
A nightmare on Downing Street!
Your idealogical panacea of no state intervention means the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. That ultimately results in totalitarian of one form or another, either by revolution or by counter-revolution.
Why can't we just try to make the mixed economy work for all of us?
In terms of the self-diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder, I think for some (but by no means all), there is a lot of focus on the 'Spectrum' part - expression of a behaviours that might be stereotypical of autism, i.e 'we're all somewhere on the spectrum' etc - but very little attention is paid to the 'Disorder' aspect. That, I believe, is the difference between someone being a bit odd or struggling with social interactions, and someone having a pathology.
There was a great TV series with Christophe Eccleston - The A Word - about a boy with autism. He, the boy, was quiet, introspective, listened to music, not really communicative.
On the phone-ins there were several parents of autistic children who bemoaned even this representation, to say nothing of the savant, Rain Man-type representations where someone can play Mozart 21 after hearing it on the radio once, or knows the square root of 8,937. They said that their experience of autism as manifest in their own children was of 24-hr screaming, violence and a complete absence of "rational" or communicative behaviour.
It is indeed a spectrum and it is indeed a disorder.
The above is exactly why the definitions, defined conditions and the diagnoses are in flux.
I know parents who are dealing with variations on the first and those who are dealing with the milder forms of the second.
Started reading "the email" but got bored of it halfway through.
Just seems to be an amalgamation of catty links that were all already in the public domain with some bitchy comments attached. Skimmed to the end and again link after link all in the public domain already.
Seems to be something anyone could have written without knowing anything original or anyone involved or having anything to say.
I did wonder if the person behind it had written two drafts, one supporting the Union and one pushing for a split and held off publishing to the last minute.
Have to say that SKS was presumably grateful for the interruption of his speech by protesters yesterday as it broke the tedium and made it vaguely newsworthy. He didn’t have that advantage on R4 in the morning and boy that was grim. Platitudes and generalities piled high with not a detail in sight. He’s going to be poor in the election campaign, possibly even worse than Sunak if you can imagine such a thing.
Though when he broke from the script to engage with the protestors he came over well. That bodes well for the unpredictability of a campaign.
I am no Starmer fan, and he is still rather an enigma to me. What does he actually want to do as PM? He seems to be both over-prepared and over timid.
On the other hand, he is wise not to interrupt a government bent on self destruction.
What does Sir K want to do? I think something like this: 1) Win the election from the social democrat centre left 2) Under promise both before and after the election 3) Blame the Tories (not hard) 4) See what can be done about the EU in a Swiss sort of way 5) Try to be a government with some integrity, honesty and competence, no quick fixes 6) See if a 10-15 year programme can engender a bit of hope and a sense of direction 7) Use the current mood to further regulate water, banks, rail etc 8) Stop some rich people's loopholes and rebalance the tax system.
He can't spend any money much because there isn't any. The above 8 items is enough when all your money is going on debt interest, pensions and NHS.
(5) seems wildly aspirational to me. When did we last have a government like that?
I think May tried to be a government with some integrity, honesty and competence, no quick fixes. At least as far as that's possible.
She failed fairly dismally- partly by not really being up to the job, partly because of the people in the tent pissing in, partly because the country rather likes quick fixes
The big question for Starmer is whether the UK is ready to accept that quick fixes aren't on the menu. I hope we are, but I'm not sure.
Looking back, May's position was impossible from the beginning, and then her own 2017 election campaign made it worse.
As a remainer PM after Brexit it was politically impossible to do a sane Brexit (a Swiss or Norway approach) because her own party would not let her, and Labour was too self interested to help. So she had to try to find a middle way, pleasing no-one. It is notable that the faction that made life impossible for her has nothing worthwhile to offer now.
May would be OK in OK times; Brexit made it impossible.
I disagree with that. She could have gone for a more reasonable Brexit approach but instead she sought to out-loon the loons. She never actually understood Brexit or its drivers and instead went for some cartoon version that no body was actually looking for.
I would love to think that in 2016-2019 a reasonable Brexit approach was possible. The divisions in the HoC suggest that there was no decent approach that would have commanded a majority whatever anyone did.
We got very close at a few brief times. Allowing the cabinet to vote rather than forced abstentions was likely enough in the indicative votes for example.
Started reading "the email" but got bored of it halfway through.
Just seems to be an amalgamation of catty links that were all already in the public domain with some bitchy comments attached. Skimmed to the end and again link after link all in the public domain already.
Seems to be something anyone could have written without knowing anything original or anyone involved or having anything to say.
The only thing I could derive from is was it was put together by someone with a deep personal animus towards Osborne. It would have been not a small task to put together all those links and I wonder who could really have been bothered. It's extremely interesting if you know Osborne personally or have a penchant for gossip, but other than that...
What's the story with the (BOY) George Osborne email that's been trending on Twitter? @TheScreamingEagles
George Osborne is a good Muslim boy.
I have PM'd you the full email, if you haven't seen it.
Thanks. I've read it now... 👍
Not sure what to make of it... BUT... here's what I think (and remember I'm no fan of George Osborne - OGH once banned for 12hrs me for calling him a "creep" - The first and only time I was banned here in 17 years)
....
If George is indeed a cheating son-of-a-bitch, the poster (whoever he/she/they/them) is should have messaged "Thea" privately with their "evidence" rather than sharing it all over the internet.
It very much reads like a bitter, desperate and vengeful Corbynista (or one of George's original ex's) trying to ruin Thea's happy day (always remember the wedding day is the BRIDES day - which is a pretty scummy thing to do, whatever your politics, IMO)
Remember, everyone.... An eye for and eye... AND THE WHOLE WORLD GOES BLIND...
It reads like a jilted ex to me. It feels very personal, not at all political.
There are lefties on twitter pretending (or hoping if they haven't read it) that it is about how George knew austerity wasn't necessary and imposed it as sadistic cruelty. It's kinda lame.
Seems the FED are concerned for US inflation and the markets reacted badly yesterday at the prospect of ever higher interest rates in the US, EU, and UK which could see our base rate head towards 7%
This is any government's worst nightmare and certainly will see the conservatives lose to labour but what then ?
The conservative may tear themselves apart, indeed will if they go down the ERG right wing path, but the next 5 years are going to be more than challenging and especially for a labour government who for once faces the absolute of 'there is no money left'
It was interesting that labour have again said they may not be able to agree the teachers pay review body recommendations and it looks as if the public sector are not going to find it any easier to advance pay with labour
What a mess, and yes Johnson's toxic behaviour and Truss's debacle are centre to the political fray, but ultimately Brexit, covid and the war in Ukraine have combined to deliver a devastating blow to the UK economy and with the war in Ukraine and talk of threats to grain supplies, this could continue for a long time yet
Never mind - we have the cricket to look forward to - or do we ?
Despite the "devastating blow to the UK economy" we have full employment.
It is increasingly a divided society of winners and losers with little in between. And not just divided by £££ incomes but also age and place.
Also, the definition of "employment" has changed over the last decade or so. Not to the advantage of the "em,ployed".
Yes, there was a triple lock on the post Brexit deal- it had to have majority support in the Commons, the Conservative Party and the EU. And with the 2017 parliament, that turned out to be a Venn diagram with no intersection.
The Brexit Brexiteers expected, the Brexit voters voted for and the Brexit we got is still a Venn diagram with no intersection.
Only when we abandon Brexit can the Nation come together.
In a poll posted by yourself yesterday
For joining was 29%
Against was 24%
But the clear winner with 31% was most likely to vote for a party that prioritises other issues first
You dream is not going to happen even on your own poll
Have to say that SKS was presumably grateful for the interruption of his speech by protesters yesterday as it broke the tedium and made it vaguely newsworthy. He didn’t have that advantage on R4 in the morning and boy that was grim. Platitudes and generalities piled high with not a detail in sight. He’s going to be poor in the election campaign, possibly even worse than Sunak if you can imagine such a thing.
Though when he broke from the script to engage with the protestors he came over well. That bodes well for the unpredictability of a campaign.
I am no Starmer fan, and he is still rather an enigma to me. What does he actually want to do as PM? He seems to be both over-prepared and over timid.
On the other hand, he is wise not to interrupt a government bent on self destruction.
Starmer can think on his feet better than Sunak, which isn't surprising given his CV and how poor Sunak is at thinking on his feet. But unlike Blair in 1997 and for that matter even Trump in 2016 he's got practically no element of a new dawn in his offering, and practically no charisma. He doesn't even measure up to Kinnock.
All the Tories need to do is introduce a bit of new and tough in conflict into their presentation. That may well mean binning Sunak, and there may be a bit of a trouble there with him hanging onto the doorframe because he's rich - so get yer popcorn ready - but they seem to have managed OK in removing the last three prime ministers when they wanted to. And it doesn't even necessarily mean getting rid of Sunak. He is young, he is not bright but he's better than his three predecessors at listening to advice, and he can be repackaged. The Tories' biggest card is Rwanda, and they will play it when they think the time is right, which isn't yet. Labour haven't really got a card to play in response, other than to say be nice and hey this is a distraction, oh please please, listen to us. Too many pundits keep comparing with 1992 and 1997, but 2024 will probably be more like 2019.
So you are suggesting another Tory landslide on the back of a few hundred out of tens of thousands of boat people being repatriated to Rwanda? Bold! Very bold
Yes, there was a triple lock on the post Brexit deal- it had to have majority support in the Commons, the Conservative Party and the EU. And with the 2017 parliament, that turned out to be a Venn diagram with no intersection.
The Brexit Brexiteers expected, the Brexit voters voted for and the Brexit we got is still a Venn diagram with no intersection.
Only when we abandon Brexit can the Nation come together.
I'd love to see Britain rejoin and join the eurozone too, but not for national unity reasons and there'd hardly be a growth of coming together whether it were done by referendum or by using the House of Commons. But I'd love to see a lot of things that aren't going to happen. For national unity, over to the odious Goebbels for the playbook: "All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country." Many think they are cynics but underestimate the sheer level of cynicism among Tories.
Seems the FED are concerned for US inflation and the markets reacted badly yesterday at the prospect of ever higher interest rates in the US, EU, and UK which could see our base rate head towards 7%
This is any government's worst nightmare and certainly will see the conservatives lose to labour but what then ?
The conservative may tear themselves apart, indeed will if they go down the ERG right wing path, but the next 5 years are going to be more than challenging and especially for a labour government who for once faces the absolute of 'there is no money left'
It was interesting that labour have again said they may not be able to agree the teachers pay review body recommendations and it looks as if the public sector are not going to find it any easier to advance pay with labour
What a mess, and yes Johnson's toxic behaviour and Truss's debacle are centre to the political fray, but ultimately Brexit, covid and the war in Ukraine have combined to deliver a devastating blow to the UK economy and with the war in Ukraine and talk of threats to grain supplies, this could continue for a long time yet
Never mind - we have the cricket to look forward to - or do we ?
It isn't the 'ERG Right Wing Path' that the Tories might go down, its absolutely necessary that they do. Statist Blairism doesn't work - that it what we have at the moment. We need radical approaches to reducing the costs of the nation.
Cutting the state (and then taxes) is absolutely imperative. This will cause lots of whinging from comfortably off do-gooders who want their pet projects protected (much like Brexit did). But it has to happen.
It will either be forced as part of an IMF bailout, or voluntary under a proper Conservative Govt.
A nightmare on Downing Street!
Your idealogical panacea of no state intervention means the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. That ultimately results in totalitarian of one form or another, either by revolution or by counter-revolution.
Why can't we just try to make the mixed economy work for all of us?
No state intervention? What are you talking about. Cutting the state and allowing the private sector to grow is the solution.
The state is bigger than ever, the countryis broke with creditors demanding ever high premiums on loans, and we're likely heading for recession. How is that mixed economy working out for you?!
Have to say that SKS was presumably grateful for the interruption of his speech by protesters yesterday as it broke the tedium and made it vaguely newsworthy. He didn’t have that advantage on R4 in the morning and boy that was grim. Platitudes and generalities piled high with not a detail in sight. He’s going to be poor in the election campaign, possibly even worse than Sunak if you can imagine such a thing.
Though when he broke from the script to engage with the protestors he came over well. That bodes well for the unpredictability of a campaign.
I am no Starmer fan, and he is still rather an enigma to me. What does he actually want to do as PM? He seems to be both over-prepared and over timid.
On the other hand, he is wise not to interrupt a government bent on self destruction.
Starmer can think on his feet better than Sunak, which isn't surprising given his CV and how poor Sunak is at thinking on his feet. But unlike Blair in 1997 and for that matter even Trump in 2016 he's got practically no element of a new dawn in his offering, and practically no charisma. He doesn't even measure up to Kinnock.
All the Tories need to do is introduce a bit of new and tough in conflict into their presentation. That may well mean binning Sunak, and there may be a bit of a trouble there with him hanging onto the doorframe because he's rich - so get yer popcorn ready - but they seem to have managed OK in removing the last three prime ministers when they wanted to. And it doesn't even necessarily mean getting rid of Sunak. He is young, he is not bright but he's better than his three predecessors at listening to advice, and he can be repackaged. The Tories' biggest card is Rwanda, and they will play it when they think the time is right, which isn't yet. Labour haven't really got a card to play in response, other than to say be nice and hey this is a distraction, oh please please, listen to us. Too many pundits keep comparing with 1992 and 1997, but 2024 will probably be more like 2019.
Rwanda? Er, where are the newsreels of grateful smiling people? As opposed to empty and fairly posh hotels?
It's a matter of what the tool can transform into (with Labour having no influence on events), not what it can't transform into or debating points. Talking about a perceived level of KAPOW! against "Europe", "softness", "hands tied by legal b*llocks", faffing about, and quite possibly wig-wearing "enemies of the people", that outdoes Musk vs Zuck in Vegas and will be very electorally focused.
Remind me how the Tories won in 2019 when they make most people want to vomit, including in the north of England.
The Tories are seeking another term after 14 years in power with the economy bleak and a recent track record of almost universally negative achievements. They're a large and stubborn 20 points behind in the polls. In these circumstances are there enough Deplorables in the electorate such that 'Rwanda' could win them a general election? Surely not. And if there are, god help us.
Comments
I am no Starmer fan, and he is still rather an enigma to me. What does he actually want to do as PM? He seems to be both over-prepared and over timid.
On the other hand, he is wise not to interrupt a government bent on self destruction.
Your last point is of course the key. He is going to win because his opponents seem determined to lose.
How would it be done?
As this hasn't been resolved in thousands of years of discussion, it probably isn't going to be soon.
ASD can be a debilitating social millstone. It is not a label to justify Elon Musk's peculiar behaviour or an unwise slur to explain Theresa May's social awkwardness.
Leon pretty much hijacks all PB threads, whether it be with photographs of his breakfast or a travelog outlining the itinerary of his latest freebie. If readers like it, great, engage whilst I scroll past. His very regular "expert" opinion on all things "on the spectrum " really, really wind me up. If people disengaged, perhaps he would change the subject back to his lunch.
1) Win the election from the social democrat centre left
2) Under promise both before and after the election
3) Blame the Tories (not hard)
4) See what can be done about the EU in a Swiss sort of way
5) Try to be a government with some integrity, honesty and competence, no quick fixes
6) See if a 10-15 year programme can engender a bit of hope and a sense of direction
7) Use the current mood to further regulate water, banks, rail etc
8) Stop some rich people's loopholes and rebalance the tax system.
He can't spend any money much because there isn't any. The above 8 items is enough when all your money is going on debt interest, pensions and NHS.
One of the great pleasures of working in the NHS is that my Trust has supported me and some colleagues setting up bespoke services that accommodate such clients. I don't think that would be possible in a service requiring narrow financial viability.
Kept in place due to previous mistakes despite a better alternative being obvious to everyone.
(PS I am a voluntarist, but huge numbers of scientists and philosophers are not.)
They knew.
Yes.
Not to say there isn't validity for such diagnoses but there has been a developing tendency to medicalise many conditions.
Then again if you don't (medicalise and) codify such conditions I'm not sure how effective treatment is possible.
@Foxy would be interested in your view.
She failed fairly dismally- partly by not really being up to the job, partly because of the people in the tent pissing in, partly because the country rather likes quick fixes
The big question for Starmer is whether the UK is ready to accept that quick fixes aren't on the menu. I hope we are, but I'm not sure.
On this week's #WhatsAtStake, @pentagrp
partners @BDeAngelis82 and Viv O'Connor-Jemmett discuss the importance of Online Reputation Management in a lightning fast news cycle dominated by search engines and social media. Listen now!
On the phone-ins there were several parents of autistic children who bemoaned even this representation, to say nothing of the savant, Rain Man-type representations where someone can play Mozart 21 after hearing it on the radio once, or knows the square root of 8,937. They said that their experience of autism as manifest in their own children was of 24-hr screaming, violence and a complete absence of "rational" or communicative behaviour.
It is indeed a spectrum and it is indeed a disorder.
It is wholly unhelpful when Theresa May's "dad dancing" is explained away by autism, or Elon Musk's success is because of his self-diagnosis as high functioning autistic. ASD should neither be an insult or a badge of honour.
And in twenty plus years of engaging with ASD help groups I have never heard the term "Aspie" used in any context, except of course by Dr Leon.
Began to warm to him on the breaking the class ceiling, but he then proved wholly unable to answer Nick Robinson's not really curveball, more bleedin' obvious questions about scenario analysis on funding (eg on abolishing tax breaks for private schools).
He ended up pretty automaton-ish. But he is not the Conservative Party which will be enough for many.
I find it a source of some despair that we find it so hard to combine firmness and compassion. Some unpleasant things need to do done by governments if the country is to function but that does not require us to be indifferent to, let alone relish, the consequences of our actions.
I fully appreciate that this can lead to exceptionalism which has its own problems but I want a government that actually cares. Painting over murals in case they give a moment's pleasure to desperate children is just vile. I would not trust someone who could do such a thing to make a decision about anything of moment.
As a remainer PM after Brexit it was politically impossible to do a sane Brexit (a Swiss or Norway approach) because her own party would not let her, and Labour was too self interested to help. So she had to try to find a middle way, pleasing no-one. It is notable that the faction that made life impossible for her has nothing worthwhile to offer now.
May would be OK in OK times; Brexit made it impossible.
L. Lin Wood, one of the key lawyers who sought to overturn former Donald Trump's 2020 election loss and faced potential disciplinary action in Georgia as a result, opted to give up his law license in the state.
https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1677057353185652736
Automaton mode is about the only option.
And yet for two years, pundits have been totally consumed by alleged policy mistakes.
https://twitter.com/TheStalwart/status/1677129149931048964
There is a longstanding debate over what aspects of the human condition should be medicalised. There have been times where over enthusiastic practitioners have gone overboard with their hobbyhorse diagnoses, the Teeside sexual abuse scandal and Satanic Panic of a couple of decades ago for example.
I am more laissez-faire, and prefer not to label people and just take them as they are, part of the rich tapestry of life.
One of my guru's teachings is "consider that you might be wrong", and I try to follow it. So if someone finds a label helpful, then I let them use it.
It’s all very well to say “we will raise x from these people” until those people bugger off, whether private school pupils or oil firms and a lot of Starmer’s plans seem to be based on funding streams that are far from guaranteed and even less guaranteed if you attack those revenue streams.
Don't forget he is dealing with the British public here so no need for too many complications.
All the Tories need to do is introduce a bit of new and tough in conflict into their presentation. That may well mean binning Sunak, and there may be a bit of a trouble there with him hanging onto the doorframe because he's rich - so get yer popcorn ready - but they seem to have managed OK in removing the last three prime ministers when they wanted to. And it doesn't even necessarily mean getting rid of Sunak. He is young, he is not bright but he's better than his three predecessors at listening to advice, and he can be repackaged. The Tories' biggest card is Rwanda, and they will play it when they think the time is right, which isn't yet. Labour haven't really got a card to play in response, other than to say be nice and hey this is a distraction, oh please please, listen to us. Too many pundits keep comparing with 1992 and 1997, but 2024 will probably be more like 2019.
Although addiction therapy and sexual identity therapy seem more readily available than autism services both in the NHS and through lottery funding.
Seems the FED are concerned for US inflation and the markets reacted badly yesterday at the prospect of ever higher interest rates in the US, EU, and UK which could see our base rate head towards 7%
This is any government's worst nightmare and certainly will see the conservatives lose to labour but what then ?
The conservative may tear themselves apart, indeed will if they go down the ERG right wing path, but the next 5 years are going to be more than challenging and especially for a labour government who for once faces the absolute of 'there is no money left'
It was interesting that labour have again said they may not be able to agree the teachers pay review body recommendations and it looks as if the public sector are not going to find it any easier to advance pay with labour
What a mess, and yes Johnson's toxic behaviour and Truss's debacle are centre to the political fray, but ultimately Brexit, covid and the war in Ukraine have combined to deliver a devastating blow to the UK economy and with the war in Ukraine and talk of threats to grain supplies, this could continue for a long time yet
Never mind - we have the cricket to look forward to - or do we ?
Cutting the state (and then taxes) is absolutely imperative. This will cause lots of whinging from comfortably off do-gooders who want their pet projects protected (much like Brexit did). But it has to happen.
It will either be forced as part of an IMF bailout, or voluntary under a proper Conservative Govt.
In that sense, Johnson and Cummings were right- the only way out of the impasse was to put them in charge, and reduce the triple lock to a double lock. That simplified the negotiation to:
UK: We want this much freedom.
EU: Then you have this much access, and this much faff in the Irish Sea.
Which is what came to pass. All pretty predictable. Though not to those who thought that they could ride Cummings and Farage to get the fact of Brexit they wanted and then leave them to die in the ditch and get the liberal business-friendly type of Brexit they desired.
In my mind there's not a lot of slack to be cut for the Conservatives of that era, and I'm not wasting an inch of it on that wretch.
However I don’t know how or whether to explore it without it looking like I am just trying to get hold of “smart drugs”.
It is a valid criticism of my "quiet clinic" that we could see 2-3X the number of patients if we just saw those on our routine waiting list. It is one reason that I run it only once per month.
Yes, there’s a line somewhere between a totally public and a totally private system. Doctors and nurses shoudn’t be incentivised to order tests and treatments.
You are in denial if you think that not least with consistent large polling leads for labour
And no matter Rwanda voters will vote on their pocket books which are being picked empty by ever rising interest rates
Sunak will lead into GE24 and thereafter the conservative party can either come to their senses, or face extinction if they move hard right
While the discussion mentioned no names, it was obviously her case - from my knowing the details.
The consultant was asking “If our diagnosis had been wrong, what would the first indications have been?”
One of the students said - “But we weren’t wrong.”
The consultant - “We were right this time. We will be wrong, sometime in the future.”
I think that a very impressive attitude and method of working.
Had she not embarked on the 2017 GE she would have been less exposed.
Remind me how the Tories won in 2019 when they make most people want to vomit, including in the north of England.
Only when we abandon Brexit can the Nation come together.
For those who truly and deeply support the Rwanda policy, two points: If it 'works' they are going to vote Tory or further right anyway, if it doesn't 'work' it shows up the futility.
How on earth can this government win an election by sending 1000 people to Rwanda when net migration is 600,000?
* [edit]: apart from the family etc., of course.
These days some people want to rehabilitate as a victim of Boris and hapless holder of a poisoned chalice. But she had agency, and she was amoral and self-serving. Fuck her.
*Five month old son, not something weird. Obviously.
Just seems to be an amalgamation of catty links that were all already in the public domain with some bitchy comments attached. Skimmed to the end and again link after link all in the public domain already.
Seems to be something anyone could have written without knowing anything original or anyone involved or having anything to say.
Your idealogical panacea of no state intervention means the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. That ultimately results in totalitarian of one form or another, either by revolution or by counter-revolution.
Why can't we just try to make the mixed economy work for all of us?
I know parents who are dealing with variations on the first and those who are dealing with the milder forms of the second.
For joining was 29%
Against was 24%
But the clear winner with 31% was most likely to vote for a party that prioritises other issues first
You dream is not going to happen even on your own poll
The state is bigger than ever, the countryis broke with creditors demanding ever high premiums on loans, and we're likely heading for recession. How is that mixed economy working out for you?!