UBS has posted the biggest ever quarterly profit by a bank after an accounting gain following its emergency takeover of Credit Suisse propelled pre-tax earnings to $29 billion.
The huge gain underscores the cut-price nature of the state-orchestrated rescue deal that UBS agreed in March.
The Swiss bank bought its stricken rival for $3.8 billion in a hastily arranged transaction that was brokered by the authorities as fears mounted that Credit Suisse was poised to collapse.
This knockdown price has now resulted in a one-off accounting boost, known as “negative goodwill”, for UBS because it bought Credit Suisse for significantly less than its fair value.
The bank announced the record profit in its second-quarter results, when it also revealed it expected to cut about 3,000 jobs in Switzerland as a result of the deal in the coming years. Thousands more are expected to be lost around the world, including in the City of London, as Sergio Ermotti, the UBS boss, embarks on the complex and risky task of integrating Credit Suisse, the rescue of which has created a sprawling banking giant employing about 120,000 people.
FPT: Let me quote again: HYUFD said: "The very poor in the US ie the unemployed and those without health insurance are worse off than our poor as they have little welfare state, public housing or NHS to fall back on"
From Wikipedia, we can learn that there are about 85 million poor Americans who receive Medicaid, and that the total expenditure is about $600 billion a year. So, per capita, the US governments spend about $7,000 for each poor person, just from Medicaid. (Older poor people, who are eligible for Medicare, as well as Medicaid, receive even more.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid
So, HYUFD, approximately what does the UK spend on the NHS each year? Are there any other signficant expenditures that should be included? How does that compare to the US expenditure on Medicaid alone, total, and per capita?
(I will say, as I have before, that I am not a defender of the many US health care systems. But I think most criticisms of them could be better informed.
Pro tip: Anyone who says there is an American health care system either doesn't know what they are talking about, or is being sloppy. There are many health care systems here.)
Does the amount of money spent actually tell you anything about outcomes?
What makes poverty harder to bear in the US, than in the UK or much of Europe, is the assumption that is a moral failing, rather than bad fortune.
A long but worthwhile read from the brilliant Jennifer Williams in the FT. I went to college in Oldham so know the town well. To read so many problems at a big high school is disheartening.
The Tories have absolutely broken the ability of so many families to get by, and also broken the budgets of the schools who are left to pick up the pieces.
Christ, that is a tough read, it left me in tears. The Tories have utterly broken this country, and unforgivably they have ensured that children, and especially poor children, have borne the brunt of it. I find it hard to control my anger at them sometimes.
Is this really the country we want? The society we believe to be just? I know PB Tories and their fellow travellers excuse almost everything, but is this what we have been reduced to? For what other benefit?
If we remove the (often) justified anger, then there's four simple questions which the politicans of all sides need to ask.
1) What are we currently spending money on? 2) What could we spend more money or or less on to make the changes which people want (and what are those changes)? 3) How can we increase the money to make the gap from 1 to 2?
Anything other than that is really just details.
Given that there appears to be little appetite for tax rises (except for the idea of raising mythical billions from the top 1%), and the books are still a long way from balancing, the conversation really needs to be around the scope of government.
What does government do currently, that it could stop doing without too many adverse effects?
The obvious standout figures are £20bn on ‘Energy Security and Net Zero’, £10bn on “Science, Innovation and Technology”, and nearly £10bn on the Foreign Office. DWP also spends £8.5bn on its own admin, and HMRC £6.5bn, which suggests that reducing complexity in the tax and benefits system could lead to savings there.
In the current culture there is a problem. We are borrowing £100 bn per annum even now. So that needs to be found. But there isn't a single area of interest where there isn't pressure for government to spend more, usually much more. The media, especially the BBC give a perpetual free and unchallenged ride to all and everyone who are calling for higher expenditure on everything under the sun.
To see the size of the £100 bn deficit, if we abolished all state managed expenditure on education entirely, it still would not cover it. So bits of tinkering will make no real difference.
The philosophy that the solution is always cut, cut, cut has gotten us to where we are today.
We pay less in tax than many other developed countries that enjoy higher standards of living than us. Let’s be more like them. Well-funded public services are a worthwhile investment.
The £100 billion gap (current borrowing) is £3,300 per year from 30 million tax payers. I am totally sympathetic to the tax rise solution but it needs turning into real figures for actual people and I don't have any politically workable suggestions.
Answers on a postcard.
And BTW in overall expenditure there have been no cuts, and never have been.
There won't be any politically workable solutions until we have a new Government, since this one only does backside covering gesture politics and has painted itself into a whole series of corners to try and pay for tax cuts to buy some extra votes.
eg Sunak's Diversionary Soliloquy about "Zombie Knives" the other day.
I wonder how many Zombie Knives were used in crime. Anyone with half a braincell will use something more practical, such as a lock knife or a bread knife.
Here is a haul of knives from Notting Hill in I think 2015, when Zombie Knives were at their height - not a Zombie Knife amongst them. Lots of bread knives, normal lock knives, sheath knives, extending batons, and one machete.
It's retail politics for Zombies who read the Daily Mail.
It's not your sole obsession, certainly: you have several others. They include aliens, drugs, covid, pictures of your food and drink, pictures of young women moving away from you, the existence of God, and whatever bright shiny object attracts your attention today. Occasionally you talk about politics.
I think David Lammy is quite keen on some variant of this idea... to bring a better sense of national unity (teenagers from Buxton meet teenagers from Brixton kinda thing).
Genuinely I can see positives to this if done well. Probably not cheap though.
More by accident than design my Dad from Glasgow ended up in a squad with a bunch of lads from the South East of England.
Lifelong friends...
Better than being sexually harassed by a sergeant and eating pumpkins for the King in Malta, as my FiL did for a year in 1950.
Why did the King need help eating pumpkins?
And who was the King in Malta?
Malta was, at the time, part of The Empire. Many of my friends did National Service. Some enjoyed it, some were bored stiff, some were at genuine risk of being killed, some hated it. I didn’t want to shoot at people who shared some at least of my political views so I managed to stay a student until the government scrapped it.
As pointed out previously, with increasing difficulty. I've mentioned a couple of times how the internet is becoming more and more difficult to find things, cumulating this year in genuine frustration as stuff disappears due to paywalls, poorer search performance, difficulty in filtering, difficulty in sorting, and so on.
It's not your sole obsession, certainly: you have several others. They include aliens, drugs, covid, pictures of your food and drink, pictures of young women moving away from you, the existence of God, and whatever bright shiny object attracts your attention today. Occasionally you talk about politics.
You forgot Tranq, and the problem of concussion in rugby
Otherwise, yes, I have multiple obsessions and they shift like a kaleidoscope from day to day
Oddly, trans issues are not really one of them. I'd far rather we never had to talk about it again (I find the debate simutaneously confusing, and nasty), but it is thrust upon us, so we are forced to address it
UBS has posted the biggest ever quarterly profit by a bank after an accounting gain following its emergency takeover of Credit Suisse propelled pre-tax earnings to $29 billion.
The huge gain underscores the cut-price nature of the state-orchestrated rescue deal that UBS agreed in March.
The Swiss bank bought its stricken rival for $3.8 billion in a hastily arranged transaction that was brokered by the authorities as fears mounted that Credit Suisse was poised to collapse.
This knockdown price has now resulted in a one-off accounting boost, known as “negative goodwill”, for UBS because it bought Credit Suisse for significantly less than its fair value.
The bank announced the record profit in its second-quarter results, when it also revealed it expected to cut about 3,000 jobs in Switzerland as a result of the deal in the coming years. Thousands more are expected to be lost around the world, including in the City of London, as Sergio Ermotti, the UBS boss, embarks on the complex and risky task of integrating Credit Suisse, the rescue of which has created a sprawling banking giant employing about 120,000 people.
I think David Lammy is quite keen on some variant of this idea... to bring a better sense of national unity (teenagers from Buxton meet teenagers from Brixton kinda thing).
Genuinely I can see positives to this if done well. Probably not cheap though.
More by accident than design my Dad from Glasgow ended up in a squad with a bunch of lads from the South East of England.
Lifelong friends...
Better than being sexually harassed by a sergeant and eating pumpkins for the King in Malta, as my FiL did for a year in 1950.
I expect part of the better results for women surgeons is from better behaviour and communication with the operating theatre staff.
coughcougcoughconfounderscoughcough
From memory, there is a famous apocryphal story about differential recruitment to Harvard. It was pointed out that women found it harder to gain entry. On closer examination it was found that this bias vanished when subject was taken into account, as women weren't applying for the obscure subjects with higher acceptance rates
Two obvious points
The current cohort of female surgeons making their way thru the profession are younger than the previous (male-dominated) cohort, and it is this latter older group that do the more complex ops with higher failure rates
I don't know if this bit is true, but if female surgeons pick different specialties than male surgeons, and those specialties have different failure rates, then that may explain
No, it was adjusted for patient and procedure related factors:
Surely the interesting point is, trans WOMEN doctors are better than man doctors, because trans women are women, as any fule kno
In that case, all you have to do, @Foxy, is put on a dress and say "I am a woman", then you are indeed a woman, and you will be a better doctor ACCORDING TO THE SCIENCE
How hard is that?
Truly Molesworthian logic there as all on PB sa.
No, it's magic. If you're a guy doctor like Foxy, you literally just put on a dress, call yourself Foxella, and you become a better doctor. Because trans women are women, and women doctors are better
That is the truth, and if you dispute it you will be cancelled
I expect part of the better results for women surgeons is from better behaviour and communication with the operating theatre staff.
coughcougcoughconfounderscoughcough
From memory, there is a famous apocryphal story about differential recruitment to Harvard. It was pointed out that women found it harder to gain entry. On closer examination it was found that this bias vanished when subject was taken into account, as women weren't applying for the obscure subjects with higher acceptance rates
Two obvious points
The current cohort of female surgeons making their way thru the profession are younger than the previous (male-dominated) cohort, and it is this latter older group that do the more complex ops with higher failure rates
I don't know if this bit is true, but if female surgeons pick different specialties than male surgeons, and those specialties have different failure rates, then that may explain
No, it was adjusted for patient and procedure related factors:
Surely the interesting point is, trans WOMEN doctors are better than man doctors, because trans women are women, as any fule kno
In that case, all you have to do, @Foxy, is put on a dress and say "I am a woman", then you are indeed a woman, and you will be a better doctor ACCORDING TO THE SCIENCE
How hard is that?
Truly Molesworthian logic there as all on PB sa.
No, it's magic. If you're a guy doctor like Foxy, you literally just put on a dress, call yourself Foxella, and you become a better doctor. Because trans women are women, and women doctors are better
That is the truth, and if you dispute it you will be cancelled
You're very silly today.
But it is the absolute logic of trans rights married to @Foxy's evidence of female superiority. IF women doctors are better, just put on your bra and say you're a woman, Bingo. NigellaB MD. You are now probably a better doctor, because trans women are women
Unless, of course, you dispute the assertion that trans women are women, but that gets you ejected from society
You change the cohort, and therefore the statistics.
The ground difference remains, but the numbers have changed, slightly.
There's no paradox here, however much you like to bring your obsession with trans people into every discussion.
Er, what?
I have no "obsession" with trans issues. I do not often mention it compared to many other commenters, on both sides, who really DO harp on about it
It just struck me as an intersting cognitive dissonance. You cannot simultaneously say "women are better doctors" and believe this is a meaningful statement, if you also subscribe to mainstream trans theory, that "a man can be a woman simply by saying so" - because then the word "woman" is so vague as to be meaningless
Particle/wave theory - when observed it collapses to the required state, from indeterminacy.
As pointed out previously, with increasing difficulty. I've mentioned a couple of times how the internet is becoming more and more difficult to find things, cumulating this year in genuine frustration as stuff disappears due to paywalls, poorer search performance, difficulty in filtering, difficulty in sorting, and so on.
I wish PB was easier to search. Maybe it's just me but whenever I want to remind everyone of my incredible predictive powers I find it impossible to unearth that prescient post of mine from 3 or 4 years ago.
As pointed out previously, with increasing difficulty. I've mentioned a couple of times how the internet is becoming more and more difficult to find things, cumulating this year in genuine frustration as stuff disappears due to paywalls, poorer search performance, difficulty in filtering, difficulty in sorting, and so on.
I wish PB was easier to search. Maybe it's just me but whenever I want to remind everyone of my incredible predictive powers I find it impossible to unearth that prescient post of mine from 3 or 4 years ago.
They are to announce Ben Wallace as new Defence Secretary? A bold move!
Watch them announce some utter twonk with no clue about defence. We had the story the other day that all our fast attack subs are docked and unserviceable, so they're bound to get some absolute spanner in the role to lie and sneer.
They're going to appoint GRANT SHAPPPS?!!!
AAAAAAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!! PANIC!!!
Dear Prime Minister
This was intended as a jocular response to RP's comment that 'an absolute spanner...to lie and sneer' would be appointed.
Grant Shapps fitted this description and was therefore utterly unsuited to any role in Cabinet, especially Defence Secretary.
It wasn't intended as advice.
The clue was in that second line.
The more I see of your cabinet appointments, the more disposed I am to doubt (a) that you are a teetotaler and (b) that you have a functioning brain.
"Ex-MP Antoinette Sandbach 'threatens to sue Cambridge University' saying her privacy has been invaded after academic's award-winning research showed her ancestor made his fortune out of West Indies slave plantations"
He's apparently trying to make X the go-to site for everything. Fascinating. If he pulls it off - massive "if" - that $44bn will be seen as a bargain
Not by him, given he felt it was too much to pay and is suing the lawyers who forced him to pay it. But he could make it less bad.
Apparently he is trying to copy Chinese social media sites that do this: cover every base
He may fail, of course. But what Musk has already done is show how useless Dorsey and Co were, at running Twitter, when they had ten times the staff. Almost zero innovation for many years; constantly making losses
A long but worthwhile read from the brilliant Jennifer Williams in the FT. I went to college in Oldham so know the town well. To read so many problems at a big high school is disheartening.
The Tories have absolutely broken the ability of so many families to get by, and also broken the budgets of the schools who are left to pick up the pieces.
Christ, that is a tough read, it left me in tears. The Tories have utterly broken this country, and unforgivably they have ensured that children, and especially poor children, have borne the brunt of it. I find it hard to control my anger at them sometimes.
Is this really the country we want? The society we believe to be just? I know PB Tories and their fellow travellers excuse almost everything, but is this what we have been reduced to? For what other benefit?
If we remove the (often) justified anger, then there's four simple questions which the politicans of all sides need to ask.
1) What are we currently spending money on? 2) What could we spend more money or or less on to make the changes which people want (and what are those changes)? 3) How can we increase the money to make the gap from 1 to 2?
Anything other than that is really just details.
Given that there appears to be little appetite for tax rises (except for the idea of raising mythical billions from the top 1%), and the books are still a long way from balancing, the conversation really needs to be around the scope of government.
What does government do currently, that it could stop doing without too many adverse effects?
The obvious standout figures are £20bn on ‘Energy Security and Net Zero’, £10bn on “Science, Innovation and Technology”, and nearly £10bn on the Foreign Office. DWP also spends £8.5bn on its own admin, and HMRC £6.5bn, which suggests that reducing complexity in the tax and benefits system could lead to savings there.
Extend NI to all income. Sorted.
Yes, I’d merge employee NI into income tax, which both simplifies the system and brings unearned income into scope. You could make it revenue-positive while cutting the ‘basic rate’ for most full-time employees and raising the basic rate threshold.
The legislation would be complex though, needing to calculate future entitlements from income tax rather than NI contributions, which is why it’s been in the ‘too-difficult’ box for so long.
I really don't get the difficulty with future entitlement calculation. E.g. qualifying years = qualifying NI years pre-2025 + qualifying ICT years post 2024. If you're paying any ICT in a year you're earning as much as the NI qualification.
We are already able to add in National Insurance credits for those who receive UC, JSA, ESA, Child Benefit or Carer’s Allowance.
The bigger challenge is the shock to those who have been used to preferential tax rates on unearned income (Malcom will burst a blood vessel). That shock* can be overcome by making the change gradually over several years - reduce employee's NI by 2% and increase ICT basic rate by 2% each year for 6 years.
(*Though I suspect nothing will mitigate Malc's apoplexy.)
Won't happen under Tory gerontophilia.
Look at the cutoff for *upper* levels of NI Class 1. Imagine the shock from smoothing out what would otherwise be a massive anomaly at roughly 50K pa annual income.
The coverage of the 12% NI closely equates to the 20% ICT rate, I'm not suggesting applying it to all income.
The true tax rates on earned income currently are (roughly):
On income <£12,500 0%, ICT 0% NI = 0% total. On income between £12.5k and £50k 20% ICT + 12% NI = 32% total On income between £50k and £125k 40% ICT + 2% NI = 42% total On income over £125k 45% ICT and 2% NI = 47% total.
I'd reduce employees NI to 0% and set the ICT rates at 30%, 45% and 50%. Working basic rate tax payers would be better off, working higher rate tax payers slightly worse off, those living off unearned income would lose the tax advantage they currently have over workers.
I expect part of the better results for women surgeons is from better behaviour and communication with the operating theatre staff.
coughcougcoughconfounderscoughcough
From memory, there is a famous apocryphal story about differential recruitment to Harvard. It was pointed out that women found it harder to gain entry. On closer examination it was found that this bias vanished when subject was taken into account, as women weren't applying for the obscure subjects with higher acceptance rates
Two obvious points
The current cohort of female surgeons making their way thru the profession are younger than the previous (male-dominated) cohort, and it is this latter older group that do the more complex ops with higher failure rates
I don't know if this bit is true, but if female surgeons pick different specialties than male surgeons, and those specialties have different failure rates, then that may explain
No, it was adjusted for patient and procedure related factors:
Surely the interesting point is, trans WOMEN doctors are better than man doctors, because trans women are women, as any fule kno
In that case, all you have to do, @Foxy, is put on a dress and say "I am a woman", then you are indeed a woman, and you will be a better doctor ACCORDING TO THE SCIENCE
How hard is that?
Truly Molesworthian logic there as all on PB sa.
No, it's magic. If you're a guy doctor like Foxy, you literally just put on a dress, call yourself Foxella, and you become a better doctor. Because trans women are women, and women doctors are better
That is the truth, and if you dispute it you will be cancelled
I expect part of the better results for women surgeons is from better behaviour and communication with the operating theatre staff.
coughcougcoughconfounderscoughcough
From memory, there is a famous apocryphal story about differential recruitment to Harvard. It was pointed out that women found it harder to gain entry. On closer examination it was found that this bias vanished when subject was taken into account, as women weren't applying for the obscure subjects with higher acceptance rates
Two obvious points
The current cohort of female surgeons making their way thru the profession are younger than the previous (male-dominated) cohort, and it is this latter older group that do the more complex ops with higher failure rates
I don't know if this bit is true, but if female surgeons pick different specialties than male surgeons, and those specialties have different failure rates, then that may explain
No, it was adjusted for patient and procedure related factors:
Surely the interesting point is, trans WOMEN doctors are better than man doctors, because trans women are women, as any fule kno
In that case, all you have to do, @Foxy, is put on a dress and say "I am a woman", then you are indeed a woman, and you will be a better doctor ACCORDING TO THE SCIENCE
How hard is that?
Truly Molesworthian logic there as all on PB sa.
No, it's magic. If you're a guy doctor like Foxy, you literally just put on a dress, call yourself Foxella, and you become a better doctor. Because trans women are women, and women doctors are better
That is the truth, and if you dispute it you will be cancelled
You're very silly today.
But it is the absolute logic of trans rights married to @Foxy's evidence of female superiority. IF women doctors are better, just put on your bra and say you're a woman, Bingo. NigellaB MD. You are now probably a better doctor, because trans women are women
Unless, of course, you dispute the assertion that trans women are women, but that gets you ejected from society
You change the cohort, and therefore the statistics.
The ground difference remains, but the numbers have changed, slightly.
There's no paradox here, however much you like to bring your obsession with trans people into every discussion.
Er, what?
I have no "obsession" with trans issues. I do not often mention it compared to many other commenters, on both sides, who really DO harp on about it
It just struck me as an intersting cognitive dissonance. You cannot simultaneously say "women are better doctors" and believe this is a meaningful statement, if you also subscribe to mainstream trans theory, that "a man can be a woman simply by saying so" - because then the word "woman" is so vague as to be meaningless
That's about as silly as claiming you can't say "Conservative voting intention is 25%" because people can change their voting intention "simply by saying so."
"Ex-MP Antoinette Sandbach 'threatens to sue Cambridge University' saying her privacy has been invaded after academic's award-winning research showed her ancestor made his fortune out of West Indies slave plantations"
I thought it was quite funny that she thought she could get any statement anyone made about her "cancelled" on the basis that she had a "right to be forgotten".
A long but worthwhile read from the brilliant Jennifer Williams in the FT. I went to college in Oldham so know the town well. To read so many problems at a big high school is disheartening.
The Tories have absolutely broken the ability of so many families to get by, and also broken the budgets of the schools who are left to pick up the pieces.
Christ, that is a tough read, it left me in tears. The Tories have utterly broken this country, and unforgivably they have ensured that children, and especially poor children, have borne the brunt of it. I find it hard to control my anger at them sometimes.
Is this really the country we want? The society we believe to be just? I know PB Tories and their fellow travellers excuse almost everything, but is this what we have been reduced to? For what other benefit?
If we remove the (often) justified anger, then there's four simple questions which the politicans of all sides need to ask.
1) What are we currently spending money on? 2) What could we spend more money or or less on to make the changes which people want (and what are those changes)? 3) How can we increase the money to make the gap from 1 to 2?
Anything other than that is really just details.
Given that there appears to be little appetite for tax rises (except for the idea of raising mythical billions from the top 1%), and the books are still a long way from balancing, the conversation really needs to be around the scope of government.
What does government do currently, that it could stop doing without too many adverse effects?
The obvious standout figures are £20bn on ‘Energy Security and Net Zero’, £10bn on “Science, Innovation and Technology”, and nearly £10bn on the Foreign Office. DWP also spends £8.5bn on its own admin, and HMRC £6.5bn, which suggests that reducing complexity in the tax and benefits system could lead to savings there.
In the current culture there is a problem. We are borrowing £100 bn per annum even now. So that needs to be found. But there isn't a single area of interest where there isn't pressure for government to spend more, usually much more. The media, especially the BBC give a perpetual free and unchallenged ride to all and everyone who are calling for higher expenditure on everything under the sun.
To see the size of the £100 bn deficit, if we abolished all state managed expenditure on education entirely, it still would not cover it. So bits of tinkering will make no real difference.
The philosophy that the solution is always cut, cut, cut has gotten us to where we are today.
We pay less in tax than many other developed countries that enjoy higher standards of living than us. Let’s be more like them. Well-funded public services are a worthwhile investment.
The £100 billion gap (current borrowing) is £3,300 per year from 30 million tax payers. I am totally sympathetic to the tax rise solution but it needs turning into real figures for actual people and I don't have any politically workable suggestions.
Answers on a postcard.
And BTW in overall expenditure there have been no cuts, and never have been.
There won't be any politically workable solutions until we have a new Government, since this one only does backside covering gesture politics and has painted itself into a whole series of corners to try and pay for tax cuts to buy some extra votes.
eg Sunak's Diversionary Soliloquy about "Zombie Knives" the other day.
I wonder how many Zombie Knives were used in crime. Anyone with half a braincell will use something more practical, such as a lock knife or a bread knife.
Here is a haul of knives from Notting Hill in I think 2015, when Zombie Knives were at their height - not a Zombie Knife amongst them. Lots of bread knives, normal lock knives, sheath knives, extending batons, and one machete.
It's retail politics for Zombies who read the Daily Mail.
"Zombie knives" were apparently a rather successful marketing ploy by crap filmmakers.
Now being recycled as a rather lame marketing ploy by crapped-out politicos.
I expect part of the better results for women surgeons is from better behaviour and communication with the operating theatre staff.
coughcougcoughconfounderscoughcough
From memory, there is a famous apocryphal story about differential recruitment to Harvard. It was pointed out that women found it harder to gain entry. On closer examination it was found that this bias vanished when subject was taken into account, as women weren't applying for the obscure subjects with higher acceptance rates
Two obvious points
The current cohort of female surgeons making their way thru the profession are younger than the previous (male-dominated) cohort, and it is this latter older group that do the more complex ops with higher failure rates
I don't know if this bit is true, but if female surgeons pick different specialties than male surgeons, and those specialties have different failure rates, then that may explain
No, it was adjusted for patient and procedure related factors:
Surely the interesting point is, trans WOMEN doctors are better than man doctors, because trans women are women, as any fule kno
In that case, all you have to do, @Foxy, is put on a dress and say "I am a woman", then you are indeed a woman, and you will be a better doctor ACCORDING TO THE SCIENCE
How hard is that?
Truly Molesworthian logic there as all on PB sa.
No, it's magic. If you're a guy doctor like Foxy, you literally just put on a dress, call yourself Foxella, and you become a better doctor. Because trans women are women, and women doctors are better
That is the truth, and if you dispute it you will be cancelled
I expect part of the better results for women surgeons is from better behaviour and communication with the operating theatre staff.
coughcougcoughconfounderscoughcough
From memory, there is a famous apocryphal story about differential recruitment to Harvard. It was pointed out that women found it harder to gain entry. On closer examination it was found that this bias vanished when subject was taken into account, as women weren't applying for the obscure subjects with higher acceptance rates
Two obvious points
The current cohort of female surgeons making their way thru the profession are younger than the previous (male-dominated) cohort, and it is this latter older group that do the more complex ops with higher failure rates
I don't know if this bit is true, but if female surgeons pick different specialties than male surgeons, and those specialties have different failure rates, then that may explain
No, it was adjusted for patient and procedure related factors:
Surely the interesting point is, trans WOMEN doctors are better than man doctors, because trans women are women, as any fule kno
In that case, all you have to do, @Foxy, is put on a dress and say "I am a woman", then you are indeed a woman, and you will be a better doctor ACCORDING TO THE SCIENCE
How hard is that?
Truly Molesworthian logic there as all on PB sa.
No, it's magic. If you're a guy doctor like Foxy, you literally just put on a dress, call yourself Foxella, and you become a better doctor. Because trans women are women, and women doctors are better
That is the truth, and if you dispute it you will be cancelled
You're very silly today.
But it is the absolute logic of trans rights married to @Foxy's evidence of female superiority. IF women doctors are better, just put on your bra and say you're a woman, Bingo. NigellaB MD. You are now probably a better doctor, because trans women are women
Unless, of course, you dispute the assertion that trans women are women, but that gets you ejected from society
You change the cohort, and therefore the statistics.
The ground difference remains, but the numbers have changed, slightly.
There's no paradox here, however much you like to bring your obsession with trans people into every discussion.
Er, what?
I have no "obsession" with trans issues. I do not often mention it compared to many other commenters, on both sides, who really DO harp on about it
It just struck me as an intersting cognitive dissonance. You cannot simultaneously say "women are better doctors" and believe this is a meaningful statement, if you also subscribe to mainstream trans theory, that "a man can be a woman simply by saying so" - because then the word "woman" is so vague as to be meaningless
That's about as silly as claiming you can't say "Conservative voting intention is 25%" because people can change their voting intention "simply by saying so."
For your sake, I am going to politely pass over this
"Ex-MP Antoinette Sandbach 'threatens to sue Cambridge University' saying her privacy has been invaded after academic's award-winning research showed her ancestor made his fortune out of West Indies slave plantations"
As pointed out previously, with increasing difficulty. I've mentioned a couple of times how the internet is becoming more and more difficult to find things, cumulating this year in genuine frustration as stuff disappears due to paywalls, poorer search performance, difficulty in filtering, difficulty in sorting, and so on.
I wish PB was easier to search. Maybe it's just me but whenever I want to remind everyone of my incredible predictive powers I find it impossible to unearth that prescient post of mine from 3 or 4 years ago.
Has google dropped "site:" as well
No but it's the searching within the site that's the issue.
Like I said, it might be me but say I wanted to find the first mention of Covid on PB for example, how do I do that?
As pointed out previously, with increasing difficulty. I've mentioned a couple of times how the internet is becoming more and more difficult to find things, cumulating this year in genuine frustration as stuff disappears due to paywalls, poorer search performance, difficulty in filtering, difficulty in sorting, and so on.
I wish PB was easier to search. Maybe it's just me but whenever I want to remind everyone of my incredible predictive powers I find it impossible to unearth that prescient post of mine from 3 or 4 years ago.
I expect part of the better results for women surgeons is from better behaviour and communication with the operating theatre staff.
coughcougcoughconfounderscoughcough
From memory, there is a famous apocryphal story about differential recruitment to Harvard. It was pointed out that women found it harder to gain entry. On closer examination it was found that this bias vanished when subject was taken into account, as women weren't applying for the obscure subjects with higher acceptance rates
Two obvious points
The current cohort of female surgeons making their way thru the profession are younger than the previous (male-dominated) cohort, and it is this latter older group that do the more complex ops with higher failure rates
I don't know if this bit is true, but if female surgeons pick different specialties than male surgeons, and those specialties have different failure rates, then that may explain
No, it was adjusted for patient and procedure related factors:
Surely the interesting point is, trans WOMEN doctors are better than man doctors, because trans women are women, as any fule kno
In that case, all you have to do, @Foxy, is put on a dress and say "I am a woman", then you are indeed a woman, and you will be a better doctor ACCORDING TO THE SCIENCE
How hard is that?
Truly Molesworthian logic there as all on PB sa.
No, it's magic. If you're a guy doctor like Foxy, you literally just put on a dress, call yourself Foxella, and you become a better doctor. Because trans women are women, and women doctors are better
That is the truth, and if you dispute it you will be cancelled
I expect part of the better results for women surgeons is from better behaviour and communication with the operating theatre staff.
coughcougcoughconfounderscoughcough
From memory, there is a famous apocryphal story about differential recruitment to Harvard. It was pointed out that women found it harder to gain entry. On closer examination it was found that this bias vanished when subject was taken into account, as women weren't applying for the obscure subjects with higher acceptance rates
Two obvious points
The current cohort of female surgeons making their way thru the profession are younger than the previous (male-dominated) cohort, and it is this latter older group that do the more complex ops with higher failure rates
I don't know if this bit is true, but if female surgeons pick different specialties than male surgeons, and those specialties have different failure rates, then that may explain
No, it was adjusted for patient and procedure related factors:
Surely the interesting point is, trans WOMEN doctors are better than man doctors, because trans women are women, as any fule kno
In that case, all you have to do, @Foxy, is put on a dress and say "I am a woman", then you are indeed a woman, and you will be a better doctor ACCORDING TO THE SCIENCE
How hard is that?
Truly Molesworthian logic there as all on PB sa.
No, it's magic. If you're a guy doctor like Foxy, you literally just put on a dress, call yourself Foxella, and you become a better doctor. Because trans women are women, and women doctors are better
That is the truth, and if you dispute it you will be cancelled
You're very silly today.
But it is the absolute logic of trans rights married to @Foxy's evidence of female superiority. IF women doctors are better, just put on your bra and say you're a woman, Bingo. NigellaB MD. You are now probably a better doctor, because trans women are women
Unless, of course, you dispute the assertion that trans women are women, but that gets you ejected from society
You change the cohort, and therefore the statistics.
The ground difference remains, but the numbers have changed, slightly.
There's no paradox here, however much you like to bring your obsession with trans people into every discussion.
Er, what?
I have no "obsession" with trans issues. I do not often mention it compared to many other commenters, on both sides, who really DO harp on about it
It just struck me as an intersting cognitive dissonance. You cannot simultaneously say "women are better doctors" and believe this is a meaningful statement, if you also subscribe to mainstream trans theory, that "a man can be a woman simply by saying so" - because then the word "woman" is so vague as to be meaningless
Particle/wave theory - when observed it collapses to the required state, from indeterminacy.
1990s - Junk science, as denounced by corporate shills
2020s - Woke science, as decried by rightwing wacks
I think David Lammy is quite keen on some variant of this idea... to bring a better sense of national unity (teenagers from Buxton meet teenagers from Brixton kinda thing).
Genuinely I can see positives to this if done well. Probably not cheap though.
More by accident than design my Dad from Glasgow ended up in a squad with a bunch of lads from the South East of England.
Lifelong friends...
Better than being sexually harassed by a sergeant and eating pumpkins for the King in Malta, as my FiL did for a year in 1950.
Why did the King need help eating pumpkins?
And who was the King in Malta?
George VI in 1950.
Fed on pumpkins by the RAF for a year...
I did actually know that because I've watched that seminal Netflix documentary series, The Crown.
I expect part of the better results for women surgeons is from better behaviour and communication with the operating theatre staff.
coughcougcoughconfounderscoughcough
From memory, there is a famous apocryphal story about differential recruitment to Harvard. It was pointed out that women found it harder to gain entry. On closer examination it was found that this bias vanished when subject was taken into account, as women weren't applying for the obscure subjects with higher acceptance rates
Two obvious points
The current cohort of female surgeons making their way thru the profession are younger than the previous (male-dominated) cohort, and it is this latter older group that do the more complex ops with higher failure rates
I don't know if this bit is true, but if female surgeons pick different specialties than male surgeons, and those specialties have different failure rates, then that may explain
No, it was adjusted for patient and procedure related factors:
Surely the interesting point is, trans WOMEN doctors are better than man doctors, because trans women are women, as any fule kno
In that case, all you have to do, @Foxy, is put on a dress and say "I am a woman", then you are indeed a woman, and you will be a better doctor ACCORDING TO THE SCIENCE
How hard is that?
Truly Molesworthian logic there as all on PB sa.
No, it's magic. If you're a guy doctor like Foxy, you literally just put on a dress, call yourself Foxella, and you become a better doctor. Because trans women are women, and women doctors are better
That is the truth, and if you dispute it you will be cancelled
I expect part of the better results for women surgeons is from better behaviour and communication with the operating theatre staff.
coughcougcoughconfounderscoughcough
From memory, there is a famous apocryphal story about differential recruitment to Harvard. It was pointed out that women found it harder to gain entry. On closer examination it was found that this bias vanished when subject was taken into account, as women weren't applying for the obscure subjects with higher acceptance rates
Two obvious points
The current cohort of female surgeons making their way thru the profession are younger than the previous (male-dominated) cohort, and it is this latter older group that do the more complex ops with higher failure rates
I don't know if this bit is true, but if female surgeons pick different specialties than male surgeons, and those specialties have different failure rates, then that may explain
No, it was adjusted for patient and procedure related factors:
Surely the interesting point is, trans WOMEN doctors are better than man doctors, because trans women are women, as any fule kno
In that case, all you have to do, @Foxy, is put on a dress and say "I am a woman", then you are indeed a woman, and you will be a better doctor ACCORDING TO THE SCIENCE
How hard is that?
Truly Molesworthian logic there as all on PB sa.
No, it's magic. If you're a guy doctor like Foxy, you literally just put on a dress, call yourself Foxella, and you become a better doctor. Because trans women are women, and women doctors are better
That is the truth, and if you dispute it you will be cancelled
You're very silly today.
But it is the absolute logic of trans rights married to @Foxy's evidence of female superiority. IF women doctors are better, just put on your bra and say you're a woman, Bingo. NigellaB MD. You are now probably a better doctor, because trans women are women
Unless, of course, you dispute the assertion that trans women are women, but that gets you ejected from society
You change the cohort, and therefore the statistics.
The ground difference remains, but the numbers have changed, slightly.
There's no paradox here, however much you like to bring your obsession with trans people into every discussion.
Er, what?
I have no "obsession" with trans issues. I do not often mention it compared to many other commenters, on both sides, who really DO harp on about it
It just struck me as an intersting cognitive dissonance. You cannot simultaneously say "women are better doctors" and believe this is a meaningful statement, if you also subscribe to mainstream trans theory, that "a man can be a woman simply by saying so" - because then the word "woman" is so vague as to be meaningless
That's about as silly as claiming you can't say "Conservative voting intention is 25%" because people can change their voting intention "simply by saying so."
For your sake, I am going to politely pass over this
So nice to have you back spouting utter drivel again.
It's not your sole obsession, certainly: you have several others. They include aliens, drugs, covid, pictures of your food and drink, pictures of young women moving away from you, the existence of God, and whatever bright shiny object attracts your attention today. Occasionally you talk about politics.
You forgot Tranq, and the problem of concussion in rugby
Otherwise, yes, I have multiple obsessions and they shift like a kaleidoscope from day to day
Oddly, trans issues are not really one of them. I'd far rather we never had to talk about it again (I find the debate simutaneously confusing, and nasty), but it is thrust upon us, so we are forced to address it
Women's rights are actually rather important - even if you and others don't want to talk about them. Claiming that they are only about trans issues when the issue is the clash with women's rights is one way of ignoring the women-side of the equation. It has been largely successful, until women started speaking up and asking "what about us?" at which point they were told to stop being obsessive and lots of other unpleasant things as well.
Talking of which I see that Meloni's partner has come out with views about women, drink and rape which are probably shared by rather a lot of men (and women) - and not just in Italy either.
And the issue of how victims of sexual assault are treated by the criminal justice system. @algarkirk pointed out a very interesting article on this the other day.
As pointed out previously, with increasing difficulty. I've mentioned a couple of times how the internet is becoming more and more difficult to find things, cumulating this year in genuine frustration as stuff disappears due to paywalls, poorer search performance, difficulty in filtering, difficulty in sorting, and so on.
I wish PB was easier to search. Maybe it's just me but whenever I want to remind everyone of my incredible predictive powers I find it impossible to unearth that prescient post of mine from 3 or 4 years ago.
It's not your sole obsession, certainly: you have several others. They include aliens, drugs, covid, pictures of your food and drink, pictures of young women moving away from you, the existence of God, and whatever bright shiny object attracts your attention today. Occasionally you talk about politics.
You forgot Tranq, and the problem of concussion in rugby
Otherwise, yes, I have multiple obsessions and they shift like a kaleidoscope from day to day
Oddly, trans issues are not really one of them. I'd far rather we never had to talk about it again (I find the debate simutaneously confusing, and nasty), but it is thrust upon us, so we are forced to address it
Women's rights are actually rather important - even if you and others don't want to talk about them. Claiming that they are only about trans issues when the issue is the clash with women's rights is one way of ignoring the women-side of the equation. It has been largely successful, until women started speaking up and asking "what about us?" at which point they were told to stop being obsessive and lots of other unpleasant things as well.
Talking of which I see that Meloni's partner has come out with views about women, drink and rape which are probably shared by rather a lot of men (and women) - and not just in Italy either.
And the issue of how victims of sexual assault are treated by the criminal justice system. @algarkirk pointed out a very interesting article on this the other day.
And so on.
I'm not saying it is unimportant - quite the opposite - I am saying it is complex and confusing (it is), and it is extremely nasty (it REALLY is), so I tend to opt out, even though it is serious. You can't fight every battle, especially bloody ones like this
"The British Tories are completely deluded. They do not understand why millions of ordinary people are utterly fed up with them and the state of Britain. And they do not understand why their electorate has been blown apart.
That’s the conclusion I reached after having dinner with a cabinet minister who told me how senior Tories think about one issue that will shape the next election.
The issue is immigration and the insight into how the country’s most senior Tories are thinking and feeling about it is remarkable."
"Ex-MP Antoinette Sandbach 'threatens to sue Cambridge University' saying her privacy has been invaded after academic's award-winning research showed her ancestor made his fortune out of West Indies slave plantations"
Interesting article on AI - paradoxically a lot of the work behind it is actually extremely labour intensive and relies on millions of workers toiling in digital sweatshops in the global south.
"Ex-MP Antoinette Sandbach 'threatens to sue Cambridge University' saying her privacy has been invaded after academic's award-winning research showed her ancestor made his fortune out of West Indies slave plantations"
Rather different journalistic approach. I notice, though, UoC seems to have gone by the book (quite rightly, in such a case):
'The Guardian understands Sandbach first messaged Al Nasir on Twitter about his research and the two had a cordial exchange.
Sandbach then emailed Al Nasir’s academic supervisor and asked that the reference of her be removed from his Ted talk, claiming there were inaccuracies and that she was being unfairly singled out for being an MP.
Al Nasir said he responded to the allegations of factual inaccuracies directly to his supervisor, who was satisfied they were unfounded.
Sandbach then made a complaint to the University of Cambridge, which had embedded the Ted talk video on its website, on the grounds it breached her right to privacy.
The Guardian understands Sandbach complained the Ted talk claimed she lived in Wales, when she no longer lived there. She also said she had a right to be forgotten as she was no longer a public figure.
After an investigation by the university’s information compliance office (ICO), Sandbach’s request to have her name removed was rejected on the grounds of academic freedom.'
And, apparently, not OK to wrtite about slavery but not about women's position.
'As part of her correspondence, Sandbach noted her concern that Al Nasir’s research had ignored the legal position of British women in the 19th century.
[...]
Al Nasir told the Guardian he was “flabbergasted” by the argument. “I am a historian of 18th- and 19th-century slavery, not a historian of women’s suffrage.”'
Don't understand the last bit, unless there was some issue about whether some female had her ownership of slaves controlled by hubby.
I expect part of the better results for women surgeons is from better behaviour and communication with the operating theatre staff.
coughcougcoughconfounderscoughcough
From memory, there is a famous apocryphal story about differential recruitment to Harvard. It was pointed out that women found it harder to gain entry. On closer examination it was found that this bias vanished when subject was taken into account, as women weren't applying for the obscure subjects with higher acceptance rates
Two obvious points
The current cohort of female surgeons making their way thru the profession are younger than the previous (male-dominated) cohort, and it is this latter older group that do the more complex ops with higher failure rates
I don't know if this bit is true, but if female surgeons pick different specialties than male surgeons, and those specialties have different failure rates, then that may explain
No, it was adjusted for patient and procedure related factors:
Surely the interesting point is, trans WOMEN doctors are better than man doctors, because trans women are women, as any fule kno
In that case, all you have to do, @Foxy, is put on a dress and say "I am a woman", then you are indeed a woman, and you will be a better doctor ACCORDING TO THE SCIENCE
How hard is that?
Truly Molesworthian logic there as all on PB sa.
No, it's magic. If you're a guy doctor like Foxy, you literally just put on a dress, call yourself Foxella, and you become a better doctor. Because trans women are women, and women doctors are better
That is the truth, and if you dispute it you will be cancelled
I expect part of the better results for women surgeons is from better behaviour and communication with the operating theatre staff.
coughcougcoughconfounderscoughcough
From memory, there is a famous apocryphal story about differential recruitment to Harvard. It was pointed out that women found it harder to gain entry. On closer examination it was found that this bias vanished when subject was taken into account, as women weren't applying for the obscure subjects with higher acceptance rates
Two obvious points
The current cohort of female surgeons making their way thru the profession are younger than the previous (male-dominated) cohort, and it is this latter older group that do the more complex ops with higher failure rates
I don't know if this bit is true, but if female surgeons pick different specialties than male surgeons, and those specialties have different failure rates, then that may explain
No, it was adjusted for patient and procedure related factors:
Surely the interesting point is, trans WOMEN doctors are better than man doctors, because trans women are women, as any fule kno
In that case, all you have to do, @Foxy, is put on a dress and say "I am a woman", then you are indeed a woman, and you will be a better doctor ACCORDING TO THE SCIENCE
How hard is that?
Truly Molesworthian logic there as all on PB sa.
No, it's magic. If you're a guy doctor like Foxy, you literally just put on a dress, call yourself Foxella, and you become a better doctor. Because trans women are women, and women doctors are better
That is the truth, and if you dispute it you will be cancelled
You're very silly today.
But it is the absolute logic of trans rights married to @Foxy's evidence of female superiority. IF women doctors are better, just put on your bra and say you're a woman, Bingo. NigellaB MD. You are now probably a better doctor, because trans women are women
Unless, of course, you dispute the assertion that trans women are women, but that gets you ejected from society
You change the cohort, and therefore the statistics.
The ground difference remains, but the numbers have changed, slightly.
There's no paradox here, however much you like to bring your obsession with trans people into every discussion.
Er, what?
I have no "obsession" with trans issues. I do not often mention it compared to many other commenters, on both sides, who really DO harp on about it
It just struck me as an intersting cognitive dissonance. You cannot simultaneously say "women are better doctors" and believe this is a meaningful statement, if you also subscribe to mainstream trans theory, that "a man can be a woman simply by saying so" - because then the word "woman" is so vague as to be meaningless
Particle/wave theory - when observed it collapses to the required state, from indeterminacy.
1990s - Junk science, as denounced by corporate shills
2020s - Woke science, as decried by rightwing wacks
1970s - Martina Navratilova defects to America to escape oppressive ideological politics
2020s - Martina Navratilova denounced by American progressives for questioning ruling ideology
"The British Tories are completely deluded. They do not understand why millions of ordinary people are utterly fed up with them and the state of Britain. And they do not understand why their electorate has been blown apart.
That’s the conclusion I reached after having dinner with a cabinet minister who told me how senior Tories think about one issue that will shape the next election.
The issue is immigration and the insight into how the country’s most senior Tories are thinking and feeling about it is remarkable."
"Ex-MP Antoinette Sandbach 'threatens to sue Cambridge University' saying her privacy has been invaded after academic's award-winning research showed her ancestor made his fortune out of West Indies slave plantations"
Rather different journalistic approach. I notice, though, UoC seems to have gone by the book (quite rightly, in such a case):
'The Guardian understands Sandbach first messaged Al Nasir on Twitter about his research and the two had a cordial exchange.
Sandbach then emailed Al Nasir’s academic supervisor and asked that the reference of her be removed from his Ted talk, claiming there were inaccuracies and that she was being unfairly singled out for being an MP.
Al Nasir said he responded to the allegations of factual inaccuracies directly to his supervisor, who was satisfied they were unfounded.
Sandbach then made a complaint to the University of Cambridge, which had embedded the Ted talk video on its website, on the grounds it breached her right to privacy.
The Guardian understands Sandbach complained the Ted talk claimed she lived in Wales, when she no longer lived there. She also said she had a right to be forgotten as she was no longer a public figure.
After an investigation by the university’s information compliance office (ICO), Sandbach’s request to have her name removed was rejected on the grounds of academic freedom.'
And, apparently, not OK to wrtite about slavery but not about women's position.
'As part of her correspondence, Sandbach noted her concern that Al Nasir’s research had ignored the legal position of British women in the 19th century.
[...]
Al Nasir told the Guardian he was “flabbergasted” by the argument. “I am a historian of 18th- and 19th-century slavery, not a historian of women’s suffrage.”'
Don't understand the last bit, unless there was some issue about whether some female had her ownership of slaves controlled by hubby.
IIRC at that time, in law in various countries, including England, meant that women had very little legal agency. To the point where the husband was technically guilty of crimes committed by the wife!
"Ex-MP Antoinette Sandbach 'threatens to sue Cambridge University' saying her privacy has been invaded after academic's award-winning research showed her ancestor made his fortune out of West Indies slave plantations"
Rather different journalistic approach. I notice, though, UoC seems to have gone by the book (quite rightly, in such a case):
'The Guardian understands Sandbach first messaged Al Nasir on Twitter about his research and the two had a cordial exchange.
Sandbach then emailed Al Nasir’s academic supervisor and asked that the reference of her be removed from his Ted talk, claiming there were inaccuracies and that she was being unfairly singled out for being an MP.
Al Nasir said he responded to the allegations of factual inaccuracies directly to his supervisor, who was satisfied they were unfounded.
Sandbach then made a complaint to the University of Cambridge, which had embedded the Ted talk video on its website, on the grounds it breached her right to privacy.
The Guardian understands Sandbach complained the Ted talk claimed she lived in Wales, when she no longer lived there. She also said she had a right to be forgotten as she was no longer a public figure.
After an investigation by the university’s information compliance office (ICO), Sandbach’s request to have her name removed was rejected on the grounds of academic freedom.'
And, apparently, not OK to wrtite about slavery but not about women's position.
'As part of her correspondence, Sandbach noted her concern that Al Nasir’s research had ignored the legal position of British women in the 19th century.
[...]
Al Nasir told the Guardian he was “flabbergasted” by the argument. “I am a historian of 18th- and 19th-century slavery, not a historian of women’s suffrage.”'
Don't understand the last bit, unless there was some issue about whether some female had her ownership of slaves controlled by hubby.
IIRC at that time, in law in various countries, including England, meant that women had very little legal agency. To the point where the husband was technically guilty of crimes committed by the wife!
Oh yes, and so on. But Ms Sandbach doesn't seem to be claiming that in the bit later added at the bottom of the article.
"Ex-MP Antoinette Sandbach 'threatens to sue Cambridge University' saying her privacy has been invaded after academic's award-winning research showed her ancestor made his fortune out of West Indies slave plantations"
Rather different journalistic approach. I notice, though, UoC seems to have gone by the book (quite rightly, in such a case):
'The Guardian understands Sandbach first messaged Al Nasir on Twitter about his research and the two had a cordial exchange.
Sandbach then emailed Al Nasir’s academic supervisor and asked that the reference of her be removed from his Ted talk, claiming there were inaccuracies and that she was being unfairly singled out for being an MP.
Al Nasir said he responded to the allegations of factual inaccuracies directly to his supervisor, who was satisfied they were unfounded.
Sandbach then made a complaint to the University of Cambridge, which had embedded the Ted talk video on its website, on the grounds it breached her right to privacy.
The Guardian understands Sandbach complained the Ted talk claimed she lived in Wales, when she no longer lived there. She also said she had a right to be forgotten as she was no longer a public figure.
After an investigation by the university’s information compliance office (ICO), Sandbach’s request to have her name removed was rejected on the grounds of academic freedom.'
And, apparently, not OK to wrtite about slavery but not about women's position.
'As part of her correspondence, Sandbach noted her concern that Al Nasir’s research had ignored the legal position of British women in the 19th century.
[...]
Al Nasir told the Guardian he was “flabbergasted” by the argument. “I am a historian of 18th- and 19th-century slavery, not a historian of women’s suffrage.”'
Don't understand the last bit, unless there was some issue about whether some female had her ownership of slaves controlled by hubby.
IIRC at that time, in law in various countries, including England, meant that women had very little legal agency. To the point where the husband was technically guilty of crimes committed by the wife!
Italian rape law was, until the 1980s, very (ahem) interesting. If the man married the victim, then it was not rape; meaning that victims were often put under pressure to marry their abuser.
"The article of law whereby a rapist could vacate his crime by marrying his victim was not abolished until 1981. Sexual violence became a crime against the person (instead of against "public morality") only in 1996."
Speaking of which, why do we say 'as the crow flies' to mean 'in a straight line'? Anyone who has actually observed crows will know that they fly like a drunk seagull.
While the government cannot be blamed for the building materials used in some schools the timing of these school closures just before schools return next week seems a spectacular own goal
"Ex-MP Antoinette Sandbach 'threatens to sue Cambridge University' saying her privacy has been invaded after academic's award-winning research showed her ancestor made his fortune out of West Indies slave plantations"
Rather different journalistic approach. I notice, though, UoC seems to have gone by the book (quite rightly, in such a case):
'The Guardian understands Sandbach first messaged Al Nasir on Twitter about his research and the two had a cordial exchange.
Sandbach then emailed Al Nasir’s academic supervisor and asked that the reference of her be removed from his Ted talk, claiming there were inaccuracies and that she was being unfairly singled out for being an MP.
Al Nasir said he responded to the allegations of factual inaccuracies directly to his supervisor, who was satisfied they were unfounded.
Sandbach then made a complaint to the University of Cambridge, which had embedded the Ted talk video on its website, on the grounds it breached her right to privacy.
The Guardian understands Sandbach complained the Ted talk claimed she lived in Wales, when she no longer lived there. She also said she had a right to be forgotten as she was no longer a public figure.
After an investigation by the university’s information compliance office (ICO), Sandbach’s request to have her name removed was rejected on the grounds of academic freedom.'
And, apparently, not OK to wrtite about slavery but not about women's position.
'As part of her correspondence, Sandbach noted her concern that Al Nasir’s research had ignored the legal position of British women in the 19th century.
[...]
Al Nasir told the Guardian he was “flabbergasted” by the argument. “I am a historian of 18th- and 19th-century slavery, not a historian of women’s suffrage.”'
Don't understand the last bit, unless there was some issue about whether some female had her ownership of slaves controlled by hubby.
IIRC at that time, in law in various countries, including England, meant that women had very little legal agency. To the point where the husband was technically guilty of crimes committed by the wife!
Italian rape law was, until the 1980s, very (ahem) interesting. If the man married the victim, then it was not rape; meaning that victims were often put under pressure to marry their abuser.
"The article of law whereby a rapist could vacate his crime by marrying his victim was not abolished until 1981. Sexual violence became a crime against the person (instead of against "public morality") only in 1996."
Sometimes it is easy to forget how far society has come in many countries, in a very short period.
I've often found, trying to explain some aspects of society to Peruvian relatives, that I am facing deep incomprehension.
Their reaction to this is interesting - let the Crazy Western Europeans do their thing. They aren't threatened by it, and are happy to go along when they are here.
Speaking of which, why do we say 'as the crow flies' to mean 'in a straight line'? Anyone who has actually observed crows will know that they fly like a drunk seagull.
Speaking of which, why do we say 'as the crow flies' to mean 'in a straight line'? Anyone who has actually observed crows will know that they fly like a drunk seagull.
Seems this is the answer
What does the phrase as the crow flies mean?
This idiom is based on the fact that crows, very intelligent birds, fly straight to the nearest food supply.
"The British Tories are completely deluded. They do not understand why millions of ordinary people are utterly fed up with them and the state of Britain. And they do not understand why their electorate has been blown apart.
That’s the conclusion I reached after having dinner with a cabinet minister who told me how senior Tories think about one issue that will shape the next election.
The issue is immigration and the insight into how the country’s most senior Tories are thinking and feeling about it is remarkable."
While the government cannot be blamed for the building materials used in some schools the timing of these school closures just before schools return next week seems a spectacular own goal
While the government cannot be blamed for the building materials used in some schools the timing of these school closures just before schools return next week seems a spectacular own goal
Firstly. The counter-attack south of Orikhiv continues to advance bit-by-bit and has now taken a noticeable bite out of the lines. Whilst still slow and painful, it is determined and continuing.
Secondly. The advances of the Russians in the North East (only I noticed this) have been partially repelled. Lyman is no longer in imminent danger of being taken, although Kupiansk is still endangered
"The British Tories are completely deluded. They do not understand why millions of ordinary people are utterly fed up with them and the state of Britain. And they do not understand why their electorate has been blown apart.
That’s the conclusion I reached after having dinner with a cabinet minister who told me how senior Tories think about one issue that will shape the next election.
The issue is immigration and the insight into how the country’s most senior Tories are thinking and feeling about it is remarkable."
Can somebody explain why the Government briefs an announcement, I mean why not just announce it.
I’ll agree with you on that one. We agree more than you think we would.
I think it dated from Blair, where the point was to get on the morning news on the day of the announcement, and has continued since then, with a succession of ministers eagerly teasing something that hasn’t yet happened, at 08:10 on Radio 4.
It would be much better for the public, if an annoucement happened in the late morning, the lunchtime news covered the annoucement, the evening news some analysis, and the serious analysis happened the next morning.
But for the politicians, it’s much better that they get their spin on the morning shows, the annoucement itself is a bit meh and drowned out by the earlier spin at lunchtime, the evening news might take a view, but by the morning we’re on to the next day’s story.
A long but worthwhile read from the brilliant Jennifer Williams in the FT. I went to college in Oldham so know the town well. To read so many problems at a big high school is disheartening.
The Tories have absolutely broken the ability of so many families to get by, and also broken the budgets of the schools who are left to pick up the pieces.
Christ, that is a tough read, it left me in tears. The Tories have utterly broken this country, and unforgivably they have ensured that children, and especially poor children, have borne the brunt of it. I find it hard to control my anger at them sometimes.
Is this really the country we want? The society we believe to be just? I know PB Tories and their fellow travellers excuse almost everything, but is this what we have been reduced to? For what other benefit?
If we remove the (often) justified anger, then there's four simple questions which the politicans of all sides need to ask.
1) What are we currently spending money on? 2) What could we spend more money or or less on to make the changes which people want (and what are those changes)? 3) How can we increase the money to make the gap from 1 to 2?
Anything other than that is really just details.
Given that there appears to be little appetite for tax rises (except for the idea of raising mythical billions from the top 1%), and the books are still a long way from balancing, the conversation really needs to be around the scope of government.
What does government do currently, that it could stop doing without too many adverse effects?
The obvious standout figures are £20bn on ‘Energy Security and Net Zero’, £10bn on “Science, Innovation and Technology”, and nearly £10bn on the Foreign Office. DWP also spends £8.5bn on its own admin, and HMRC £6.5bn, which suggests that reducing complexity in the tax and benefits system could lead to savings there.
In the current culture there is a problem. We are borrowing £100 bn per annum even now. So that needs to be found. But there isn't a single area of interest where there isn't pressure for government to spend more, usually much more. The media, especially the BBC give a perpetual free and unchallenged ride to all and everyone who are calling for higher expenditure on everything under the sun.
To see the size of the £100 bn deficit, if we abolished all state managed expenditure on education entirely, it still would not cover it. So bits of tinkering will make no real difference.
The philosophy that the solution is always cut, cut, cut has gotten us to where we are today.
We pay less in tax than many other developed countries that enjoy higher standards of living than us. Let’s be more like them. Well-funded public services are a worthwhile investment.
The £100 billion gap (current borrowing) is £3,300 per year from 30 million tax payers. I am totally sympathetic to the tax rise solution but it needs turning into real figures for actual people and I don't have any politically workable suggestions.
Answers on a postcard.
And BTW in overall expenditure there have been no cuts, and never have been.
There won't be any politically workable solutions until we have a new Government, since this one only does backside covering gesture politics and has painted itself into a whole series of corners to try and pay for tax cuts to buy some extra votes.
eg Sunak's Diversionary Soliloquy about "Zombie Knives" the other day.
I wonder how many Zombie Knives were used in crime. Anyone with half a braincell will use something more practical, such as a lock knife or a bread knife.
Here is a haul of knives from Notting Hill in I think 2015, when Zombie Knives were at their height - not a Zombie Knife amongst them. Lots of bread knives, normal lock knives, sheath knives, extending batons, and one machete.
It's retail politics for Zombies who read the Daily Mail.
"Zombie knives" were apparently a rather successful marketing ploy by crap filmmakers.
Now being recycled as a rather lame marketing ploy by crapped-out politicos.
That's about right.
They made up a list of "offensive weapons" to ban, based on what was currently getting attention.
Including plenty where a non-skilled-Ninja would be more likely to hurt themselves, for example a kusaigama (below). Oh, and pea-shooters as a sub-species of blow-pipe.
Has anyone ever been mugged with an Amazonian blow-pipe in London?
"The British Tories are completely deluded. They do not understand why millions of ordinary people are utterly fed up with them and the state of Britain. And they do not understand why their electorate has been blown apart.
That’s the conclusion I reached after having dinner with a cabinet minister who told me how senior Tories think about one issue that will shape the next election.
The issue is immigration and the insight into how the country’s most senior Tories are thinking and feeling about it is remarkable."
"The British Tories are completely deluded. They do not understand why millions of ordinary people are utterly fed up with them and the state of Britain. And they do not understand why their electorate has been blown apart.
That’s the conclusion I reached after having dinner with a cabinet minister who told me how senior Tories think about one issue that will shape the next election.
The issue is immigration and the insight into how the country’s most senior Tories are thinking and feeling about it is remarkable."
By the time we get to the mayoral election the outer ULEZ will have been in position for 8 months and most people will have found their lives totally unaffected and quite a few less affected than they feared. I think we've been here before.
Many more would have been forced into buying a new car by this scheme, and will be getting a monthly reminder of why, at a time when mortgage rate rises are going to be a nightmare for millions in London.
Oh, and if it affects hardly anyone, how will it make a massive difference in pollution, as the Mayor keeps insisting? It can’t be both.
"The British Tories are completely deluded. They do not understand why millions of ordinary people are utterly fed up with them and the state of Britain. And they do not understand why their electorate has been blown apart.
That’s the conclusion I reached after having dinner with a cabinet minister who told me how senior Tories think about one issue that will shape the next election.
The issue is immigration and the insight into how the country’s most senior Tories are thinking and feeling about it is remarkable."
What on Earth do you see in Goodwin? The guy is a joke.
Andy has some odd opinions and Matt Goodwin validates them?
FWIW it seems to me that Goodwin invariably uses reasoned arguments and doesn't resort to ad hominem nonsense; in return he receives quite a lot of abuse.
I think his detractors can do better. This doesn't mean I agree with him, but I value his particular voice.
FPT: Let me quote again: HYUFD said: "The very poor in the US ie the unemployed and those without health insurance are worse off than our poor as they have little welfare state, public housing or NHS to fall back on"
From Wikipedia, we can learn that there are about 85 million poor Americans who receive Medicaid, and that the total expenditure is about $600 billion a year. So, per capita, the US governments spend about $7,000 for each poor person, just from Medicaid. (Older poor people, who are eligible for Medicare, as well as Medicaid, receive even more.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid
So, HYUFD, approximately what does the UK spend on the NHS each year? Are there any other signficant expenditures that should be included? How does that compare to the US expenditure on Medicaid alone, total, and per capita?
(I will say, as I have before, that I am not a defender of the many US health care systems. But I think most criticisms of them could be better informed.
Pro tip: Anyone who says there is an American health care system either doesn't know what they are talking about, or is being sloppy. There are many health care systems here.)
Does the amount of money spent actually tell you anything about outcomes?
What makes poverty harder to bear in the US, than in the UK or much of Europe, is the assumption that is a moral failing, rather than bad fortune.
The UK (and Europe, Canada, Australia, NZ, etc) all have rather better safety nets than the US.
There are parts of the US, like old former mining towns in Colorado, which feel like the poorer parts of Romania. And they exist just a few miles away from gleaming ski resorts where homes start at $20m, and Nobu delivers.
Can somebody explain why the Government briefs an announcement, I mean why not just announce it.
I’ll agree with you on that one. We agree more than you think we would.
I think it dated from Blair, where the point was to get on the morning news on the day of the announcement, and has continued since then, with a succession of ministers eagerly teasing something that hasn’t yet happened, at 08:10 on Radio 4.
It would be much better for the public, if an annoucement happened in the late morning, the lunchtime news covered the annoucement, the evening news some analysis, and the serious analysis happened the next morning.
But for the politicians, it’s much better that they get their spin on the morning shows, the annoucement itself is a bit meh and drowned out by the earlier spin at lunchtime, the evening news might take a view, but by the morning we’re on to the next day’s story.
Mostly just Ukraine isn't it? Don't think I've ever really discussed your opinions with you much
"The British Tories are completely deluded. They do not understand why millions of ordinary people are utterly fed up with them and the state of Britain. And they do not understand why their electorate has been blown apart.
That’s the conclusion I reached after having dinner with a cabinet minister who told me how senior Tories think about one issue that will shape the next election.
The issue is immigration and the insight into how the country’s most senior Tories are thinking and feeling about it is remarkable."
What on Earth do you see in Goodwin? The guy is a joke.
Andy has some odd opinions and Matt Goodwin validates them?
FWIW it seems to me that Goodwin invariably uses reasoned arguments and doesn't resort to ad hominem nonsense; in return he receives quite a lot of abuse.
I think his detractors can do better. This doesn't mean I agree with him, but I value his particular voice.
Matthew Goodwin said there was no reasonable way Labour would achieve 40% of the vote in the GE17 election.
While the government cannot be blamed for the building materials used in some schools the timing of these school closures just before schools return next week seems a spectacular own goal
I started a Journalism Degree in 1995. I remember going out to a Sheffield primary school to write a story about the crumbling building. This was so decrepit that an endoskeleton had been installed - steel beams to hold up the roof. The school itself was still open despite signs that the steelwork was also in poor condition. A complete lack of money for new facilities.
So for all that PFI has its faults, it isn't as if public money was being spent. The Tory attitude being don't do PFI (unless we do it and make sure the Right People get to cash in), and don't spend public money either. The education of kids? Who cares?
And here we are again. Crumbling schools which needed replacing a decade ago still standing but literally falling down around the pupils.
"The British Tories are completely deluded. They do not understand why millions of ordinary people are utterly fed up with them and the state of Britain. And they do not understand why their electorate has been blown apart.
That’s the conclusion I reached after having dinner with a cabinet minister who told me how senior Tories think about one issue that will shape the next election.
The issue is immigration and the insight into how the country’s most senior Tories are thinking and feeling about it is remarkable."
What on Earth do you see in Goodwin? The guy is a joke.
Andy has some odd opinions and Matt Goodwin validates them?
FWIW it seems to me that Goodwin invariably uses reasoned arguments and doesn't resort to ad hominem nonsense; in return he receives quite a lot of abuse.
I think his detractors can do better. This doesn't mean I agree with him, but I value his particular voice.
I used to - in about 2014/15 - post a lot of Goodwin pieces and Tweets. He was intelligent and refreshingly counter-consensus.
But in the last two or three years, he's become incredibly one note. And his articles, which used to dig into polling data really well, are now anecdotes about how he hangs out with Cabinet Ministers. Which he does because the polling data no longer supports his conclusions, while the Cabinet minister does..
Matthew Goodwin's entire analysis is that he's right wing, he agrees with right wing ideas and he likes right wing figures like Nigel Farage.
That is absolutely fine - but what he then pretends to do is say that he is actually a centrist and all his research has oddly concluded that all right wing opinions are correct. If he just quit the lying and said he was a big Johnson and Farage fan nobody would mind but he doesn't.
And then he's obsessed with fact he's been cancelled when as far as I know everyone knows his opinions and he writes for the Mail and Express all the time.
He completely failed to understand or see why the Tory coalition would fall apart and instead has only decided in hindsight to report on what was already clear.
The fact he thought Boris Johnson was wrong to resign tells you everything you need to know about him.
Can somebody explain why the Government briefs an announcement, I mean why not just announce it.
I’ll agree with you on that one. We agree more than you think we would.
I think it dated from Blair, where the point was to get on the morning news on the day of the announcement, and has continued since then, with a succession of ministers eagerly teasing something that hasn’t yet happened, at 08:10 on Radio 4.
It would be much better for the public, if an annoucement happened in the late morning, the lunchtime news covered the annoucement, the evening news some analysis, and the serious analysis happened the next morning.
But for the politicians, it’s much better that they get their spin on the morning shows, the annoucement itself is a bit meh and drowned out by the earlier spin at lunchtime, the evening news might take a view, but by the morning we’re on to the next day’s story.
Mostly just Ukraine isn't it? Don't think I've ever really discussed your opinions with you much
A fish rots from the head; when the head is lopped off, the rest still rots.
For anyone who watched the BBC docu-drama Peaky Blinders, Labour Party corruption has been a blight on our nation since just before Tommy Shelby OBE was elected MP for Birmingham South.
While the government cannot be blamed for the building materials used in some schools the timing of these school closures just before schools return next week seems a spectacular own goal
I started a Journalism Degree in 1995. I remember going out to a Sheffield primary school to write a story about the crumbling building. This was so decrepit that an endoskeleton had been installed - steel beams to hold up the roof. The school itself was still open despite signs that the steelwork was also in poor condition. A complete lack of money for new facilities.
So for all that PFI has its faults, it isn't as if public money was being spent. The Tory attitude being don't do PFI (unless we do it and make sure the Right People get to cash in), and don't spend public money either. The education of kids? Who cares?
And here we are again. Crumbling schools which needed replacing a decade ago still standing but literally falling down around the pupils.
There are lots of interesting points to be made about this, but that seems one of the more ill-judged and political ones.
Some questions: why was construction with this type of material stopped (apparently) in the 1990s? Was it that the problems with it were found and understood, or that a 'better' (i.e. cheaper) construction method was found? How do local authorities/the government keep track of the age and condition of their school (and hospital, and everything else...) buildings?
"The British Tories are completely deluded. They do not understand why millions of ordinary people are utterly fed up with them and the state of Britain. And they do not understand why their electorate has been blown apart.
That’s the conclusion I reached after having dinner with a cabinet minister who told me how senior Tories think about one issue that will shape the next election.
The issue is immigration and the insight into how the country’s most senior Tories are thinking and feeling about it is remarkable."
What on Earth do you see in Goodwin? The guy is a joke.
Andy has some odd opinions and Matt Goodwin validates them?
FWIW it seems to me that Goodwin invariably uses reasoned arguments and doesn't resort to ad hominem nonsense; in return he receives quite a lot of abuse.
I think his detractors can do better. This doesn't mean I agree with him, but I value his particular voice.
I used to - in about 2014/15 - post a lot of Goodwin pieces and Tweets. He was intelligent and refreshingly counter-consensus.
But in the last two or three years, he's become incredibly one note. And his articles, which used to dig into polling data really well, are now anecdotes about how he hangs out with Cabinet Ministers. Which he does because the polling data no longer supports his conclusions, while the Cabinet minister does..
Also, and perhaps more importantly, he is trying to make money with a substack
If all he offers is data and opinions then no one will pay to read his substack. Just another pundit. If he can say "Oh I had this remarkable private conversation with a minister and she said [please pay to read on]", he might well get people coughing up
He's playing to a market and trying to get clicks and click-throughs
Can somebody explain why the Government briefs an announcement, I mean why not just announce it.
I’ll agree with you on that one. We agree more than you think we would.
I think it dated from Blair, where the point was to get on the morning news on the day of the announcement, and has continued since then, with a succession of ministers eagerly teasing something that hasn’t yet happened, at 08:10 on Radio 4.
It would be much better for the public, if an annoucement happened in the late morning, the lunchtime news covered the annoucement, the evening news some analysis, and the serious analysis happened the next morning.
But for the politicians, it’s much better that they get their spin on the morning shows, the annoucement itself is a bit meh and drowned out by the earlier spin at lunchtime, the evening news might take a view, but by the morning we’re on to the next day’s story.
Mostly just Ukraine isn't it? Don't think I've ever really discussed your opinions with you much
Oi! Pacers were a good train for the role they were built for, and did good service to the country (as did the 150's...). They may have been kept on too long, but that did not make them a 'bad' train...
(Oh, that wasn't your intention when you linked to that comment... )
By the time we get to the mayoral election the outer ULEZ will have been in position for 8 months and most people will have found their lives totally unaffected and quite a few less affected than they feared. I think we've been here before.
Many more would have been forced into buying a new car by this scheme, and will be getting a monthly reminder of why, at a time when mortgage rate rises are going to be a nightmare for millions in London.
Oh, and if it affects hardly anyone, how will it make a massive difference in pollution, as the Mayor keeps insisting? It can’t be both.
If the pollution is mainly due to a few very dirty vehicles, then it can be both.
"The British Tories are completely deluded. They do not understand why millions of ordinary people are utterly fed up with them and the state of Britain. And they do not understand why their electorate has been blown apart.
That’s the conclusion I reached after having dinner with a cabinet minister who told me how senior Tories think about one issue that will shape the next election.
The issue is immigration and the insight into how the country’s most senior Tories are thinking and feeling about it is remarkable."
What on Earth do you see in Goodwin? The guy is a joke.
Andy has some odd opinions and Matt Goodwin validates them?
FWIW it seems to me that Goodwin invariably uses reasoned arguments and doesn't resort to ad hominem nonsense; in return he receives quite a lot of abuse.
I think his detractors can do better. This doesn't mean I agree with him, but I value his particular voice.
Matthew Goodwin said there was no reasonable way Labour would achieve 40% of the vote in the GE17 election.
They then literally did just that.
I challenge you to name three commentators who have made falsifiable predictions about future events, and haven't been badly wrong on some of them.
I don't say that as a particular defence of Goodwin... just that it's hard to make falsifiable predictions, and there's a bit of a risk in being too hard on those who do that you just get commentators hedging to a silly degree.
The Fivethirtyeight approach ("we said there was a 20% chance of Trump winning in 2016, and he won, so we were kind of right") is one I get in some senses as the world is inherently uncertain, but is a bit bloody irritating in others in that they give themselves a get out clause for any outcome.
"The British Tories are completely deluded. They do not understand why millions of ordinary people are utterly fed up with them and the state of Britain. And they do not understand why their electorate has been blown apart.
That’s the conclusion I reached after having dinner with a cabinet minister who told me how senior Tories think about one issue that will shape the next election.
The issue is immigration and the insight into how the country’s most senior Tories are thinking and feeling about it is remarkable."
What on Earth do you see in Goodwin? The guy is a joke.
Andy has some odd opinions and Matt Goodwin validates them?
FWIW it seems to me that Goodwin invariably uses reasoned arguments and doesn't resort to ad hominem nonsense; in return he receives quite a lot of abuse.
I think his detractors can do better. This doesn't mean I agree with him, but I value his particular voice.
I used to - in about 2014/15 - post a lot of Goodwin pieces and Tweets. He was intelligent and refreshingly counter-consensus.
But in the last two or three years, he's become incredibly one note. And his articles, which used to dig into polling data really well, are now anecdotes about how he hangs out with Cabinet Ministers. Which he does because the polling data no longer supports his conclusions, while the Cabinet minister does..
Also, and perhaps more importantly, he is trying to make money with a substack
If all he offers is data and opinions then no one will pay to read his substack. Just another pundit. If he can say "Oh I had this remarkable private conversation with a minister and she said [please pay to read on]", he might well get people coughing up
He's playing to a market and trying to get clicks and click-throughs
Content provider tries to get paid for content. What a rotter.
"The British Tories are completely deluded. They do not understand why millions of ordinary people are utterly fed up with them and the state of Britain. And they do not understand why their electorate has been blown apart.
That’s the conclusion I reached after having dinner with a cabinet minister who told me how senior Tories think about one issue that will shape the next election.
The issue is immigration and the insight into how the country’s most senior Tories are thinking and feeling about it is remarkable."
What on Earth do you see in Goodwin? The guy is a joke.
Andy has some odd opinions and Matt Goodwin validates them?
FWIW it seems to me that Goodwin invariably uses reasoned arguments and doesn't resort to ad hominem nonsense; in return he receives quite a lot of abuse.
I think his detractors can do better. This doesn't mean I agree with him, but I value his particular voice.
I used to - in about 2014/15 - post a lot of Goodwin pieces and Tweets. He was intelligent and refreshingly counter-consensus.
But in the last two or three years, he's become incredibly one note. And his articles, which used to dig into polling data really well, are now anecdotes about how he hangs out with Cabinet Ministers. Which he does because the polling data no longer supports his conclusions, while the Cabinet minister does..
Also, and perhaps more importantly, he is trying to make money with a substack
If all he offers is data and opinions then no one will pay to read his substack. Just another pundit. If he can say "Oh I had this remarkable private conversation with a minister and she said [please pay to read on]", he might well get people coughing up
He's playing to a market and trying to get clicks and click-throughs
There are few ways in which a man can be more innocently employed than in getting money.
While the government cannot be blamed for the building materials used in some schools the timing of these school closures just before schools return next week seems a spectacular own goal
I started a Journalism Degree in 1995. I remember going out to a Sheffield primary school to write a story about the crumbling building. This was so decrepit that an endoskeleton had been installed - steel beams to hold up the roof. The school itself was still open despite signs that the steelwork was also in poor condition. A complete lack of money for new facilities.
So for all that PFI has its faults, it isn't as if public money was being spent. The Tory attitude being don't do PFI (unless we do it and make sure the Right People get to cash in), and don't spend public money either. The education of kids? Who cares?
And here we are again. Crumbling schools which needed replacing a decade ago still standing but literally falling down around the pupils.
The thing to remember with the Tories is that it's not their kids.
"The British Tories are completely deluded. They do not understand why millions of ordinary people are utterly fed up with them and the state of Britain. And they do not understand why their electorate has been blown apart.
That’s the conclusion I reached after having dinner with a cabinet minister who told me how senior Tories think about one issue that will shape the next election.
The issue is immigration and the insight into how the country’s most senior Tories are thinking and feeling about it is remarkable."
What on Earth do you see in Goodwin? The guy is a joke.
Andy has some odd opinions and Matt Goodwin validates them?
FWIW it seems to me that Goodwin invariably uses reasoned arguments and doesn't resort to ad hominem nonsense; in return he receives quite a lot of abuse.
I think his detractors can do better. This doesn't mean I agree with him, but I value his particular voice.
Matthew Goodwin said there was no reasonable way Labour would achieve 40% of the vote in the GE17 election.
They then literally did just that.
Pot. Kettle. As Oxford is the home of lost causes, PB is the home of false predictions.
And IIRC Lab vote was about 39.98, just squeaking under 40%.
"The British Tories are completely deluded. They do not understand why millions of ordinary people are utterly fed up with them and the state of Britain. And they do not understand why their electorate has been blown apart.
That’s the conclusion I reached after having dinner with a cabinet minister who told me how senior Tories think about one issue that will shape the next election.
The issue is immigration and the insight into how the country’s most senior Tories are thinking and feeling about it is remarkable."
What on Earth do you see in Goodwin? The guy is a joke.
Andy has some odd opinions and Matt Goodwin validates them?
FWIW it seems to me that Goodwin invariably uses reasoned arguments and doesn't resort to ad hominem nonsense; in return he receives quite a lot of abuse.
I think his detractors can do better. This doesn't mean I agree with him, but I value his particular voice.
Matthew Goodwin said there was no reasonable way Labour would achieve 40% of the vote in the GE17 election.
They then literally did just that.
I challenge you to name three commentators who have made falsifiable predictions about future events, and haven't been badly wrong on some of them.
I don't say that as a particular defence of Goodwin... just that it's hard to make falsifiable predictions, and there's a bit of a risk in being too hard on those who do that you just get commentators hedging to a silly degree.
The Fivethirtyeight approach ("we said there was a 20% chance of Trump winning in 2016, and he won, so we were kind of right") is one I get in some senses as the world is inherently uncertain, but is a bit bloody irritating in others in that they give themselves a get out clause for any outcome.
Yes, it's bollox, we want 'head on the block' predictions and no pussyfooting.
Eg some from me:
The GE is Oct 24 and Lab win with a majority of 95. Neither Trump nor Biden win the presidency next year. Neither Djokovic nor Alcaraz win this current US open. It's pork chops for dinner tonight.
While the government cannot be blamed for the building materials used in some schools the timing of these school closures just before schools return next week seems a spectacular own goal
I started a Journalism Degree in 1995. I remember going out to a Sheffield primary school to write a story about the crumbling building. This was so decrepit that an endoskeleton had been installed - steel beams to hold up the roof. The school itself was still open despite signs that the steelwork was also in poor condition. A complete lack of money for new facilities.
So for all that PFI has its faults, it isn't as if public money was being spent. The Tory attitude being don't do PFI (unless we do it and make sure the Right People get to cash in), and don't spend public money either. The education of kids? Who cares?
And here we are again. Crumbling schools which needed replacing a decade ago still standing but literally falling down around the pupils.
There are lots of interesting points to be made about this, but that seems one of the more ill-judged and political ones.
Some questions: why was construction with this type of material stopped (apparently) in the 1990s? Was it that the problems with it were found and understood, or that a 'better' (i.e. cheaper) construction method was found? How do local authorities/the government keep track of the age and condition of their school (and hospital, and everything else...) buildings?
I started primary school in a building that was constructed in the early 1900s
In the 1970s a 'new' school was constructed to cater for a growing population, although the old school was retained.
Since then the 'new' school has been completely demolished and rebuilt.
I note with some shame the comments above, as I am writing an article[1] about Goodwin's idea concerning elite disconnect, and you are all making good points.
However I content myself by knowing that I will shamelessly steal them and include them in the article...
Note [1] Yes I know the rate is about one word per month. ShuttupShuttupShuttup. I'm busy.
rcs1000 said: "The UK (and Europe, Canada, Australia, NZ, etc) all have rather better safety nets than the US.
There are parts of the US, like old former mining towns in Colorado, which feel like the poorer parts of Romania. And they exist just a few miles away from gleaming ski resorts where homes start at $20m, and Nobu delivers."
Your conclusion may be correct, but a single example doesn't prove it. Here's a parallel example for you: The careers of Harold Shipman and Lucy Letby show that NHS employees can not be trusted.
Generalizing from a single example is a common error. It's been a while since I read the book, but think that error is covered in "Thinking, Fast and Slow". I am a little surprised to see you make it, and at a betting site, no less.
And I remind you that US safety nets vary from state to state, and even from city to city.
It is certainly true that one can find "limousine liberals" in the US. Who might decry poverty if you ask them, but won't help their neighbors.
(Tom Wolfe skewered similar types brilliantly in "Mauve Gloves & Mad Men, Clutter & Vine".)
"The British Tories are completely deluded. They do not understand why millions of ordinary people are utterly fed up with them and the state of Britain. And they do not understand why their electorate has been blown apart.
That’s the conclusion I reached after having dinner with a cabinet minister who told me how senior Tories think about one issue that will shape the next election.
The issue is immigration and the insight into how the country’s most senior Tories are thinking and feeling about it is remarkable."
What on Earth do you see in Goodwin? The guy is a joke.
Andy has some odd opinions and Matt Goodwin validates them?
FWIW it seems to me that Goodwin invariably uses reasoned arguments and doesn't resort to ad hominem nonsense; in return he receives quite a lot of abuse.
I think his detractors can do better. This doesn't mean I agree with him, but I value his particular voice.
Matthew Goodwin said there was no reasonable way Labour would achieve 40% of the vote in the GE17 election.
They then literally did just that.
I challenge you to name three commentators who have made falsifiable predictions about future events, and haven't been badly wrong on some of them.
I don't say that as a particular defence of Goodwin... just that it's hard to make falsifiable predictions, and there's a bit of a risk in being too hard on those who do that you just get commentators hedging to a silly degree.
The Fivethirtyeight approach ("we said there was a 20% chance of Trump winning in 2016, and he won, so we were kind of right") is one I get in some senses as the world is inherently uncertain, but is a bit bloody irritating in others in that they give themselves a get out clause for any outcome.
Yes, it's bollox, we want 'head on the block' predictions and no pussyfooting.
Eg some from me:
The GE is Oct 24 and Lab win with a majority of 95. Neither Trump nor Biden win the presidency next year. Neither Djokovic nor Alcaraz win this current US open. It's pork chops for dinner tonight.
"The British Tories are completely deluded. They do not understand why millions of ordinary people are utterly fed up with them and the state of Britain. And they do not understand why their electorate has been blown apart.
That’s the conclusion I reached after having dinner with a cabinet minister who told me how senior Tories think about one issue that will shape the next election.
The issue is immigration and the insight into how the country’s most senior Tories are thinking and feeling about it is remarkable."
What on Earth do you see in Goodwin? The guy is a joke.
Andy has some odd opinions and Matt Goodwin validates them?
FWIW it seems to me that Goodwin invariably uses reasoned arguments and doesn't resort to ad hominem nonsense; in return he receives quite a lot of abuse.
I think his detractors can do better. This doesn't mean I agree with him, but I value his particular voice.
Matthew Goodwin said there was no reasonable way Labour would achieve 40% of the vote in the GE17 election.
They then literally did just that.
I challenge you to name three commentators who have made falsifiable predictions about future events, and haven't been badly wrong on some of them.
I don't say that as a particular defence of Goodwin... just that it's hard to make falsifiable predictions, and there's a bit of a risk in being too hard on those who do that you just get commentators hedging to a silly degree.
The Fivethirtyeight approach ("we said there was a 20% chance of Trump winning in 2016, and he won, so we were kind of right") is one I get in some senses as the world is inherently uncertain, but is a bit bloody irritating in others in that they give themselves a get out clause for any outcome.
Yes, it's bollox, we want 'head on the block' predictions and no pussyfooting.
Eg some from me:
The GE is Oct 24 and Lab win with a majority of 95. Neither Trump nor Biden win the presidency next year. Neither Djokovic nor Alcaraz win this current US open. It's pork chops for dinner tonight.
Comments
eg Sunak's Diversionary Soliloquy about "Zombie Knives" the other day.
I wonder how many Zombie Knives were used in crime. Anyone with half a braincell will use something more practical, such as a lock knife or a bread knife.
Here is a haul of knives from Notting Hill in I think 2015, when Zombie Knives were at their height - not a Zombie Knife amongst them. Lots of bread knives, normal lock knives, sheath knives, extending batons, and one machete.
It's retail politics for Zombies who read the Daily Mail.
Many of my friends did National Service. Some enjoyed it, some were bored stiff, some were at genuine risk of being killed, some hated it.
I didn’t want to shoot at people who shared some at least of my political views so I managed to stay a student until the government scrapped it.
Anyone know anything about it?
Also but a short step to ministry no-hoper.
Otherwise, yes, I have multiple obsessions and they shift like a kaleidoscope from day to day
Oddly, trans issues are not really one of them. I'd far rather we never had to talk about it again (I find the debate simutaneously confusing, and nasty), but it is thrust upon us, so we are forced to address it
Fed on pumpkins by the RAF for a year...
"School buildings in England to shut over concrete safety fears"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-66673971
Edit: a bit more background:
https://www.lboro.ac.uk/news-events/news/2023/march/reinforced-autoclaved-aerated--concrete-raac/
"Video & audio calls coming to X:
- Works on iOS, Android, Mac & PC
- No phone number needed
- X is the effective global address book
That set of factors is unique."
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1697145283472244974?s=20
He's apparently trying to make X the go-to site for everything. Fascinating. If he pulls it off - massive "if" - that $44bn will be seen as a bargain
This was intended as a jocular response to RP's comment that 'an absolute spanner...to lie and sneer' would be appointed.
Grant Shapps fitted this description and was therefore utterly unsuited to any role in Cabinet, especially Defence Secretary.
It wasn't intended as advice.
The clue was in that second line.
The more I see of your cabinet appointments, the more disposed I am to doubt (a) that you are a teetotaler and (b) that you have a functioning brain.
Yours
Y Doethur
Punned it in Chief, Political Betting.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12465123/Ex-MP-Antoinette-Sandbach-threatens-sue-Cambridge-University-saying-privacy-invaded-academics-award-winning-research-showed-ancestor-fortune-West-Indies-slave-plantations.html
He may fail, of course. But what Musk has already done is show how useless Dorsey and Co were, at running Twitter, when they had ten times the staff. Almost zero innovation for many years; constantly making losses
The true tax rates on earned income currently are (roughly):
On income <£12,500 0%, ICT 0% NI = 0% total.
On income between £12.5k and £50k 20% ICT + 12% NI = 32% total
On income between £50k and £125k 40% ICT + 2% NI = 42% total
On income over £125k 45% ICT and 2% NI = 47% total.
I'd reduce employees NI to 0% and set the ICT rates at 30%, 45% and 50%. Working basic rate tax payers would be better off, working higher rate tax payers slightly worse off, those living off unearned income would lose the tax advantage they currently have over workers.
Now being recycled as a rather lame marketing ploy by crapped-out politicos.
https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1696643892253466712
Honestly, they're almost as stupid as Rishi Sunak.
(Although, it has happened before: https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/asbestos-closes-comprehensive-school-until-2021100
A friend of mine was heading there on teaching prac the day it was shut. They forgot to tell him...)
Like I said, it might be me but say I wanted to find the first mention of Covid on PB for example, how do I do that?
"Benpointer" "text of the prescient post" site:https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/*
2020s - Woke science, as decried by rightwing wacks
Talking of which I see that Meloni's partner has come out with views about women, drink and rape which are probably shared by rather a lot of men (and women) - and not just in Italy either.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/italy-pm-giorgia-meloni-partner-rape-comments-girl-drunk-andrea-giambruno-8m3gttdwh
Rubiales in Spain is facing yet more criticism. From a family member this time - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/luis-rubiales-latest-hermoso-kiss-mother-hunger-strike-resign-h6tm2hxxw
Closer to home there is the issue of sexual equality in the Scottish legal profession - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sexual-inequality-is-entrenched-in-the-scottish-legal-profession-7dz6kknlb.
And the issue of how victims of sexual assault are treated by the criminal justice system. @algarkirk pointed out a very interesting article on this the other day.
And so on.
Although, the mods seem to have deleted all my prescient posts...
Besides, you do a sterling job
Keep going!
"The British Tories are completely deluded. They do not understand why millions of ordinary people are utterly fed up with them and the state of Britain. And they do not understand why their electorate has been blown apart.
That’s the conclusion I reached after having dinner with a cabinet minister who told me how senior Tories think about one issue that will shape the next election.
The issue is immigration and the insight into how the country’s most senior Tories are thinking and feeling about it is remarkable."
https://www.mattgoodwin.org/p/what-i-told-a-cabinet-minister
Another lawsuit from NY Attorney General on Tump overinflating value of his property and playing with taxes. Application for summary judgement.
They want $250m back.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2023/aug/31/donald-trump-net-worth-mitch-mcconnell-us-politics-live-updates
Interesting article on AI - paradoxically a lot of the work behind it is actually extremely labour intensive and relies on millions of workers toiling in digital sweatshops in the global south.
Rather different journalistic approach. I notice, though, UoC seems to have gone by the book (quite rightly, in such a case):
'The Guardian understands Sandbach first messaged Al Nasir on Twitter about his research and the two had a cordial exchange.
Sandbach then emailed Al Nasir’s academic supervisor and asked that the reference of her be removed from his Ted talk, claiming there were inaccuracies and that she was being unfairly singled out for being an MP.
Al Nasir said he responded to the allegations of factual inaccuracies directly to his supervisor, who was satisfied they were unfounded.
Sandbach then made a complaint to the University of Cambridge, which had embedded the Ted talk video on its website, on the grounds it breached her right to privacy.
The Guardian understands Sandbach complained the Ted talk claimed she lived in Wales, when she no longer lived there. She also said she had a right to be forgotten as she was no longer a public figure.
After an investigation by the university’s information compliance office (ICO), Sandbach’s request to have her name removed was rejected on the grounds of academic freedom.'
And, apparently, not OK to wrtite about slavery but not about women's position.
'As part of her correspondence, Sandbach noted her concern that Al Nasir’s research had ignored the legal position of British women in the 19th century.
[...]
Al Nasir told the Guardian he was “flabbergasted” by the argument. “I am a historian of 18th- and 19th-century slavery, not a historian of women’s suffrage.”'
Don't understand the last bit, unless there was some issue about whether some female had her ownership of slaves controlled by hubby.
2020s - Martina Navratilova denounced by American progressives for questioning ruling ideology
*confused*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=C012LGVZTq0&embeds_referring_euri=https://thehill.com/&feature=emb_imp_woyt
"The article of law whereby a rapist could vacate his crime by marrying his victim was not abolished until 1981.
Sexual violence became a crime against the person (instead of against "public morality") only in 1996."
See the sad case of Franca Viola.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franca_Viola
Sometimes it is easy to forget how far society has come in many countries, in a very short period.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-66673971
Their reaction to this is interesting - let the Crazy Western Europeans do their thing. They aren't threatened by it, and are happy to go along when they are here.
What does the phrase as the crow flies mean?
This idiom is based on the fact that crows, very intelligent birds, fly straight to the nearest food supply.
Why do we have a government that makes ostriches look like a model of contingency planning?
Compare and contrast how FoI requests have been dealt with:
Scotland:
https://www.aberdeenlive.news/news/aberdeen-news/no-damage-north-east-schools-8502626
England:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/number_and_location_of_schools_a
- Firstly. The counter-attack south of Orikhiv continues to advance bit-by-bit and has now taken a noticeable bite out of the lines. Whilst still slow and painful, it is determined and continuing.
- Secondly. The advances of the Russians in the North East (only I noticed this) have been partially repelled. Lyman is no longer in imminent danger of being taken, although Kupiansk is still endangered
https://liveuamap.com/en/time/31.05.2023https://liveuamap.com/en/time/30.06.2023
https://liveuamap.com/en/time/31.07.2023
https://liveuamap.com/en/time/31.08.2023
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-66671986
A fish rots from the head; when the head is lopped off, the rest still rots.
I think it dated from Blair, where the point was to get on the morning news on the day of the announcement, and has continued since then, with a succession of ministers eagerly teasing something that hasn’t yet happened, at 08:10 on Radio 4.
It would be much better for the public, if an annoucement happened in the late morning, the lunchtime news covered the annoucement, the evening news some analysis, and the serious analysis happened the next morning.
But for the politicians, it’s much better that they get their spin on the morning shows, the annoucement itself is a bit meh and drowned out by the earlier spin at lunchtime, the evening news might take a view, but by the morning we’re on to the next day’s story.
They made up a list of "offensive weapons" to ban, based on what was currently getting attention.
Including plenty where a non-skilled-Ninja would be more likely to hurt themselves, for example a kusaigama (below). Oh, and pea-shooters as a sub-species of blow-pipe.
Has anyone ever been mugged with an Amazonian blow-pipe in London?
Now, has the government embarrassed themselves over the small boats? Yes.
But the polling on this one is pretty clear: the Great British Public is less concerned about immigration that at pretty much any time since 2006.
Oh, and if it affects hardly anyone, how will it make a massive difference in pollution, as the Mayor keeps insisting? It can’t be both.
I think his detractors can do better. This doesn't mean I agree with him, but I value his particular voice.
There are parts of the US, like old former mining towns in Colorado, which feel like the poorer parts of Romania. And they exist just a few miles away from gleaming ski resorts where homes start at $20m, and Nobu delivers.
They then literally did just that.
So for all that PFI has its faults, it isn't as if public money was being spent. The Tory attitude being don't do PFI (unless we do it and make sure the Right People get to cash in), and don't spend public money either. The education of kids? Who cares?
And here we are again. Crumbling schools which needed replacing a decade ago still standing but literally falling down around the pupils.
But in the last two or three years, he's become incredibly one note. And his articles, which used to dig into polling data really well, are now anecdotes about how he hangs out with Cabinet Ministers. Which he does because the polling data no longer supports his conclusions, while the Cabinet minister does..
That is absolutely fine - but what he then pretends to do is say that he is actually a centrist and all his research has oddly concluded that all right wing opinions are correct. If he just quit the lying and said he was a big Johnson and Farage fan nobody would mind but he doesn't.
And then he's obsessed with fact he's been cancelled when as far as I know everyone knows his opinions and he writes for the Mail and Express all the time.
He completely failed to understand or see why the Tory coalition would fall apart and instead has only decided in hindsight to report on what was already clear.
The fact he thought Boris Johnson was wrong to resign tells you everything you need to know about him.
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/4513448#Comment_4513448
Some questions: why was construction with this type of material stopped (apparently) in the 1990s? Was it that the problems with it were found and understood, or that a 'better' (i.e. cheaper) construction method was found? How do local authorities/the government keep track of the age and condition of their school (and hospital, and everything else...) buildings?
If all he offers is data and opinions then no one will pay to read his substack. Just another pundit. If he can say "Oh I had this remarkable private conversation with a minister and she said [please pay to read on]", he might well get people coughing up
He's playing to a market and trying to get clicks and click-throughs
(Oh, that wasn't your intention when you linked to that comment...
I don't say that as a particular defence of Goodwin... just that it's hard to make falsifiable predictions, and there's a bit of a risk in being too hard on those who do that you just get commentators hedging to a silly degree.
The Fivethirtyeight approach ("we said there was a 20% chance of Trump winning in 2016, and he won, so we were kind of right") is one I get in some senses as the world is inherently uncertain, but is a bit bloody irritating in others in that they give themselves a get out clause for any outcome.
Samuel Johnson
And IIRC Lab vote was about 39.98, just squeaking under 40%.
Eg some from me:
The GE is Oct 24 and Lab win with a majority of 95.
Neither Trump nor Biden win the presidency next year.
Neither Djokovic nor Alcaraz win this current US open.
It's pork chops for dinner tonight.
Happy to be judged on these.
In the 1970s a 'new' school was constructed to cater for a growing population, although the old school was retained.
Since then the 'new' school has been completely demolished and rebuilt.
The old school is still standing...
However I content myself by knowing that I will shamelessly steal them and include them in the article...
Note
[1] Yes I know the rate is about one word per month. ShuttupShuttupShuttup. I'm busy.
As you well know.
There are parts of the US, like old former mining towns in Colorado, which feel like the poorer parts of Romania. And they exist just a few miles away from gleaming ski resorts where homes start at $20m, and Nobu delivers."
Your conclusion may be correct, but a single example doesn't prove it. Here's a parallel example for you: The careers of Harold Shipman and Lucy Letby show that NHS employees can not be trusted.
Generalizing from a single example is a common error. It's been a while since I read the book, but think that error is covered in "Thinking, Fast and Slow". I am a little surprised to see you make it, and at a betting site, no less.
And I remind you that US safety nets vary from state to state, and even from city to city.
It is certainly true that one can find "limousine liberals" in the US. Who might decry poverty if you ask them, but won't help their neighbors.
(Tom Wolfe skewered similar types brilliantly in "Mauve Gloves & Mad Men, Clutter & Vine".)