I didn't say yesterday's policies including Streeting's cigarette ban are necessarily positive.
What I suggested was Sunak/Cummings are rather clever in salting the earth in the event of a Labour win. It lays the land for a Labour government to fail quickly and a swift return for the Tories. I don't think we have ever seen this before in the UK, but Cummings is a strange lad. Has he thought through a Sunak win though?
That was just yesterday. Every day seemingly you are droning about ‘game changers’ and LBC audiences and blah blah fucking blah, I don’t know if it’s reverse psychology or what, but you are like broken record.
Dura Ace explained a couple of weeks ago how to block posts from specific posters. I suggest you scroll back and have a look and follow his instructions.
Why would I want to block you? Usually your posts are great, but in recent weeks you have become this weird Sunak booster. Why?
I didn't say yesterday's policies including Streeting's cigarette ban are necessarily positive.
What I suggested was Sunak/Cummings are rather clever in salting the earth in the event of a Labour win. It lays the land for a Labour government to fail quickly and a swift return for the Tories. I don't think we have ever seen this before in the UK, but Cummings is a strange lad. Has he thought through a Sunak win though?
That was just yesterday. Every day seemingly you are droning about ‘game changers’ and LBC audiences and blah blah fucking blah, I don’t know if it’s reverse psychology or what, but you are like broken record.
Dura Ace explained a couple of weeks ago how to block posts from specific posters. I suggest you scroll back and have a look and follow his instructions.
Why would I want to block you? Usually your posts are great, but in recent weeks you have become this weird Sunak booster. Why?
The Conservatives are going to claw back the victory. This is not like '97 it is like '92. The media are incredibly hostile which they weren't in '97 and Starmer is unfortunately an utter clown. Granted, not in the same league as Corbyn but an incompetent loser nonetheless.
I listened to the whole if Sunak's speech and I thought it was drops. The media interpretation has been somewhat more positive. Mainstream media have captured this insanity that Sunak is the "change" candidate, which you have to admit is pure Cummings insanity, but it's working.
On what basis is it ‘working’?
Let's see the next Opinium. Single figures!
You just cherrypicking polls now? There’s a poll out literally tonight with a 21 point lead which you choose to ignore presumably? In any case, it’s boring reading your posts on this matter because you have a hypothesis and fit the evidence around it rather than vice versa. Of course, you might end up being right, but droning on about it without any evidence won’t be the reason if you are.
Pot calling the kettle black comes to mind
No
Right, that's it! I'm voting Conservative just to piss you off.
I thought you already were.
I have never once voted Tory, but you've asked for it now!
Not fair to Sir K. He has unavoidably not made a commitment. To do so is to fall into the trap set for him - it's a massive spending commitment he cannot make before an election. Sir K can't commit to an extra billion let alone many billions. But he has left the door open. Expect lots more of this.
Indeed. The Tories must think Royale is stupid. He is many things, but stupid is not one of them.
But in theory this isn't about money. Both sides are saying they'd spend the money
This article should be read by everyone interested in politics and economics
You may be interested to know that I think he's 100% wrong. I'm going thru Peter Turchin's "End Times"[1] at the moment and I think he (Turchin) is right. The combination of popular immiseration and elite overproduction have led to the potential for revolution, where people qualified to wield power but denied it utilise disaffected masses to overthrow regimes. Allister Heath's prescription would just make the miserable poor more miserable and more poor, and that'll only make things worse.
Recall my past comments on Pensionerism. The preponderance of wealthy elderly means that old ideas will persist even when they stop working, and new ideas for a new age will die stillborn. The cure you prefer would have worked in a neoliberal age, but that age stopped around 2015. The current condition - retreating globalisation, less trade, more migration waves - require new solutions, and the old ways won't work. We have just spent two years pushing on a string with higher interest rates, and were surprised it didn't work. Making mistakes is one thing, but failing to learn from them is another.
Who exactly is qualified to wield power but also willing to utilise disaffected masses to overthrow regimes?
My judgement of the former would be somewhat* tempered by the latter.
*utterly
In Turchin terms, "elites" is a simple synonym for "power havers". "Elite overproduction" is when people capable of wielding power (I used the word "qualified" above, which misled, my apologies) are denied it thru simple lack of powerful positions. He uses it to refer to well-educated people with professional/academic positions who have sufficient interest in the world and sufficient time to formulate theories.
Here's a thing: Lenin trained to be a lawyer, Stalin a priest, Mao a teacher/librarian, Hitler an artist. All in different circumstances would be comfortable professionals. But lacking a outlet for their gifts and surrounded by disaffected, they went into politics, won, overthrew the existing order and remade the world...and we spent fifty years cleaning up after them.
Although not in the same league (obvs) consider somebody like Matthew Goodwin. A man of considerable gifts and academic achievement, he has the time and intelligence to build an underlying theory of the world and the desire to change the world accordingly. But in a nation of 68 million people (69, 70...remember, it's increasing) and only 650 seats at the top level and a few thou(?) at devolved level, he cannot wield the power he believes to be his right.
So my answer to your question is "...well-educated people/autodidacts with professional/academic positions who have sufficient interest in the world, sufficient time to formulate theories, and sufficient resources to pursue power..."
Does that answer your question?
Goodwined the thread good and proper with that one.
I didn't say yesterday's policies including Streeting's cigarette ban are necessarily positive.
What I suggested was Sunak/Cummings are rather clever in salting the earth in the event of a Labour win. It lays the land for a Labour government to fail quickly and a swift return for the Tories. I don't think we have ever seen this before in the UK, but Cummings is a strange lad. Has he thought through a Sunak win though?
That was just yesterday. Every day seemingly you are droning about ‘game changers’ and LBC audiences and blah blah fucking blah, I don’t know if it’s reverse psychology or what, but you are like broken record.
Dura Ace explained a couple of weeks ago how to block posts from specific posters. I suggest you scroll back and have a look and follow his instructions.
Why would I want to block you? Usually your posts are great, but in recent weeks you have become this weird Sunak booster. Why?
I didn't say yesterday's policies including Streeting's cigarette ban are necessarily positive.
What I suggested was Sunak/Cummings are rather clever in salting the earth in the event of a Labour win. It lays the land for a Labour government to fail quickly and a swift return for the Tories. I don't think we have ever seen this before in the UK, but Cummings is a strange lad. Has he thought through a Sunak win though?
That was just yesterday. Every day seemingly you are droning about ‘game changers’ and LBC audiences and blah blah fucking blah, I don’t know if it’s reverse psychology or what, but you are like broken record.
Dura Ace explained a couple of weeks ago how to block posts from specific posters. I suggest you scroll back and have a look and follow his instructions.
Why would I want to block you? Usually your posts are great, but in recent weeks you have become this weird Sunak booster. Why?
The Conservatives are going to claw back the victory. This is not like '97 it is like '92. The media are incredibly hostile which they weren't in '97 and Starmer is unfortunately an utter clown. Granted, not in the same league as Corbyn but an incompetent loser nonetheless.
I listened to the whole if Sunak's speech and I thought it was drops. The media interpretation has been somewhat more positive. Mainstream media have captured this insanity that Sunak is the "change" candidate, which you have to admit is pure Cummings insanity, but it's working.
On what basis is it ‘working’?
Let's see the next Opinium. Single figures!
You just cherrypicking polls now? There’s a poll out literally tonight with a 21 point lead which you choose to ignore presumably? In any case, it’s boring reading your posts on this matter because you have a hypothesis and fit the evidence around it rather than vice versa. Of course, you might end up being right, but droning on about it without any evidence won’t be the reason if you are.
Pot calling the kettle black comes to mind
No
Right, that's it! I'm voting Conservative just to piss you off.
I thought you already were.
I have never once voted Tory, but you've asked for it now!
The interesting thing will be applying the swing from SNP to Lab to all the other SNP seats in Scotland to see how many they would hold onto if Rutherglen is typical.
Not fair to Sir K. He has unavoidably not made a commitment. To do so is to fall into the trap set for him - it's a massive spending commitment he cannot make before an election. Sir K can't commit to an extra billion let alone many billions. But he has left the door open. Expect lots more of this.
Indeed. The Tories must think Royale is stupid. He is many things, but stupid is not one of them.
But in theory this isn't about money. Both sides are saying they'd spend the money
This article should be read by everyone interested in politics and economics
You may be interested to know that I think he's 100% wrong. I'm going thru Peter Turchin's "End Times"[1] at the moment and I think he (Turchin) is right. The combination of popular immiseration and elite overproduction have led to the potential for revolution, where people qualified to wield power but denied it utilise disaffected masses to overthrow regimes. Allister Heath's prescription would just make the miserable poor more miserable and more poor, and that'll only make things worse.
Recall my past comments on Pensionerism. The preponderance of wealthy elderly means that old ideas will persist even when they stop working, and new ideas for a new age will die stillborn. The cure you prefer would have worked in a neoliberal age, but that age stopped around 2015. The current condition - retreating globalisation, less trade, more migration waves - require new solutions, and the old ways won't work. We have just spent two years pushing on a string with higher interest rates, and were surprised it didn't work. Making mistakes is one thing, but failing to learn from them is another.
Who exactly is qualified to wield power but also willing to utilise disaffected masses to overthrow regimes?
My judgement of the former would be somewhat* tempered by the latter.
*utterly
In Turchin terms, "elites" is a simple synonym for "power havers". "Elite overproduction" is when people capable of wielding power (I used the word "qualified" above, which misled, my apologies) are denied it thru simple lack of powerful positions. He uses it to refer to well-educated people with professional/academic positions who have sufficient interest in the world and sufficient time to formulate theories.
Here's a thing: Lenin trained to be a lawyer, Stalin a priest, Mao a teacher/librarian, Hitler an artist. All in different circumstances would be comfortable professionals. But lacking a outlet for their gifts and surrounded by disaffected, they went into politics, won, overthrew the existing order and remade the world...and we spent fifty years cleaning up after them.
Although not in the same league (obvs) consider somebody like Matthew Goodwin. A man of considerable gifts and academic achievement, he has the time and intelligence to build an underlying theory of the world and the desire to change the world accordingly. But in a nation of 68 million people (69, 70...remember, it's increasing) and only 650 seats at the top level and a few thou(?) at devolved level, he cannot wield the power he believes to be his right.
So my answer to your question is "...well-educated people/autodidacts with professional/academic positions who have sufficient interest in the world, sufficient time to formulate theories, and sufficient resources to pursue power..."
Does that answer your question?
So you are suggesting Matt Goodwin is a future dictator of the United Kingdom? Sounds more like a spoof
Not fair to Sir K. He has unavoidably not made a commitment. To do so is to fall into the trap set for him - it's a massive spending commitment he cannot make before an election. Sir K can't commit to an extra billion let alone many billions. But he has left the door open. Expect lots more of this.
Indeed. The Tories must think Royale is stupid. He is many things, but stupid is not one of them.
But in theory this isn't about money. Both sides are saying they'd spend the money
This article should be read by everyone interested in politics and economics
You may be interested to know that I think he's 100% wrong. I'm going thru Peter Turchin's "End Times"[1] at the moment and I think he (Turchin) is right. The combination of popular immiseration and elite overproduction have led to the potential for revolution, where people qualified to wield power but denied it utilise disaffected masses to overthrow regimes. Allister Heath's prescription would just make the miserable poor more miserable and more poor, and that'll only make things worse.
Recall my past comments on Pensionerism. The preponderance of wealthy elderly means that old ideas will persist even when they stop working, and new ideas for a new age will die stillborn. The cure you prefer would have worked in a neoliberal age, but that age stopped around 2015. The current condition - retreating globalisation, less trade, more migration waves - require new solutions, and the old ways won't work. We have just spent two years pushing on a string with higher interest rates, and were surprised it didn't work. Making mistakes is one thing, but failing to learn from them is another.
Who exactly is qualified to wield power but also willing to utilise disaffected masses to overthrow regimes?
My judgement of the former would be somewhat* tempered by the latter.
*utterly
In Turchin terms, "elites" is a simple synonym for "power havers". "Elite overproduction" is when people capable of wielding power (I used the word "qualified" above, which misled, my apologies) are denied it thru simple lack of powerful positions. He uses it to refer to well-educated people with professional/academic positions who have sufficient interest in the world and sufficient time to formulate theories.
Here's a thing: Lenin trained to be a lawyer, Stalin a priest, Mao a teacher/librarian, Hitler an artist. All in different circumstances would be comfortable professionals. But lacking a outlet for their gifts and surrounded by disaffected, they went into politics, won, overthrew the existing order and remade the world...and we spent fifty years cleaning up after them.
Although not in the same league (obvs) consider somebody like Matthew Goodwin. A man of considerable gifts and academic achievement, he has the time and intelligence to build an underlying theory of the world and the desire to change the world accordingly. But in a nation of 68 million people (69, 70...remember, it's increasing) and only 650 seats at the top level and a few thou(?) at devolved level, he cannot wield the power he believes to be his right.
So my answer to your question is "...well-educated people/autodidacts with professional/academic positions who have sufficient interest in the world, sufficient time to formulate theories, and sufficient resources to pursue power..."
Does that answer your question?
So you are suggesting Matt Goodwin is a future dictator of the United Kingdom? Sounds more like a spoof
Not fair to Sir K. He has unavoidably not made a commitment. To do so is to fall into the trap set for him - it's a massive spending commitment he cannot make before an election. Sir K can't commit to an extra billion let alone many billions. But he has left the door open. Expect lots more of this.
Indeed. The Tories must think Royale is stupid. He is many things, but stupid is not one of them.
But in theory this isn't about money. Both sides are saying they'd spend the money
This article should be read by everyone interested in politics and economics
You may be interested to know that I think he's 100% wrong. I'm going thru Peter Turchin's "End Times"[1] at the moment and I think he (Turchin) is right. The combination of popular immiseration and elite overproduction have led to the potential for revolution, where people qualified to wield power but denied it utilise disaffected masses to overthrow regimes. Allister Heath's prescription would just make the miserable poor more miserable and more poor, and that'll only make things worse.
Recall my past comments on Pensionerism. The preponderance of wealthy elderly means that old ideas will persist even when they stop working, and new ideas for a new age will die stillborn. The cure you prefer would have worked in a neoliberal age, but that age stopped around 2015. The current condition - retreating globalisation, less trade, more migration waves - require new solutions, and the old ways won't work. We have just spent two years pushing on a string with higher interest rates, and were surprised it didn't work. Making mistakes is one thing, but failing to learn from them is another.
Who exactly is qualified to wield power but also willing to utilise disaffected masses to overthrow regimes?
My judgement of the former would be somewhat* tempered by the latter.
*utterly
In Turchin terms, "elites" is a simple synonym for "power havers". "Elite overproduction" is when people capable of wielding power (I used the word "qualified" above, which misled, my apologies) are denied it thru simple lack of powerful positions. He uses it to refer to well-educated people with professional/academic positions who have sufficient interest in the world and sufficient time to formulate theories.
Here's a thing: Lenin trained to be a lawyer, Stalin a priest, Mao a teacher/librarian, Hitler an artist. All in different circumstances would be comfortable professionals. But lacking a outlet for their gifts and surrounded by disaffected, they went into politics, won, overthrew the existing order and remade the world...and we spent fifty years cleaning up after them.
Although not in the same league (obvs) consider somebody like Matthew Goodwin. A man of considerable gifts and academic achievement, he has the time and intelligence to build an underlying theory of the world and the desire to change the world accordingly. But in a nation of 68 million people (69, 70...remember, it's increasing) and only 650 seats at the top level and a few thou(?) at devolved level, he cannot wield the power he believes to be his right.
So my answer to your question is "...well-educated people/autodidacts with professional/academic positions who have sufficient interest in the world, sufficient time to formulate theories, and sufficient resources to pursue power..."
Does that answer your question?
I get the theory. Didn't someone say of the French Revolution that it happened not because the peasants were starving, but because the lawyers were?
If so, I think that we are approaching that state, with a super rich neauvoux aristocracy, and a lot of white collar millennials living day by day. It isn't a stable situation in the long term.
Not fair to Sir K. He has unavoidably not made a commitment. To do so is to fall into the trap set for him - it's a massive spending commitment he cannot make before an election. Sir K can't commit to an extra billion let alone many billions. But he has left the door open. Expect lots more of this.
Indeed. The Tories must think Royale is stupid. He is many things, but stupid is not one of them.
But in theory this isn't about money. Both sides are saying they'd spend the money
This article should be read by everyone interested in politics and economics
You may be interested to know that I think he's 100% wrong. I'm going thru Peter Turchin's "End Times"[1] at the moment and I think he (Turchin) is right. The combination of popular immiseration and elite overproduction have led to the potential for revolution, where people qualified to wield power but denied it utilise disaffected masses to overthrow regimes. Allister Heath's prescription would just make the miserable poor more miserable and more poor, and that'll only make things worse.
Recall my past comments on Pensionerism. The preponderance of wealthy elderly means that old ideas will persist even when they stop working, and new ideas for a new age will die stillborn. The cure you prefer would have worked in a neoliberal age, but that age stopped around 2015. The current condition - retreating globalisation, less trade, more migration waves - require new solutions, and the old ways won't work. We have just spent two years pushing on a string with higher interest rates, and were surprised it didn't work. Making mistakes is one thing, but failing to learn from them is another.
Who exactly is qualified to wield power but also willing to utilise disaffected masses to overthrow regimes?
My judgement of the former would be somewhat* tempered by the latter.
*utterly
In Turchin terms, "elites" is a simple synonym for "power havers". "Elite overproduction" is when people capable of wielding power (I used the word "qualified" above, which misled, my apologies) are denied it thru simple lack of powerful positions. He uses it to refer to well-educated people with professional/academic positions who have sufficient interest in the world and sufficient time to formulate theories.
Here's a thing: Lenin trained to be a lawyer, Stalin a priest, Mao a teacher/librarian, Hitler an artist. All in different circumstances would be comfortable professionals. But lacking a outlet for their gifts and surrounded by disaffected, they went into politics, won, overthrew the existing order and remade the world...and we spent fifty years cleaning up after them.
Although not in the same league (obvs) consider somebody like Matthew Goodwin. A man of considerable gifts and academic achievement, he has the time and intelligence to build an underlying theory of the world and the desire to change the world accordingly. But in a nation of 68 million people (69, 70...remember, it's increasing) and only 650 seats at the top level and a few thou(?) at devolved level, he cannot wield the power he believes to be his right.
So my answer to your question is "...well-educated people/autodidacts with professional/academic positions who have sufficient interest in the world, sufficient time to formulate theories, and sufficient resources to pursue power..."
Does that answer your question?
Yes, and it's intensely interesting too, thanks.
Slight quibble. I think Lenin was politically motivated at a very early age by his brother's troubles but I'm no Leninologist so I might be wrong.
I know modern history has distorted our perspective but many people of the time were very impressed with Adolf Hitler. He was also named man of the year once.
The interesting thing will be applying the swing from SNP to Lab to all the other SNP seats in Scotland to see how many they would hold onto if Rutherglen is typical.
There's been a bit of talk in the last few days about Scottish constituencies and how changes in overall VI might affect the result. I'm pretty unsure where the votes for various parties will pile up, diminish, or hold up but it's universally acknowledged that Scotland isn't homogeneous so we can expect some kind of geographical variation.
The first step to working this out should be to classify where Scotland is now. That's what I've attempted below.
Methodology. Using the results of the 2019 general election in Scottish constituencies, and keeping ONLY the votes of the four "main" parties, I've used a clustering algorithm to group similar constituencies. All the percentages below are therefore the percentages of the total cast for SNP, Con, Lab, and LD. I've done this because clustering algorithms are vulnerable to biases created by parties standing in some seats and not others. There is an argument for accepting this but I've decided against that. There's also an argument for adding Green votes onto the SNP score but I've again decided against this.
I also played around with the number of clusters. I wanted 6 but I was getting some obvious subclusters merged together. Ten clusters looked too overfitted, so I settled on eight. There are a couple of constituencies that feel out of place, notably Lanark and Hamilton East, but that's a problem with all lumping tasks. It's not perfect, but it's a starting point.
Without further ado:
Group 1: "nationalist left" These are seats where the SNP have a solid grip and the main challenger is generally Labour. Tories on mid teens and LDs below 10% Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, Dundee West, Edinburgh East, Glasgow North West, Glasgow South, Glenrothes, Inverclyde, Paisley and Renfrewshire South, West Dunbartonshire
Group 2: "Glasgow left" These are seats generally around Glasgow where the SNP are in charge but Labour are very strong. Tories in low teens, LDs usually below 5% Airdrie and Shotts, Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill, Glasgow Central, Glasgow East, Glasgow North, Glasgow North East, Glasgow South West, Motherwell and Wishaw, Rutherglen and Hamilton West
Group 3: "Rural Tories" These are seats that have a strong rural element with small towns or far suburbs. The Tories are very strong, 35%+. Labour and LDs generally each below 10%. Aberdeen South, Angus, Argyll and Bute, Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock, Banff and Buchan, Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk, Dumfries and Galloway, Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale, East Renfrewshire, Gordon, Moray, Ochil and South Perthshire, Perth and North Perthshire, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine
Group 4: "Lib Dem hinterland" These are seats where the Lib Dems have a very strong foothold. The Lib Dems get more than a third of their overall vote in just these six seats. SNP on a third to a half, Con in the teens and Lab below 10%. Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, East Dunbartonshire, Edinburgh West, North East Fife, Orkney and Shetland, Ross, Skye and Lochaber
Group 5: "Edinburgh South" Ian Murray's Morningside seat. SNP 26% Con 17% Murray 49% LD 8%. No other seat like it. Edinburgh South
Group 6: "nationalist right" These are seats where the SNP have a solid grip and the main challenger is Conservative. Labour on mid teens and LDs below 10%. Similar to group 1, swapping Lab and Con. Aberdeen North, Central Ayrshire, Dundee East, Edinburgh South West, Falkirk, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, North Ayrshire and Arran, Stirling
Group 7: "Three-way" These are seats where the third place party is on more than 20% and the SNP looking a little vulnerable. East Lothian, Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, Midlothian, Na h-Eileanan an Iar
Group 8: "Nationalist centre" These are generally seats where it's not always obvious who the main challenger to the SNP is. SNP generally "safer" than in the three-ways but otherwise similar to group 7. Dunfermline and West Fife, East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow, Edinburgh North and Leith, Kilmarnock and Loudon, Lanark and Hamilton East, Linlithgow and East Fakirk, Livingston, Paisley and Renfrewshire North
Not fair to Sir K. He has unavoidably not made a commitment. To do so is to fall into the trap set for him - it's a massive spending commitment he cannot make before an election. Sir K can't commit to an extra billion let alone many billions. But he has left the door open. Expect lots more of this.
Indeed. The Tories must think Royale is stupid. He is many things, but stupid is not one of them.
But in theory this isn't about money. Both sides are saying they'd spend the money
This article should be read by everyone interested in politics and economics
You may be interested to know that I think he's 100% wrong. I'm going thru Peter Turchin's "End Times"[1] at the moment and I think he (Turchin) is right. The combination of popular immiseration and elite overproduction have led to the potential for revolution, where people qualified to wield power but denied it utilise disaffected masses to overthrow regimes. Allister Heath's prescription would just make the miserable poor more miserable and more poor, and that'll only make things worse.
Recall my past comments on Pensionerism. The preponderance of wealthy elderly means that old ideas will persist even when they stop working, and new ideas for a new age will die stillborn. The cure you prefer would have worked in a neoliberal age, but that age stopped around 2015. The current condition - retreating globalisation, less trade, more migration waves - require new solutions, and the old ways won't work. We have just spent two years pushing on a string with higher interest rates, and were surprised it didn't work. Making mistakes is one thing, but failing to learn from them is another.
Who exactly is qualified to wield power but also willing to utilise disaffected masses to overthrow regimes?
My judgement of the former would be somewhat* tempered by the latter.
*utterly
In Turchin terms, "elites" is a simple synonym for "power havers". "Elite overproduction" is when people capable of wielding power (I used the word "qualified" above, which misled, my apologies) are denied it thru simple lack of powerful positions. He uses it to refer to well-educated people with professional/academic positions who have sufficient interest in the world and sufficient time to formulate theories.
Here's a thing: Lenin trained to be a lawyer, Stalin a priest, Mao a teacher/librarian, Hitler an artist. All in different circumstances would be comfortable professionals. But lacking a outlet for their gifts and surrounded by disaffected, they went into politics, won, overthrew the existing order and remade the world...and we spent fifty years cleaning up after them.
Although not in the same league (obvs) consider somebody like Matthew Goodwin. A man of considerable gifts and academic achievement, he has the time and intelligence to build an underlying theory of the world and the desire to change the world accordingly. But in a nation of 68 million people (69, 70...remember, it's increasing) and only 650 seats at the top level and a few thou(?) at devolved level, he cannot wield the power he believes to be his right.
So my answer to your question is "...well-educated people/autodidacts with professional/academic positions who have sufficient interest in the world, sufficient time to formulate theories, and sufficient resources to pursue power..."
Does that answer your question?
Yes, and it's intensely interesting too, thanks.
Slight quibble. I think Lenin was politically motivated at a very early age by his brother's troubles but I'm no Leninologist so I might be wrong.
I know modern history has distorted our perspective but many people of the time were very impressed with Adolf Hitler. He was also named man of the year once.
I think it's not just modern history but also... some of the things he... you know... did?
aberdeen north and dundee east are never ever ever going to go tory
Probably not. The analysis was done using a clustering algorithm based on the 2019 results alone. I could have done something more in depth but couldn't be bothered. The groups were made by the algorithm, and the descriptions are how I interpret the group overall. I put in caveats about all this and the imperfection of the method.
Not fair to Sir K. He has unavoidably not made a commitment. To do so is to fall into the trap set for him - it's a massive spending commitment he cannot make before an election. Sir K can't commit to an extra billion let alone many billions. But he has left the door open. Expect lots more of this.
Indeed. The Tories must think Royale is stupid. He is many things, but stupid is not one of them.
But in theory this isn't about money. Both sides are saying they'd spend the money
This article should be read by everyone interested in politics and economics
You may be interested to know that I think he's 100% wrong. I'm going thru Peter Turchin's "End Times"[1] at the moment and I think he (Turchin) is right. The combination of popular immiseration and elite overproduction have led to the potential for revolution, where people qualified to wield power but denied it utilise disaffected masses to overthrow regimes. Allister Heath's prescription would just make the miserable poor more miserable and more poor, and that'll only make things worse.
Recall my past comments on Pensionerism. The preponderance of wealthy elderly means that old ideas will persist even when they stop working, and new ideas for a new age will die stillborn. The cure you prefer would have worked in a neoliberal age, but that age stopped around 2015. The current condition - retreating globalisation, less trade, more migration waves - require new solutions, and the old ways won't work. We have just spent two years pushing on a string with higher interest rates, and were surprised it didn't work. Making mistakes is one thing, but failing to learn from them is another.
Who exactly is qualified to wield power but also willing to utilise disaffected masses to overthrow regimes?
My judgement of the former would be somewhat* tempered by the latter.
*utterly
In Turchin terms, "elites" is a simple synonym for "power havers". "Elite overproduction" is when people capable of wielding power (I used the word "qualified" above, which misled, my apologies) are denied it thru simple lack of powerful positions. He uses it to refer to well-educated people with professional/academic positions who have sufficient interest in the world and sufficient time to formulate theories.
Here's a thing: Lenin trained to be a lawyer, Stalin a priest, Mao a teacher/librarian, Hitler an artist. All in different circumstances would be comfortable professionals. But lacking a outlet for their gifts and surrounded by disaffected, they went into politics, won, overthrew the existing order and remade the world...and we spent fifty years cleaning up after them.
Although not in the same league (obvs) consider somebody like Matthew Goodwin. A man of considerable gifts and academic achievement, he has the time and intelligence to build an underlying theory of the world and the desire to change the world accordingly. But in a nation of 68 million people (69, 70...remember, it's increasing) and only 650 seats at the top level and a few thou(?) at devolved level, he cannot wield the power he believes to be his right.
So my answer to your question is "...well-educated people/autodidacts with professional/academic positions who have sufficient interest in the world, sufficient time to formulate theories, and sufficient resources to pursue power..."
Does that answer your question?
So you are suggesting Matt Goodwin is a future dictator of the United Kingdom? Sounds more like a spoof
No. I gave him a an example of an overproduced elite. As the number of the former increase, and the number of the immiserated poor similarly increase, the probability of revolution increases. He will orobably not become UK dictator, any more than an individual pebble can be predicted to cause the avalanche. But as the number goes up, the probability that somebody will rises.
Recall that Farage was a metals trader. Everybody laughed at him. Then he won.
BBC by election special suggests sources at count saying a 7-8% swing from SNP to Labour since 2019 and Labour will clearly gain the seat from the SNP. The Tories will likely lose their deposit
I have no idea who will win tonight, have not researched the situation and so cannot predict. Best of luck to all those of you who have placed a bet and I hope you make a profit.
You shouldn't let that be an impediment, no one else has.
BBC by election special suggests sources at count saying a 7-8% swing from SNP to Labour since 2019 and Labour will clearly gain the seat from the SNP. The Tories will likely lose their deposit
BBC by election special suggests sources at count saying a 7-8% swing from SNP to Labour since 2019 and Labour will clearly gain the seat from the SNP. The Tories will likely lose their deposit
BBC by election special suggests sources at count saying a 7-8% swing from SNP to Labour since 2019 and Labour will clearly gain the seat from the SNP. The Tories will likely lose their deposit
A seismically modest swing..
Not that modest, the SNP would lose over 10 MPs to Labour on that swing
BBC by election special suggests sources at count saying a 7-8% swing from SNP to Labour since 2019 and Labour will clearly gain the seat from the SNP. The Tories will likely lose their deposit
Are you still to be counted as a Conservative, young HY?
Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani owes over half million dollars in federal taxes, and the IRS has placed a lien on his property in Palm Beach, per @Tom_Winter and @jonathan4ny
This result is going to help Labour in the other by-elections down south, isn't it?
Yes.
It will reinforce the belief that Starmer = Lawyer = Winner.
I'm not seeing how lawyer fits into this equation.
Apart from Wilson, all of Labour's majority leaders have been lawyers since the war.
When a lawyer has taken on a non lawyer in a Con v Labour leader front the lawyer has always won.
In short, being a lawyer helps win general elections when you're up against a non lawyer.
It'll be fascinating to find out who Starmer will be facing
Based on TSE's theory, the Tories need to find someone like Bill Cash.
Barclay and Braverman were lawyers
And Braverman went to the Sorbonne.
I'm not sure that's anything to be that excited by: the Sorbonne barely sneaks into the top 50 universities worldwide, while Cambridge (where she also studied) is 8th.
SWAINE-JAMESON, Tom Simon (Labour Party) 595 ALDERECHI, Fareed (Liberal Democrats) 395 BOND, Jacqueline Rose (The Green Party) 256 ROTHERHAM, Lee Stuart (Conservative Party Candidate) 160 LAMBERT, Daniel Peter (The Socialist Party (GB)) 9"
This result is going to help Labour in the other by-elections down south, isn't it?
Yes.
It will reinforce the belief that Starmer = Lawyer = Winner.
I'm not seeing how lawyer fits into this equation.
Apart from Wilson, all of Labour's majority leaders have been lawyers since the war.
When a lawyer has taken on a non lawyer in a Con v Labour leader front the lawyer has always won.
In short, being a lawyer helps win general elections when you're up against a non lawyer.
It'll be fascinating to find out who Starmer will be facing
Based on TSE's theory, the Tories need to find someone like Bill Cash.
Barclay and Braverman were lawyers
And Braverman went to the Sorbonne.
Doctored in mathematics She could have been a don She can program a computer Choose the perfect time If you've got the inclination She has got the crime
Reform getting 6% in this ward suggests they might have an outside chance of saving their deposit at the Westminster by-election. The ward is fairly typical of the seat as a whole.
Comments
I reckon Nats are very sticky, but sounds as if I may well be completely out.
Can you tell I've been at the whisky?
I'll update in the morning if nobody else does it overnight.
I have just been watching Local Hero, recorded the other night, and somehow missed by me previously.
Strangely topical in its story of opening a Scottish offshore oilfield, left behind town and Environmentalism. I rather liked it.
If so, I think that we are approaching that state, with a super rich neauvoux aristocracy, and a lot of white collar millennials living day by day. It isn't a stable situation in the long term.
Recall that Farage was a metals trader. Everybody laughed at him. Then he won.
My prediction was 40%, although I forget to post it on here. 50% was always too high a forecast IMO.
(Source: am Mancunian)
Labour margin of win in Rutherglen today will imply X Lab seats in Scotland
+15pts: 29 seats (+28) on 2019
+10pts: 21 seats
+5pts: 12 seats
+0pts: 3 seats
-5pts: 2 seats
5% swing to Lab -> Lab maj 100
10% swing to Lab -> Lab maj 3100
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/politics/senior-cabinet-minister-told-outright-27839685
Game on
You don’t shake The Drake.
Just wondering....
But if so, any particular reason?
It is back to pre Indyref levels of Labour vote. They got 60% in 2010. The SNP should be bricking it if the result is anything like that.
Update: Times Scotland political editor saying 15% swing.
Just saying.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-56750836
It will reinforce the belief that Starmer = Lawyer = Winner.
When a lawyer has taken on a non lawyer in a Con v Labour leader front the lawyer has always won.
In short, being a lawyer helps win general elections when you're up against a non lawyer.
Tempting to feed the audio into a local computer to see if it can do better.
https://twitter.com/KenDilanianNBC/status/1710050533556326489
https://x.com/journoontheedge/status/1710068388939100338
"Amington
Lab 669
Con 526
Ind Cook 242
Reform UK 98
UKIP 25
via Richard Price on Twitter"
Labour hold in Vauxhall local by-election.
"LAMBETH Vauxhall
SWAINE-JAMESON, Tom Simon (Labour Party) 595
ALDERECHI, Fareed (Liberal Democrats) 395
BOND, Jacqueline Rose (The Green Party) 256
ROTHERHAM, Lee Stuart (Conservative Party Candidate) 160
LAMBERT, Daniel Peter (The Socialist Party (GB)) 9"
lawyer v lawyer election since Blair v Howard.
Barclay or Braverman would
also be the first Cambridge
educated Tory leaders since
Howard too (and in Braverman's case the
Sorbonne)
She could have been a don
She can program a computer
Choose the perfect time
If you've got the inclination
She has got the crime
My love is like a red red rose
🌹🌹🌹🌹🌹🌹