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.
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
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
🌹🌹🌹🌹🌹🌹
https://twitter.com/KieranPAndrews/status/1710086589806764543
Across the constituency, Labour looked to have led by 0.2%* in the LE 2023 round
* some error in that as part wards were scaled.
SNP 8,399
Con 1,192
LD 895
Green 601
Reform 403
Family 319
SSP 271
Ind Scot 207
TUSC 178
Lab maj 9,440