I wonder what first attracted her to the 49 year old bachelor Marquess she married in 2009, with the castle and estate in Cheshire and country house in Norfolk and £60 million net worth?
It's a good job that Gingey does not live in Sri Lanka; she'd have a fit.
I wonder what first attracted her to the 49 year old bachelor Marquess she married in 2009, with the castle and estate in Cheshire and country house in Norfolk and £60 million net worth?
It's a good job that Gingey does not live in Sri Lanka; she'd have a fit.
On the subject of the census many 100,000 identify as being a jedi....you really think they believe in the force? Of course not....but you believe everyone who says jew, muslim or christian believes in the beard in the sky
It always saddens me when people (not you) use their religion as a joke. It should be the most important thing to you, a very personal link and promise to God. Not a casual witticism on a form.
On the subject of the census many 100,000 identify as being a jedi....you really think they believe in the force? Of course not....but you believe everyone who says jew, muslim or christian believes in the beard in the sky
It always saddens me when people (not you) use their religion as a joke. It should be the most important thing to you, a very personal link and promise to God. Not a casual witticism on a form.
You I think misunderstand it, I think a lot of questions about faith and sexuality on the census are intrusive and a lot of people think they are private matters that the state should not know about. For example I can imagine jews being wary as nazi germany certainly used census data to decide who needed to go on a train ride. Therefore they either don't answer or put down a joke answer.
On the subject of the census many 100,000 identify as being a jedi....you really think they believe in the force? Of course not....but you believe everyone who says jew, muslim or christian believes in the beard in the sky
It always saddens me when people (not you) use their religion as a joke. It should be the most important thing to you, a very personal link and promise to God. Not a casual witticism on a form.
Speaking of which, I have confidently predicted that Red Bull will fire Verstappen rather than risk losing face over Horner. Everybody is therefore advised to pile on any market offering Horner to be sacked by Easter.
On the subject of the census many 100,000 identify as being a jedi....you really think they believe in the force? Of course not....but you believe everyone who says jew, muslim or christian believes in the beard in the sky
It always saddens me when people (not you) use their religion as a joke. It should be the most important thing to you, a very personal link and promise to God. Not a casual witticism on a form.
You I think misunderstand it, I think a lot of questions about faith and sexuality on the census are intrusive and a lot of people think they are private matters that the state should not know about. For example I can imagine jews being wary as nazi germany certainly used census data to decide who needed to go on a train ride. Therefore they either don't answer or put down a joke answer.
Leaving it blank is understandable. Putting a joke response is rude and silly and unnecessary.
Agree about the NIMBYS but we also need to deal with one of the biggest obstacles to housebuilding - the building firms.
How can it be acceptable that last year, when prices stopped rising as sharply as they had been, the big developers cut back on their building programmes specificaly citing the platauing of house prices?
Housebuilders are sitting on hundredas of thousands of plots with planning permission and are refusing to build on them.
That, and the regulation of new builds is almost non-existent. If you're lucky you get a structurally sound ludicrously expensive rabbit hutch out of your typical volume housebuilder. If you're unlucky the thing is full of serious faults that they don't want to spend money putting right and, as many horrified buyers have quickly discovered, they don't want to do the work and you can do nothing more than beg to get them to do it. The NHBC certificate is worthless.
Personally, I wouldn't buy a new build under any circumstances. Not good value, not worth the risk.
We bought new build Barrett in 2005 and we got a good one. Garden full of rubble with major drainage issues. Wall cavities not full of insulation as supposed to be. Cracks in wall and ceiling plaster as the building settled.
Then we had a hole open up in the downstairs ceiling right above the front door. Just as it was on sale with people coming for viewings. And - having had conversations with various neighbours - we appear to have got a good one!
Never again.
Standards have clearly deteriorated over time. My flat was built about 20 years ago and, apart from a little bit of plaster cracking and the windows being a little on the cheap side, it's fine.
Nowadays you can barely move for tales of wonky walls and collapsed ceilings. There was even a case in Cambridge recently where the shysters built houses that started falling down before they'd finished building them. Those got torn down, but you bet if they could've disguised the problems with plaster and paint they would've flogged them off.
What's insane is that standards have gotten worse, as costs and regulation have risen.
Many objections to new housing would disappear is they weren’t so horrendously ugly. Vile redbrick warts all over our fair land
Build nice Georgian terraces or Victorian semis with proper windows and build them with gentle density - four or five storeys
Make them handsome and make sure there is infrastructure and community - pubs and shops that are walkable - not soulless Barratt bart-burbs based on the car
It would help, but given the types of objection many raise which have nothing to do with appearance and character, and more to do with principle or separate material matters, it wouldn't make that much difference.
The infrastructure point would remove many more - some objections are because people genuinely don't know that contributions from the development may well address those concerns - but given that people also object to infrastructure and amenity changes, I wouldn't bet a non-existent house on it.
Except contributions from development notoriously don't address those concerns. One of the big problems with Barts loony plans for getting rid of planning is that part of that planning is making developers make contibutions towards servcies. It is a failing system which needs reform but not abolition. Indeed we need more power to force developers to properly fund services - particularly GPs and schools.
Bart's issue with planning is he fundementally misunderstands what it is and what it does. He wrongly sees it as the main impediment to building (it isn't) and thinks that by sweeping it away things will magically get better and we will get more houses built (we won't).
The idea that freeing up more land for building will get more houses built is a fallacy. As I have pointed out before available land with planning permission far outstrips the number of houses being built and the gap has widened every year for the last decade or more.
Why should housebuilders, any more than candlestick makers, be required to fund schools and bits of the NHS? This is a tax payer liability; housebuilders provide a service, the growing population they serve is a direct result of government migration policy, and the consequences are a state liability.
Because ever since Thatcher we have worked on the principle of 'polluter pays'. Local councils cannot control how many houses are built in their area - this is assigned from central government. But central Government is not willing to pay for all the costs of the services associated with all the new building. So if they will not pay and the local councils cannot pay then it is down to the company actually making the profit to pay.
But it's not pollution.
Population growth is not due to construction. Healthcare demand, school demand, none of it comes from construction. Fail to build sufficient houses (as we have) and demand is still there.
Demand comes from population growth, not housing growth. You want to tax the "polluter" then fine, but construction is not it. It's a response to population growth, not it's cause.
This feels like undergrad economic theory (and that isn’t intended as a compliment).
On one level you’re right. But in practice houses without adequate services are a significant part of why Britain feels so broken at the moment.
House building generates externalities. Wishing those away is not good policy.
What externalities?
Name one single externality that isn't due to population growth instead.
Children need schools whether they live in a home with their parents, or are crammed into a single room with their parents in someone else's home.
People need healthcare whether they have a home of their own, or are in a room in someone else's home.
It’s not that it’s not due to population growth, it’s that that growth is unevenly distributed. You can’t just move a school or GP surgery because the kids crammed into existing housing move to a new build 20 miles away.
So why shouldn't central government which is taking the taxes from migrants (and everyone else) for that matter pay for the new schools and GP surgeries?
Central government issues the visas that cause population growth. Central government takes their income tax. Central government takes their national insurance. Central government takes the VAT. Central government takes duties.
Why should it not use its funds to pay for the externalities of its choices?
As I’ve already said, on one level I agree with what you are saying.
But you’re still like the economist who prefers his theory over reality.
There is currently no money for central government to provide adequate services.
At the same time there is market failure in the housing market such that big developers can make significant profit building fairly crap homes. Forcing the developers to also pay for services intervenes to address that market failure in a pretty blunt way, but it seems like the least worst option at the moment.
And it’s not a tax on new homeowners. You can bet that those new builds will be priced at whatever the market can bear regardless, so this isn’t a cost that will be passed onto buyers. Instead it is bringing private profit back into the public sphere. Which is a good thing right now given how broken our public services are.
There is a shortfall of housing and your solution is to tax housing. That makes the problem worse not better.
That's like saying there's a shortfall of dentistry, so the solution is to tax dentists more in response.
We need millions more houses. Free the market and allow construction to happen and we can solve it.
Central government needs to own up to the consequences of its policies. If it gives millions of visas that's perfectly fine but then it needs to pay for the infrastructure, not expect young people buying a house to pay for its choices.
We need millions more houses. 100% agree.
But if those houses are built without adequate services and infrastructure we will simply create another problem, just as significant for the future prosperity of the country.
So the services are needed. If there is a better solution than making developers contribute to paying for them I’m all ears. But I haven’t heard one so far.
And I’m not at all convinced that this tax on housing is the bottleneck in the supply.
I've given you a better solution.
The government that takes the taxes and issues the visas pays its own way, from the taxes it takes which are levied on the people it issued the visas too and everyone else.
What do we pay our taxes for, if not investment in public services?
If the Government won't pay for the investment population growth requires then it shouldn't issue the visas. But it can, from the taxes it levies on those it issued the visas too and others.
Is that...real? I mean it isn't a spoof or anything?
So I’m currently writing a paper on some research I have been getting my group to do, involving anti cancer properties from some novel capsaicinoids (think capsaicin and other compounds from chillies, but made more potent by modifications). I did my lit review last week, found around 15 papers that looked relevant for the background/intro and then screened them down to 6 which are relevant. I then played with Chatgpt. It produced a thousand words of fluff around the subject. No detail, no references, no actual science. I can see why it scares the crap out of our resident journalist - it seems competent at spitting out fluff already. But for serious scientific argument? I could use the basic structure and modify, but to be honest I wrote the draft intro over a couple of hours and it includes around twenty accurate citations. It may (and surely will get better). But at the moment it’s miles away from replacing me (long may that continue…)
Claude 3 is significantly better than ChatGPT. And GPT4 - which is the basis of ChatGPT - will likely be superseded this summer by GPT5. Which some claim is a huge leap in capability, some even claim it is AGI
On the subject of the census many 100,000 identify as being a jedi....you really think they believe in the force? Of course not....but you believe everyone who says jew, muslim or christian believes in the beard in the sky
It always saddens me when people (not you) use their religion as a joke. It should be the most important thing to you, a very personal link and promise to God. Not a casual witticism on a form.
You I think misunderstand it, I think a lot of questions about faith and sexuality on the census are intrusive and a lot of people think they are private matters that the state should not know about. For example I can imagine jews being wary as nazi germany certainly used census data to decide who needed to go on a train ride. Therefore they either don't answer or put down a joke answer.
Leaving it blank is understandable. Putting a joke response is rude and silly and unnecessary.
Why is it? For example I have never filled in a census form as I find all of it intrusive. I could have equally just done it and filled every question in with crap. Both are an equal response to express mind your own fucking business
On the subject of the census many 100,000 identify as being a jedi....you really think they believe in the force? Of course not....but you believe everyone who says jew, muslim or christian believes in the beard in the sky
It always saddens me when people (not you) use their religion as a joke. It should be the most important thing to you, a very personal link and promise to God. Not a casual witticism on a form.
Or it should be a joke as people have moved on from sky fairies.
Agree about the NIMBYS but we also need to deal with one of the biggest obstacles to housebuilding - the building firms.
How can it be acceptable that last year, when prices stopped rising as sharply as they had been, the big developers cut back on their building programmes specificaly citing the platauing of house prices?
Housebuilders are sitting on hundredas of thousands of plots with planning permission and are refusing to build on them.
That, and the regulation of new builds is almost non-existent. If you're lucky you get a structurally sound ludicrously expensive rabbit hutch out of your typical volume housebuilder. If you're unlucky the thing is full of serious faults that they don't want to spend money putting right and, as many horrified buyers have quickly discovered, they don't want to do the work and you can do nothing more than beg to get them to do it. The NHBC certificate is worthless.
Personally, I wouldn't buy a new build under any circumstances. Not good value, not worth the risk.
We bought new build Barrett in 2005 and we got a good one. Garden full of rubble with major drainage issues. Wall cavities not full of insulation as supposed to be. Cracks in wall and ceiling plaster as the building settled.
Then we had a hole open up in the downstairs ceiling right above the front door. Just as it was on sale with people coming for viewings. And - having had conversations with various neighbours - we appear to have got a good one!
Never again.
Standards have clearly deteriorated over time. My flat was built about 20 years ago and, apart from a little bit of plaster cracking and the windows being a little on the cheap side, it's fine.
Nowadays you can barely move for tales of wonky walls and collapsed ceilings. There was even a case in Cambridge recently where the shysters built houses that started falling down before they'd finished building them. Those got torn down, but you bet if they could've disguised the problems with plaster and paint they would've flogged them off.
What's insane is that standards have gotten worse, as costs and regulation have risen.
Many objections to new housing would disappear is they weren’t so horrendously ugly. Vile redbrick warts all over our fair land
Build nice Georgian terraces or Victorian semis with proper windows and build them with gentle density - four or five storeys
Make them handsome and make sure there is infrastructure and community - pubs and shops that are walkable - not soulless Barratt bart-burbs based on the car
It would help, but given the types of objection many raise which have nothing to do with appearance and character, and more to do with principle or separate material matters, it wouldn't make that much difference.
The infrastructure point would remove many more - some objections are because people genuinely don't know that contributions from the development may well address those concerns - but given that people also object to infrastructure and amenity changes, I wouldn't bet a non-existent house on it.
Except contributions from development notoriously don't address those concerns. One of the big problems with Barts loony plans for getting rid of planning is that part of that planning is making developers make contibutions towards servcies. It is a failing system which needs reform but not abolition. Indeed we need more power to force developers to properly fund services - particularly GPs and schools.
Bart's issue with planning is he fundementally misunderstands what it is and what it does. He wrongly sees it as the main impediment to building (it isn't) and thinks that by sweeping it away things will magically get better and we will get more houses built (we won't).
The idea that freeing up more land for building will get more houses built is a fallacy. As I have pointed out before available land with planning permission far outstrips the number of houses being built and the gap has widened every year for the last decade or more.
Why should housebuilders, any more than candlestick makers, be required to fund schools and bits of the NHS? This is a tax payer liability; housebuilders provide a service, the growing population they serve is a direct result of government migration policy, and the consequences are a state liability.
Because ever since Thatcher we have worked on the principle of 'polluter pays'. Local councils cannot control how many houses are built in their area - this is assigned from central government. But central Government is not willing to pay for all the costs of the services associated with all the new building. So if they will not pay and the local councils cannot pay then it is down to the company actually making the profit to pay.
But it's not pollution.
Population growth is not due to construction. Healthcare demand, school demand, none of it comes from construction. Fail to build sufficient houses (as we have) and demand is still there.
Demand comes from population growth, not housing growth. You want to tax the "polluter" then fine, but construction is not it. It's a response to population growth, not it's cause.
The average number of square metres of accommodation per person obviously impacts the consumption of resources. If everyone has their own detached house then they will burn more energy than if they live two to a room.
Which is why people can, should and do pay for their own energy.
That has bugger all to do with school demand, NHS demand etc which are all based on population not the quantity of houses.
There's a difference between national demand and local demand. Are you proposing that all new development be ringfenced so that only locals can live there to ensure the impact on local services is neutral?
No there is not. We have a free country, people are free to demand anywhere in the country.
I propose the taxpayer pays for school and healthcare in this countrry. The taxpayer also pays taxes to HMG.
You want polluter pays then fine - population growth is the consequence of central government policy. If new schools or healthcare is needed, due to central government policy, then central government should pay for it. Its the one that sets the migration policy and takes the taxes, it should pay for its own externality. Polluter pays.
Construction is not the cause of population growth.
The bit in bold is precisely the point. If there's a new development of 10,000 homes next to a village in the Cotswolds, it will obviously impact demand for local services.
Then central government should pay for it.
Its the one that takes the taxes and lets people into the county.
I've got no problem with migration into the country, but the government that sets the policy and takes the taxes needs to account for both sides of the ledger.
The point you keep missing is that it's perfectly legitimate for local people to say "not in my back yard".
Agree about the NIMBYS but we also need to deal with one of the biggest obstacles to housebuilding - the building firms.
How can it be acceptable that last year, when prices stopped rising as sharply as they had been, the big developers cut back on their building programmes specificaly citing the platauing of house prices?
Housebuilders are sitting on hundredas of thousands of plots with planning permission and are refusing to build on them.
That, and the regulation of new builds is almost non-existent. If you're lucky you get a structurally sound ludicrously expensive rabbit hutch out of your typical volume housebuilder. If you're unlucky the thing is full of serious faults that they don't want to spend money putting right and, as many horrified buyers have quickly discovered, they don't want to do the work and you can do nothing more than beg to get them to do it. The NHBC certificate is worthless.
Personally, I wouldn't buy a new build under any circumstances. Not good value, not worth the risk.
We bought new build Barrett in 2005 and we got a good one. Garden full of rubble with major drainage issues. Wall cavities not full of insulation as supposed to be. Cracks in wall and ceiling plaster as the building settled.
Then we had a hole open up in the downstairs ceiling right above the front door. Just as it was on sale with people coming for viewings. And - having had conversations with various neighbours - we appear to have got a good one!
Never again.
Standards have clearly deteriorated over time. My flat was built about 20 years ago and, apart from a little bit of plaster cracking and the windows being a little on the cheap side, it's fine.
Nowadays you can barely move for tales of wonky walls and collapsed ceilings. There was even a case in Cambridge recently where the shysters built houses that started falling down before they'd finished building them. Those got torn down, but you bet if they could've disguised the problems with plaster and paint they would've flogged them off.
What's insane is that standards have gotten worse, as costs and regulation have risen.
Many objections to new housing would disappear is they weren’t so horrendously ugly. Vile redbrick warts all over our fair land
Build nice Georgian terraces or Victorian semis with proper windows and build them with gentle density - four or five storeys
Make them handsome and make sure there is infrastructure and community - pubs and shops that are walkable - not soulless Barratt bart-burbs based on the car
It would help, but given the types of objection many raise which have nothing to do with appearance and character, and more to do with principle or separate material matters, it wouldn't make that much difference.
The infrastructure point would remove many more - some objections are because people genuinely don't know that contributions from the development may well address those concerns - but given that people also object to infrastructure and amenity changes, I wouldn't bet a non-existent house on it.
Except contributions from development notoriously don't address those concerns. One of the big problems with Barts loony plans for getting rid of planning is that part of that planning is making developers make contibutions towards servcies. It is a failing system which needs reform but not abolition. Indeed we need more power to force developers to properly fund services - particularly GPs and schools.
Bart's issue with planning is he fundementally misunderstands what it is and what it does. He wrongly sees it as the main impediment to building (it isn't) and thinks that by sweeping it away things will magically get better and we will get more houses built (we won't).
The idea that freeing up more land for building will get more houses built is a fallacy. As I have pointed out before available land with planning permission far outstrips the number of houses being built and the gap has widened every year for the last decade or more.
Why should housebuilders, any more than candlestick makers, be required to fund schools and bits of the NHS? This is a tax payer liability; housebuilders provide a service, the growing population they serve is a direct result of government migration policy, and the consequences are a state liability.
Because ever since Thatcher we have worked on the principle of 'polluter pays'. Local councils cannot control how many houses are built in their area - this is assigned from central government. But central Government is not willing to pay for all the costs of the services associated with all the new building. So if they will not pay and the local councils cannot pay then it is down to the company actually making the profit to pay.
But it's not pollution.
Population growth is not due to construction. Healthcare demand, school demand, none of it comes from construction. Fail to build sufficient houses (as we have) and demand is still there.
Demand comes from population growth, not housing growth. You want to tax the "polluter" then fine, but construction is not it. It's a response to population growth, not it's cause.
The average number of square metres of accommodation per person obviously impacts the consumption of resources. If everyone has their own detached house then they will burn more energy than if they live two to a room.
Which is why people can, should and do pay for their own energy.
That has bugger all to do with school demand, NHS demand etc which are all based on population not the quantity of houses.
There's a difference between national demand and local demand. Are you proposing that all new development be ringfenced so that only locals can live there to ensure the impact on local services is neutral?
No there is not. We have a free country, people are free to demand anywhere in the country.
I propose the taxpayer pays for school and healthcare in this countrry. The taxpayer also pays taxes to HMG.
You want polluter pays then fine - population growth is the consequence of central government policy. If new schools or healthcare is needed, due to central government policy, then central government should pay for it. Its the one that sets the migration policy and takes the taxes, it should pay for its own externality. Polluter pays.
Construction is not the cause of population growth.
The bit in bold is precisely the point. If there's a new development of 10,000 homes next to a village in the Cotswolds, it will obviously impact demand for local services.
Then central government should pay for it.
Its the one that takes the taxes and lets people into the county.
I've got no problem with migration into the country, but the government that sets the policy and takes the taxes needs to account for both sides of the ledger.
The point you keep missing is that it's perfectly legitimate for local people to say "not in my back yard".
Why is it?
QED
That's not an argument.
If its literally their backyard, they own it, they can veto people building on land they own.
If its not, its none of their bloody business.
In Japan NIMBYs have no more input whether their neighbours can build a home than they do whether their neighbours go to McDonalds, or the cinema, or buy a candlestick or anything else.
Because, again, its none of their bloody business.
There are restricted zones of development in Japan which control what can be built there. 'If you are planning to purchase real estate properties or to build new homes in Japan, it is recommended that you understand Land Use Zones and the details of all the categories, because the neighborhood environment and what you can build may be different in each Land Use Zone.' https://www.realestate-tokyo.com/news/land-use-zones-in-japan/
Yes, they have a zonal system with codes.
Hence why I've been advocating we abolish our planning system and switch to zonal with codes instead.
You pointing out the nation with a zoning system that I've been calling for and using as an example of a model that works, has a zoning system, is not news to me.
On the subject of the census many 100,000 identify as being a jedi....you really think they believe in the force? Of course not....but you believe everyone who says jew, muslim or christian believes in the beard in the sky
It always saddens me when people (not you) use their religion as a joke. It should be the most important thing to you, a very personal link and promise to God. Not a casual witticism on a form.
Which God?
The word 'God' used in that context and with a capital 'G' refers to the commonly held belief that there is and can be only a maximum of one such God, and that this fact is part of the definition. To ask 'which God' is even more redundant than asking which Sunak is currently PM of the UK. This is of course consistent with there being zero instead of one, which is perfectly possible though personally I don't think that is the case.
The Guardian piece is a steaming pile of crud, to the extent that I just can't be bothered to demolish it. It's self-collapsing, like a speculatively-built Georgian house .
He doesn't make any argument, never mind a coherent one.
Never give a spreadsheet to a barrister who wants to troll Guardianistas into buying the book he's launching next week ...
My father would put christian on the census he is a total atheist the census is worthless
Some of the non religious would also be agnostics, not outright atheists
A small point but FWIW everyone without exception is agnostic. What is true or untrue about God/no god and all that is not a knowable item.
That's the point about belief, which is what distinguishes people with belief from agnostics.
Some people will believe anything.
There's not much reasoning to be done with deeply-held beliefs.
I don't agree some beliefs welcome questioning and they don't expect others to live up to the standards set by their beliefs. These are benign beliefs.
Alternatively there are beliefs that don't welcome questioning and think everyone should have to comply to their standards. These are malign beliefs
@MarqueeMark it wouldn't surprise me if Totnes became a three-way marginal
Strictly speaking there isn’t going to be a Totnes constituency any more. It is being subsumed by South Devon. But Electoral Calculus agrees with you: 37% Cons, 32% Lab, 31% LibDem.
I’m in the neighbouring Newton Abbot constituency and under the boundary changes it is a lot more marginal. A quite plausible Lab GAIN. I’d be delighted to see Anne Morris get the boot.
Clearly a seat that needs a steer on tactical voting.
I don’t think the outcome of the general election is going to be determined by tactical voting. Tories lose, Labour win. More or less tactical voting may effect the majority, but polling doesn’t suggest that tactics voting is critical.
The extent of tactical voting is important only for those of us betting on LibDem seat numbers.
He was fun and interesting. Sure he was provocative and right wing and possibly pro-Putin (tho quite subtle about it) - I can see why his views might have outraged people, but then @148grss views are outrageous to me, but I don’t want him cancelled, quite the opposite
However I expect you have a solid moderators’ reason for cancelling him, and if so fair enuff
I didn't ban him, so I don't know.
I just want reassurance people aren’t being banned for provocative opinions.
You must be new here.
That reassurance doesn't exist. As @RodCrosby , @isam and @MrEd can testify, having provocative opinions is pretty much the only thing that gets you reliably banned. PB operates on pub rules: if it pisses @OGH or his helpers off you get thrown out. If you want to complain that you are being cancelled I understand that the Spectator pays complainants to complain about viscious[1] things on Twitter.
[1] Yes I know it's "vicious". But Rob Liddle is really oily and oozes dribble, so, y'know...
I could point out many seem to feel my opinions are provocative yet I am still here
Provocative but always interesting and that is coming from a LD whom I know you hate.
I don't hate lib dems I merely said it was the only party I would vote to keep out, not the same thing
Badly worded by me. I always get the impression we would get on. I know I could never convert you, but I feel I could make you less anti.
My problem with your party is merely one of honesty, your candidates come across as we will say what we need to get elected and then do what we want when elected. All politicians do it however your party seems completely fine with candidates giving different messages in different constituencies as long as they get voted in. At least other parties get there candidates to mostly sell a common view.
I would like to discuss with you, but don't have time at the moment, but I disagree and I'm happy to at a later date. It is an accusations often put to the LDs. One of the issues, particularly in the past was the Liberals had a wide spectrum of seats unlike other parties. The priorities in Bermondsey are very different to Richmond or St Ives. The basic philosophy though is the same throughout. I would be amazed if you couldn't find some hypocrisy, but generally they are pretty consistent.
Welcome to dm me so we can discuss at leisure
Cheers. Worth doing here as others will I am sure agree with you - you definitely aren't alone in your view. Just very busy at present.
On the general topic of being controversial though - keep it up. I enjoy your posts, even the ones I disagree with. They are often thought provoking.
Agree about the NIMBYS but we also need to deal with one of the biggest obstacles to housebuilding - the building firms.
How can it be acceptable that last year, when prices stopped rising as sharply as they had been, the big developers cut back on their building programmes specificaly citing the platauing of house prices?
Housebuilders are sitting on hundredas of thousands of plots with planning permission and are refusing to build on them.
That, and the regulation of new builds is almost non-existent. If you're lucky you get a structurally sound ludicrously expensive rabbit hutch out of your typical volume housebuilder. If you're unlucky the thing is full of serious faults that they don't want to spend money putting right and, as many horrified buyers have quickly discovered, they don't want to do the work and you can do nothing more than beg to get them to do it. The NHBC certificate is worthless.
Personally, I wouldn't buy a new build under any circumstances. Not good value, not worth the risk.
We bought new build Barrett in 2005 and we got a good one. Garden full of rubble with major drainage issues. Wall cavities not full of insulation as supposed to be. Cracks in wall and ceiling plaster as the building settled.
Then we had a hole open up in the downstairs ceiling right above the front door. Just as it was on sale with people coming for viewings. And - having had conversations with various neighbours - we appear to have got a good one!
Never again.
Standards have clearly deteriorated over time. My flat was built about 20 years ago and, apart from a little bit of plaster cracking and the windows being a little on the cheap side, it's fine.
Nowadays you can barely move for tales of wonky walls and collapsed ceilings. There was even a case in Cambridge recently where the shysters built houses that started falling down before they'd finished building them. Those got torn down, but you bet if they could've disguised the problems with plaster and paint they would've flogged them off.
What's insane is that standards have gotten worse, as costs and regulation have risen.
Many objections to new housing would disappear is they weren’t so horrendously ugly. Vile redbrick warts all over our fair land
Build nice Georgian terraces or Victorian semis with proper windows and build them with gentle density - four or five storeys
Make them handsome and make sure there is infrastructure and community - pubs and shops that are walkable - not soulless Barratt bart-burbs based on the car
It would help, but given the types of objection many raise which have nothing to do with appearance and character, and more to do with principle or separate material matters, it wouldn't make that much difference.
The infrastructure point would remove many more - some objections are because people genuinely don't know that contributions from the development may well address those concerns - but given that people also object to infrastructure and amenity changes, I wouldn't bet a non-existent house on it.
Except contributions from development notoriously don't address those concerns. One of the big problems with Barts loony plans for getting rid of planning is that part of that planning is making developers make contibutions towards servcies. It is a failing system which needs reform but not abolition. Indeed we need more power to force developers to properly fund services - particularly GPs and schools.
Bart's issue with planning is he fundementally misunderstands what it is and what it does. He wrongly sees it as the main impediment to building (it isn't) and thinks that by sweeping it away things will magically get better and we will get more houses built (we won't).
The idea that freeing up more land for building will get more houses built is a fallacy. As I have pointed out before available land with planning permission far outstrips the number of houses being built and the gap has widened every year for the last decade or more.
Why should housebuilders, any more than candlestick makers, be required to fund schools and bits of the NHS? This is a tax payer liability; housebuilders provide a service, the growing population they serve is a direct result of government migration policy, and the consequences are a state liability.
Because ever since Thatcher we have worked on the principle of 'polluter pays'. Local councils cannot control how many houses are built in their area - this is assigned from central government. But central Government is not willing to pay for all the costs of the services associated with all the new building. So if they will not pay and the local councils cannot pay then it is down to the company actually making the profit to pay.
But it's not pollution.
Population growth is not due to construction. Healthcare demand, school demand, none of it comes from construction. Fail to build sufficient houses (as we have) and demand is still there.
Demand comes from population growth, not housing growth. You want to tax the "polluter" then fine, but construction is not it. It's a response to population growth, not it's cause.
This feels like undergrad economic theory (and that isn’t intended as a compliment).
On one level you’re right. But in practice houses without adequate services are a significant part of why Britain feels so broken at the moment.
House building generates externalities. Wishing those away is not good policy.
What externalities?
Name one single externality that isn't due to population growth instead.
Children need schools whether they live in a home with their parents, or are crammed into a single room with their parents in someone else's home.
People need healthcare whether they have a home of their own, or are in a room in someone else's home.
It’s not that it’s not due to population growth, it’s that that growth is unevenly distributed. You can’t just move a school or GP surgery because the kids crammed into existing housing move to a new build 20 miles away.
So why shouldn't central government which is taking the taxes from migrants (and everyone else) for that matter pay for the new schools and GP surgeries?
Central government issues the visas that cause population growth. Central government takes their income tax. Central government takes their national insurance. Central government takes the VAT. Central government takes duties.
Why should it not use its funds to pay for the externalities of its choices?
As I’ve already said, on one level I agree with what you are saying.
But you’re still like the economist who prefers his theory over reality.
There is currently no money for central government to provide adequate services.
At the same time there is market failure in the housing market such that big developers can make significant profit building fairly crap homes. Forcing the developers to also pay for services intervenes to address that market failure in a pretty blunt way, but it seems like the least worst option at the moment.
And it’s not a tax on new homeowners. You can bet that those new builds will be priced at whatever the market can bear regardless, so this isn’t a cost that will be passed onto buyers. Instead it is bringing private profit back into the public sphere. Which is a good thing right now given how broken our public services are.
There is a shortfall of housing and your solution is to tax housing. That makes the problem worse not better.
That's like saying there's a shortfall of dentistry, so the solution is to tax dentists more in response.
We need millions more houses. Free the market and allow construction to happen and we can solve it.
Central government needs to own up to the consequences of its policies. If it gives millions of visas that's perfectly fine but then it needs to pay for the infrastructure, not expect young people buying a house to pay for its choices.
We need millions more houses. 100% agree.
But if those houses are built without adequate services and infrastructure we will simply create another problem, just as significant for the future prosperity of the country.
So the services are needed. If there is a better solution than making developers contribute to paying for them I’m all ears. But I haven’t heard one so far.
And I’m not at all convinced that this tax on housing is the bottleneck in the supply.
I've given you a better solution.
The government that takes the taxes and issues the visas pays its own way, from the taxes it takes which are levied on the people it issued the visas too and everyone else.
What do we pay our taxes for, if not investment in public services?
If the Government won't pay for the investment population growth requires then it shouldn't issue the visas. But it can, from the taxes it levies on those it issued the visas too and others.
It not wanting to is a different matter.
I think I’ll leave this here. I don’t think you’re operating in the real world.
He is utterly utterly useless. He might actually be the most unskilled PM we’ve ever had!
Liz Truss.
In fairness to the Mad Tory In The Attic, she did have an idea of what was wrong and a logically coherent plan on how to fix it. It went wrong because no battle plan survives contact with the enemy and modern-day circs meant it wouldn't work, but that's not the point. Sunak on the other hand is a conspiracy theorist who spends all day on his phone believing Twitter. He might actually be the worst post WW2 PM if you don't count Eden
The Grauniad is utterly insane if they think we don't need housing construction.
There simply aren't enough houses in the country. We need millions more, not hundreds of thousands more.
We need villages to become towns, towns to become cities and cities to become bigger. We need new towns. We need massive, mammoth house building.
Any NIMBYs need to go to hell. No tolerance for their BS.
1. It's not The Guardian saying we don't need more houses, it's a barrister writing in The Guardian, a paper which often publishes views outside the Overton window.
2. How do you answer the assertion in the article, supported by OECD data, that the UK has in fact about the average number of homes per capita when compared with the rest of the developed world?
Like you, my position has been that we need more housing, but now I wonder. It's not as if we have 10,000s of people on the streets or living in temporary camps. The vast majority of people are housed right now. Arguably, building more houses would just lead to more empty houses.
The issue seems to be our wealth inequality, particularly between the over-45s and the under-45s, which distorts the housing market.
So, I (living on a pension, 100% equity in a large house) could afford to buy a 3-bed house locally, without a mortgage (but I could easily get a competitive mortgage if needed which I can service with the rental income), whereas a young working family on low-pay cannot get a look-in because they can't save enough to get a deposit.
Thus, controlling rents would seem to be a way to go. At implementation fix the level at the rents being charged at the time the bill was published. Freeze rents for 10 years and allow inflation to do its work.
Of course the BLT landlords would squeal as would free-marketeers, but let them squeal - they can always sell up if they think they can more money elsewhere.
In time, lower real rents mean a lower cost to the taxpayer for Housing Benefit and Universal Credit too as an added fiscal benefit (and indeed every new home-owner is a potential future Housing Benefit claimant avoided).
It's certainly more complicated than national supply/demand.
The number of spare bedrooms in the UK has increased by 2 million over the last decade, even while the population has increased. So, at the very least, we're building the wrong kind of housing in the wrong place.
You could plaster Benbecula with homes and it isn't going to do anything for the housing crisis in Manchester.
Spare bedrooms is an irrelevant statistic.
It's the circle of life that people get a home they need, get a bit older, their kids leave home, then they continue living until they die and someone else moves into the home who may need all those rooms once more. Until their kids get older and the cycle continues.
Build more 3 plus bedroom homes and the problem is solved. Then young adults and migrants alike can have a home of their own, while existing homeowners can continue to live where they've put down roots.
Or should old people be forced to live 3 couples sharing a 3 bedroom house rather than each having their own home?
Plus of course studies where people work from home are classed as spare rooms.
The total number of bedrooms available in the UK is increasing faster than the population.
If your concern is solving the housing crisis, building lots of half empty or entirely empty homes is not very clever.
You might want to check your facts as they don't add up.
Spare bedrooms have risen by 2 million according to you in the last decade. Our population has grown by 4 million in the last decade.
How is 2 million more than 4 million? In what universe?
We aren't building lots of empty homes, we need more homes for young people, young people have kids, so we need to build three bedroom homes.
That old people remain where they already were is irrelevant.
@MarqueeMark it wouldn't surprise me if Totnes became a three-way marginal
Strictly speaking there isn’t going to be a Totnes constituency any more. It is being subsumed by South Devon. But Electoral Calculus agrees with you: 37% Cons, 32% Lab, 31% LibDem.
I’m in the neighbouring Newton Abbot constituency and under the boundary changes it is a lot more marginal. A quite plausible Lab GAIN. I’d be delighted to see Anne Morris get the boot.
Clearly a seat that needs a steer on tactical voting.
I don’t think the outcome of the general election is going to be determined by tactical voting. Tories lose, Labour win. More or less tactical voting may effect the majority, but polling doesn’t suggest that tactics voting is critical.
The extent of tactical voting is important only for those of us betting on LibDem seat numbers.
He was fun and interesting. Sure he was provocative and right wing and possibly pro-Putin (tho quite subtle about it) - I can see why his views might have outraged people, but then @148grss views are outrageous to me, but I don’t want him cancelled, quite the opposite
However I expect you have a solid moderators’ reason for cancelling him, and if so fair enuff
I didn't ban him, so I don't know.
I just want reassurance people aren’t being banned for provocative opinions.
You must be new here.
That reassurance doesn't exist. As @RodCrosby , @isam and @MrEd can testify, having provocative opinions is pretty much the only thing that gets you reliably banned. PB operates on pub rules: if it pisses @OGH or his helpers off you get thrown out. If you want to complain that you are being cancelled I understand that the Spectator pays complainants to complain about viscious[1] things on Twitter.
[1] Yes I know it's "vicious". But Rob Liddle is really oily and oozes dribble, so, y'know...
I could point out many seem to feel my opinions are provocative yet I am still here
Provocative but always interesting and that is coming from a LD whom I know you hate.
I don't hate lib dems I merely said it was the only party I would vote to keep out, not the same thing
Badly worded by me. I always get the impression we would get on. I know I could never convert you, but I feel I could make you less anti.
My problem with your party is merely one of honesty, your candidates come across as we will say what we need to get elected and then do what we want when elected. All politicians do it however your party seems completely fine with candidates giving different messages in different constituencies as long as they get voted in. At least other parties get there candidates to mostly sell a common view.
I would like to discuss with you, but don't have time at the moment, but I disagree and I'm happy to at a later date. It is an accusations often put to the LDs. One of the issues, particularly in the past was the Liberals had a wide spectrum of seats unlike other parties. The priorities in Bermondsey are very different to Richmond or St Ives. The basic philosophy though is the same throughout. I would be amazed if you couldn't find some hypocrisy, but generally they are pretty consistent.
Welcome to dm me so we can discuss at leisure
Cheers. Worth doing here as others will I am sure agree with you - you definitely aren't alone in your view. Just very busy at present.
On the general topic of being controversial though - keep it up. I enjoy your posts, even the ones I disagree with. They are often thought provoking.
Agree about the NIMBYS but we also need to deal with one of the biggest obstacles to housebuilding - the building firms.
How can it be acceptable that last year, when prices stopped rising as sharply as they had been, the big developers cut back on their building programmes specificaly citing the platauing of house prices?
Housebuilders are sitting on hundredas of thousands of plots with planning permission and are refusing to build on them.
That, and the regulation of new builds is almost non-existent. If you're lucky you get a structurally sound ludicrously expensive rabbit hutch out of your typical volume housebuilder. If you're unlucky the thing is full of serious faults that they don't want to spend money putting right and, as many horrified buyers have quickly discovered, they don't want to do the work and you can do nothing more than beg to get them to do it. The NHBC certificate is worthless.
Personally, I wouldn't buy a new build under any circumstances. Not good value, not worth the risk.
We bought new build Barrett in 2005 and we got a good one. Garden full of rubble with major drainage issues. Wall cavities not full of insulation as supposed to be. Cracks in wall and ceiling plaster as the building settled.
Then we had a hole open up in the downstairs ceiling right above the front door. Just as it was on sale with people coming for viewings. And - having had conversations with various neighbours - we appear to have got a good one!
Never again.
Standards have clearly deteriorated over time. My flat was built about 20 years ago and, apart from a little bit of plaster cracking and the windows being a little on the cheap side, it's fine.
Nowadays you can barely move for tales of wonky walls and collapsed ceilings. There was even a case in Cambridge recently where the shysters built houses that started falling down before they'd finished building them. Those got torn down, but you bet if they could've disguised the problems with plaster and paint they would've flogged them off.
What's insane is that standards have gotten worse, as costs and regulation have risen.
Many objections to new housing would disappear is they weren’t so horrendously ugly. Vile redbrick warts all over our fair land
Build nice Georgian terraces or Victorian semis with proper windows and build them with gentle density - four or five storeys
Make them handsome and make sure there is infrastructure and community - pubs and shops that are walkable - not soulless Barratt bart-burbs based on the car
It would help, but given the types of objection many raise which have nothing to do with appearance and character, and more to do with principle or separate material matters, it wouldn't make that much difference.
The infrastructure point would remove many more - some objections are because people genuinely don't know that contributions from the development may well address those concerns - but given that people also object to infrastructure and amenity changes, I wouldn't bet a non-existent house on it.
Except contributions from development notoriously don't address those concerns. One of the big problems with Barts loony plans for getting rid of planning is that part of that planning is making developers make contibutions towards servcies. It is a failing system which needs reform but not abolition. Indeed we need more power to force developers to properly fund services - particularly GPs and schools.
Bart's issue with planning is he fundementally misunderstands what it is and what it does. He wrongly sees it as the main impediment to building (it isn't) and thinks that by sweeping it away things will magically get better and we will get more houses built (we won't).
The idea that freeing up more land for building will get more houses built is a fallacy. As I have pointed out before available land with planning permission far outstrips the number of houses being built and the gap has widened every year for the last decade or more.
Why should housebuilders, any more than candlestick makers, be required to fund schools and bits of the NHS? This is a tax payer liability; housebuilders provide a service, the growing population they serve is a direct result of government migration policy, and the consequences are a state liability.
Because ever since Thatcher we have worked on the principle of 'polluter pays'. Local councils cannot control how many houses are built in their area - this is assigned from central government. But central Government is not willing to pay for all the costs of the services associated with all the new building. So if they will not pay and the local councils cannot pay then it is down to the company actually making the profit to pay.
But it's not pollution.
Population growth is not due to construction. Healthcare demand, school demand, none of it comes from construction. Fail to build sufficient houses (as we have) and demand is still there.
Demand comes from population growth, not housing growth. You want to tax the "polluter" then fine, but construction is not it. It's a response to population growth, not it's cause.
This feels like undergrad economic theory (and that isn’t intended as a compliment).
On one level you’re right. But in practice houses without adequate services are a significant part of why Britain feels so broken at the moment.
House building generates externalities. Wishing those away is not good policy.
What externalities?
Name one single externality that isn't due to population growth instead.
Children need schools whether they live in a home with their parents, or are crammed into a single room with their parents in someone else's home.
People need healthcare whether they have a home of their own, or are in a room in someone else's home.
It’s not that it’s not due to population growth, it’s that that growth is unevenly distributed. You can’t just move a school or GP surgery because the kids crammed into existing housing move to a new build 20 miles away.
So why shouldn't central government which is taking the taxes from migrants (and everyone else) for that matter pay for the new schools and GP surgeries?
Central government issues the visas that cause population growth. Central government takes their income tax. Central government takes their national insurance. Central government takes the VAT. Central government takes duties.
Why should it not use its funds to pay for the externalities of its choices?
As I’ve already said, on one level I agree with what you are saying.
But you’re still like the economist who prefers his theory over reality.
There is currently no money for central government to provide adequate services.
At the same time there is market failure in the housing market such that big developers can make significant profit building fairly crap homes. Forcing the developers to also pay for services intervenes to address that market failure in a pretty blunt way, but it seems like the least worst option at the moment.
And it’s not a tax on new homeowners. You can bet that those new builds will be priced at whatever the market can bear regardless, so this isn’t a cost that will be passed onto buyers. Instead it is bringing private profit back into the public sphere. Which is a good thing right now given how broken our public services are.
There is a shortfall of housing and your solution is to tax housing. That makes the problem worse not better.
That's like saying there's a shortfall of dentistry, so the solution is to tax dentists more in response.
We need millions more houses. Free the market and allow construction to happen and we can solve it.
Central government needs to own up to the consequences of its policies. If it gives millions of visas that's perfectly fine but then it needs to pay for the infrastructure, not expect young people buying a house to pay for its choices.
We need millions more houses. 100% agree.
But if those houses are built without adequate services and infrastructure we will simply create another problem, just as significant for the future prosperity of the country.
So the services are needed. If there is a better solution than making developers contribute to paying for them I’m all ears. But I haven’t heard one so far.
And I’m not at all convinced that this tax on housing is the bottleneck in the supply.
I've given you a better solution.
The government that takes the taxes and issues the visas pays its own way, from the taxes it takes which are levied on the people it issued the visas too and everyone else.
What do we pay our taxes for, if not investment in public services?
If the Government won't pay for the investment population growth requires then it shouldn't issue the visas. But it can, from the taxes it levies on those it issued the visas too and others.
It not wanting to is a different matter.
I think I’ll leave this here. I don’t think you’re operating in the real world.
Why not?
What are our taxes for if not for paying for schools and hospitals?
Is that...real? I mean it isn't a spoof or anything?
So I’m currently writing a paper on some research I have been getting my group to do, involving anti cancer properties from some novel capsaicinoids (think capsaicin and other compounds from chillies, but made more potent by modifications). I did my lit review last week, found around 15 papers that looked relevant for the background/intro and then screened them down to 6 which are relevant. I then played with Chatgpt. It produced a thousand words of fluff around the subject. No detail, no references, no actual science. I can see why it scares the crap out of our resident journalist - it seems competent at spitting out fluff already. But for serious scientific argument? I could use the basic structure and modify, but to be honest I wrote the draft intro over a couple of hours and it includes around twenty accurate citations. It may (and surely will get better). But at the moment it’s miles away from replacing me (long may that continue…)
Claude 3 is significantly better than ChatGPT. And GPT4 - which is the basis of ChatGPT - will likely be superseded this summer by GPT5. Which some claim is a huge leap in capability, some even claim it is AGI
It’s coming
Will Claude 4 run the Labour Party ?
There will come a point when A.I. (whether it is sentient or not) will be obviously better at making vastly complex political-economic decisions. It will be better because it will be able to draw on near-infinite amounts of data at incredible speed - and hugely better at extrapolating the outcomes (the same way it is now superior at chess and Go - Ai can think much further ahead)
At this point, if logic prevails, we should hand over most governance to the machines. This juncture could easily arrive in the next 5 years
My father would put christian on the census he is a total atheist the census is worthless
Some of the non religious would also be agnostics, not outright atheists
A small point but FWIW everyone without exception is agnostic. What is true or untrue about God/no god and all that is not a knowable item.
That's the point about belief, which is what distinguishes people with belief from agnostics.
Agnosticism as a word refers to knowledge (gnosis), not belief. They are not the same thing. Belief is mental assent; knowledge is 'justified true belief'. With regard to God stuff, only belief or unbelief is available to us, not knowledge. This is true for theists and non theists alike.
Agnosticism merely recognises that we cannot know.
To be fair to another news channel, Al Jaz, which was pretty much wall-to-wall Gaza at the end of last year, they have been covering Sudan and Haiti in some detail in recent weeks.
My father would put christian on the census he is a total atheist the census is worthless
Some of the non religious would also be agnostics, not outright atheists
A small point but FWIW everyone without exception is agnostic. What is true or untrue about God/no god and all that is not a knowable item.
That's the point about belief, which is what distinguishes people with belief from agnostics.
Some people will believe anything.
There's not much reasoning to be done with deeply-held beliefs.
I don't agree some beliefs welcome questioning and they don't expect others to live up to the standards set by their beliefs. These are benign beliefs.
Alternatively there are beliefs that don't welcome questioning and think everyone should have to comply to their standards. These are malign beliefs
There is a huge difference
I am perfectly willing to talk about my beliefs and to have them questioned, but I don't think that my beliefs are that likely to be changed, regardless of any evidence or argument they is presented to the contrary. This is what I mean by saying there is not much reasoning to be done.
I think this is what distinguishes a belief from a conclusion.
And it's worth pointing out that beliefs don't have to relate only to religions. People will tend to have all sorts of beliefs that they might not realise are beliefs, because they don't relate to a religion.
@MarqueeMark it wouldn't surprise me if Totnes became a three-way marginal
Strictly speaking there isn’t going to be a Totnes constituency any more. It is being subsumed by South Devon. But Electoral Calculus agrees with you: 37% Cons, 32% Lab, 31% LibDem.
I’m in the neighbouring Newton Abbot constituency and under the boundary changes it is a lot more marginal. A quite plausible Lab GAIN. I’d be delighted to see Anne Morris get the boot.
Clearly a seat that needs a steer on tactical voting.
I don’t think the outcome of the general election is going to be determined by tactical voting. Tories lose, Labour win. More or less tactical voting may effect the majority, but polling doesn’t suggest that tactics voting is critical.
The extent of tactical voting is important only for those of us betting on LibDem seat numbers.
He was fun and interesting. Sure he was provocative and right wing and possibly pro-Putin (tho quite subtle about it) - I can see why his views might have outraged people, but then @148grss views are outrageous to me, but I don’t want him cancelled, quite the opposite
However I expect you have a solid moderators’ reason for cancelling him, and if so fair enuff
I didn't ban him, so I don't know.
I just want reassurance people aren’t being banned for provocative opinions.
You must be new here.
That reassurance doesn't exist. As @RodCrosby , @isam and @MrEd can testify, having provocative opinions is pretty much the only thing that gets you reliably banned. PB operates on pub rules: if it pisses @OGH or his helpers off you get thrown out. If you want to complain that you are being cancelled I understand that the Spectator pays complainants to complain about viscious[1] things on Twitter.
[1] Yes I know it's "vicious". But Rob Liddle is really oily and oozes dribble, so, y'know...
I could point out many seem to feel my opinions are provocative yet I am still here
Provocative but always interesting and that is coming from a LD whom I know you hate.
I don't hate lib dems I merely said it was the only party I would vote to keep out, not the same thing
Badly worded by me. I always get the impression we would get on. I know I could never convert you, but I feel I could make you less anti.
My problem with your party is merely one of honesty, your candidates come across as we will say what we need to get elected and then do what we want when elected. All politicians do it however your party seems completely fine with candidates giving different messages in different constituencies as long as they get voted in. At least other parties get there candidates to mostly sell a common view.
I would like to discuss with you, but don't have time at the moment, but I disagree and I'm happy to at a later date. It is an accusations often put to the LDs. One of the issues, particularly in the past was the Liberals had a wide spectrum of seats unlike other parties. The priorities in Bermondsey are very different to Richmond or St Ives. The basic philosophy though is the same throughout. I would be amazed if you couldn't find some hypocrisy, but generally they are pretty consistent.
Welcome to dm me so we can discuss at leisure
Cheers. Worth doing here as others will I am sure agree with you - you definitely aren't alone in your view. Just very busy at present.
On the general topic of being controversial though - keep it up. I enjoy your posts, even the ones I disagree with. They are often thought provoking.
Having taken ayahuasca twice (and for other reasons) I am utterly convinced there is a much much deeper layer of reality; where consciousness entwines with the universe in some kind of divinely glittering double helix. A descending baroque staircase of beauty and meaning, made of the diamonds of time
Do I “know” this? Not in any scientific way. Do I believe this? No, it is more than “belief”
So what is the word? There isn’t one. But I have seen this and it is the case
My father would put christian on the census he is a total atheist the census is worthless
Some of the non religious would also be agnostics, not outright atheists
A small point but FWIW everyone without exception is agnostic. What is true or untrue about God/no god and all that is not a knowable item.
That's the point about belief, which is what distinguishes people with belief from agnostics.
Some people will believe anything.
There's not much reasoning to be done with deeply-held beliefs.
I don't agree some beliefs welcome questioning and they don't expect others to live up to the standards set by their beliefs. These are benign beliefs.
Alternatively there are beliefs that don't welcome questioning and think everyone should have to comply to their standards. These are malign beliefs
There is a huge difference
I am perfectly willing to talk about my beliefs and to have them questioned, but I don't think that my beliefs are that likely to be changed, regardless of any evidence or argument they is presented to the contrary. This is what I mean by saying there is not much reasoning to be done.
I think this is what distinguishes a belief from a conclusion.
And it's worth pointing out that beliefs don't have to relate only to religions. People will tend to have all sorts of beliefs that they might not realise are beliefs, because they don't relate to a religion.
That is fair enough to say, I think though I was trying to distinguish between this is what I believe and it doesnt matter if you dont and this is what I believe and you have to as well
O/T I came across an interesting issue today at CAB. It's a bit long but I have a PB brains trust question at the end. I can obviously only share the general details but in essence:
- This person was subject to a clever phishing attack late last year and unwittingly gave the scammers enough information to guess her password and access her bank account. - As she is relatively poor the scammers couldn't pinch much money from her already heavily overdrawn account. - Her high street bank spotted the unusual activity and quickly cancelled her debit card, made her change her online password, and refunded the fraudulent transactions (well done them). - In the meantime the scammers, presumably realising the account was empty, used the victim's personal details to arrange a £5,000 loan from a well-known online loans platform that lends to clients with poor credit ratings. - Sadly for the scammers, by the time the loan arrived in the victim's account they were locked out.
So far, so straighforward. At this point simply contact the lender, get them to cancel the loan and return the £5,000 - sorted.
Unfortunately though, the individual is not great with money, she is poor and heavily overdrawn. Or rather was - but now the overdraft has been cleared and there's a thousand or so to spare in the account.
Not pretending (or really wanting) to know how that's happened she decided to clear one or two overdue bills and before you know it the £5,000 has completely gone.
Then she realises that she's on the hook for £190 pm repayments to the lender (at 48% APR ffs!), that she can't afford. For five years.
So, what to do?
She can't pay back the principal (it's certain her bank will not be so generous with her overdraft this time round).
Should she approach the lender explain the situation, get them to cancel the loan, and offer to pay it back at what she can afford (£20pm max), ideally with no interest? That'll take over 20 years btw, much longer if the insist on interest.
If she takes debt advice and she'll probably be led to a Debt Relief Order, which would clear this, her only debt. Lender loses out but fuck it - 48% APR, they must expect some losses.
Bottom line is, she never took out the loan - though she has spent the money, of course.
Is that...real? I mean it isn't a spoof or anything?
So I’m currently writing a paper on some research I have been getting my group to do, involving anti cancer properties from some novel capsaicinoids (think capsaicin and other compounds from chillies, but made more potent by modifications). I did my lit review last week, found around 15 papers that looked relevant for the background/intro and then screened them down to 6 which are relevant. I then played with Chatgpt. It produced a thousand words of fluff around the subject. No detail, no references, no actual science. I can see why it scares the crap out of our resident journalist - it seems competent at spitting out fluff already. But for serious scientific argument? I could use the basic structure and modify, but to be honest I wrote the draft intro over a couple of hours and it includes around twenty accurate citations. It may (and surely will get better). But at the moment it’s miles away from replacing me (long may that continue…)
Claude 3 is significantly better than ChatGPT. And GPT4 - which is the basis of ChatGPT - will likely be superseded this summer by GPT5. Which some claim is a huge leap in capability, some even claim it is AGI
It’s coming
Will Claude 4 run the Labour Party ?
There will come a point when A.I. (whether it is sentient or not) will be obviously better at making vastly complex political-economic decisions. It will be better because it will be able to draw on near-infinite amounts of data at incredible speed - and hugely better at extrapolating the outcomes (the same way it is now superior at chess and Go - Ai can think much further ahead)
At this point, if logic prevails, we should hand over most governance to the machines. This juncture could easily arrive in the next 5 years
That's a doubtful proposition. However smart they become, why would we assume they have any interest in our interests ?
Of course it's not impossible that we might, in due course, have no choice in the matter.
Anyway, you might at least have acknowledged the pun.
Having taken ayahuasca twice (and for other reasons) I am utterly convinced there is a much much deeper layer of reality; where consciousness entwines with the universe in some kind of divinely glittering double helix. A descending baroque staircase of beauty and meaning, made of the diamonds of time
Do I “know” this? Not in any scientific way. Do I believe this? No, it is more than “belief”
So what is the word? There isn’t one. But I have seen this and it is the case
Faith is the word. A belief in something for which there is no tangible evidence.
He is utterly utterly useless. He might actually be the most unskilled PM we’ve ever had!
Liz Truss.
Nah, less skilled than Truss. Truss's premiership was an exploding clown car powered by some obvious mistakes... but there was some plausibility about her acting like a politician.
Sunak looks like a bright kid on work experience who has somehow been left in charge. Maybe everyone else has been sacked and he just didn't get the memo.
He can't do politics because he hasn't got the practice in. The wet Wednesday nights away at Accrington. The years doing weekly rep. Fighting a hopeless seat or being opposition spokesman on school photocopiers.
Or he's Mickey Mouse in the Sorcerer's Apprentice sequence in Fantasia, increasingly overwhelmed by forces he thought he could control, but can't.
Having taken ayahuasca twice (and for other reasons) I am utterly convinced there is a much much deeper layer of reality; where consciousness entwines with the universe in some kind of divinely glittering double helix. A descending baroque staircase of beauty and meaning, made of the diamonds of time
Do I “know” this? Not in any scientific way. Do I believe this? No, it is more than “belief”
So what is the word? There isn’t one. But I have seen this and it is the case
“double helix”
Isn’t it scientifically proven the Strands of DNA entwine in certain way by singing song to each other?
If you are unaware of this science it’s spooky you used this phrase after ayahuasca
Is that...real? I mean it isn't a spoof or anything?
So I’m currently writing a paper on some research I have been getting my group to do, involving anti cancer properties from some novel capsaicinoids (think capsaicin and other compounds from chillies, but made more potent by modifications). I did my lit review last week, found around 15 papers that looked relevant for the background/intro and then screened them down to 6 which are relevant. I then played with Chatgpt. It produced a thousand words of fluff around the subject. No detail, no references, no actual science. I can see why it scares the crap out of our resident journalist - it seems competent at spitting out fluff already. But for serious scientific argument? I could use the basic structure and modify, but to be honest I wrote the draft intro over a couple of hours and it includes around twenty accurate citations. It may (and surely will get better). But at the moment it’s miles away from replacing me (long may that continue…)
Claude 3 is significantly better than ChatGPT. And GPT4 - which is the basis of ChatGPT - will likely be superseded this summer by GPT5. Which some claim is a huge leap in capability, some even claim it is AGI
Is that...real? I mean it isn't a spoof or anything?
So I’m currently writing a paper on some research I have been getting my group to do, involving anti cancer properties from some novel capsaicinoids (think capsaicin and other compounds from chillies, but made more potent by modifications). I did my lit review last week, found around 15 papers that looked relevant for the background/intro and then screened them down to 6 which are relevant. I then played with Chatgpt. It produced a thousand words of fluff around the subject. No detail, no references, no actual science. I can see why it scares the crap out of our resident journalist - it seems competent at spitting out fluff already. But for serious scientific argument? I could use the basic structure and modify, but to be honest I wrote the draft intro over a couple of hours and it includes around twenty accurate citations. It may (and surely will get better). But at the moment it’s miles away from replacing me (long may that continue…)
Claude 3 is significantly better than ChatGPT. And GPT4 - which is the basis of ChatGPT - will likely be superseded this summer by GPT5. Which some claim is a huge leap in capability, some even claim it is AGI
It’s coming
Will Claude 4 run the Labour Party ?
There will come a point when A.I. (whether it is sentient or not) will be obviously better at making vastly complex political-economic decisions. It will be better because it will be able to draw on near-infinite amounts of data at incredible speed - and hugely better at extrapolating the outcomes (the same way it is now superior at chess and Go - Ai can think much further ahead)
At this point, if logic prevails, we should hand over most governance to the machines. This juncture could easily arrive in the next 5 years
Having taken ayahuasca twice (and for other reasons) I am utterly convinced there is a much much deeper layer of reality; where consciousness entwines with the universe in some kind of divinely glittering double helix. A descending baroque staircase of beauty and meaning, made of the diamonds of time
Do I “know” this? Not in any scientific way. Do I believe this? No, it is more than “belief”
So what is the word? There isn’t one. But I have seen this and it is the case
Faith is the word. A belief in something for which there is no tangible evidence.
No, I have SEEN this
Perhaps that’s it. I don’t believe in god or know god exists nor do I have a mere faith in a god: I have WITNESSED God (or the divine or another reality or whatever you want to call it).
O/T I came across an interesting issue today at CAB. It's a bit long but I have a PB brains trust question at the end. I can obviously only share the general details but in essence:
- This person was subject to a clever phishing attack late last year and unwittingly gave the scammers enough information to guess her password and access her bank account. - As she is relatively poor the scammers couldn't pinch much money from her already heavily overdrawn account. - Her high street bank spotted the unusual activity and quickly cancelled her debit card, made her change her online password, and refunded the fraudulent transactions (well done them). - In the meantime the scammers, presumably realising the account was empty, used the victim's personal details to arrange a £5,000 loan from a well-known online loans platform that lends to clients with poor credit ratings. - Sadly for the scammers, by the time the loan arrived in the victim's account they were locked out.
So far, so straighforward. At this point simply contact the lender, get them to cancel the loan and return the £5,000 - sorted.
Unfortunately though, the individual is not great with money, she is poor and heavily overdrawn. Or rather was - but now the overdraft has been cleared and there's a thousand or so to spare in the account.
Not pretending (or really wanting) to know how that's happened she decided to clear one or two overdue bills and before you know it the £5,000 has completely gone.
Then she realises that she's on the hook for £190 pm repayments to the lender (at 48% APR ffs!), that she can't afford. For five years.
So, what to do?
She can't pay back the principal (it's certain her bank will not be so generous with her overdraft this time round).
Should she approach the lender explain the situation, get them to cancel the loan, and offer to pay it back at what she can afford (£20pm max), ideally with no interest? That'll take over 20 years btw, much longer if the insist on interest.
If she takes debt advice and she'll probably be led to a Debt Relief Order, which would clear this, her only debt. Lender loses out but fuck it - 48% APR, they must expect some losses.
Bottom line is, she never took out the loan - though she has spent the money, of course.
Any ideas?
She didn't take out the loan, so it should be cancelled.
If a debt relied order is needed, so be it, at any APR some losses are factored in let alone a 48% one.
O/T I came across an interesting issue today at CAB. It's a bit long but I have a PB brains trust question at the end. I can obviously only share the general details but in essence:
- This person was subject to a clever phishing attack late last year and unwittingly gave the scammers enough information to guess her password and access her bank account. - As she is relatively poor the scammers couldn't pinch much money from her already heavily overdrawn account. - Her high street bank spotted the unusual activity and quickly cancelled her debit card, made her change her online password, and refunded the fraudulent transactions (well done them). - In the meantime the scammers, presumably realising the account was empty, used the victim's personal details to arrange a £5,000 loan from a well-known online loans platform that lends to clients with poor credit ratings. - Sadly for the scammers, by the time the loan arrived in the victim's account they were locked out.
So far, so straighforward. At this point simply contact the lender, get them to cancel the loan and return the £5,000 - sorted.
Unfortunately though, the individual is not great with money, she is poor and heavily overdrawn. Or rather was - but now the overdraft has been cleared and there's a thousand or so to spare in the account.
Not pretending (or really wanting) to know how that's happened she decided to clear one or two overdue bills and before you know it the £5,000 has completely gone.
Then she realises that she's on the hook for £190 pm repayments to the lender (at 48% APR ffs!), that she can't afford. For five years.
So, what to do?
She can't pay back the principal (it's certain her bank will not be so generous with her overdraft this time round).
Should she approach the lender explain the situation, get them to cancel the loan, and offer to pay it back at what she can afford (£20pm max), ideally with no interest? That'll take over 20 years btw, much longer if the insist on interest.
If she takes debt advice and she'll probably be led to a Debt Relief Order, which would clear this, her only debt. Lender loses out but fuck it - 48% APR, they must expect some losses.
Bottom line is, she never took out the loan - though she has spent the money, of course.
Any ideas?
Does this not fall into the same category as bank errors that accidentally credit you with money that’s not yours? By taking the money etc you are committing an offence. She has been rather foolish, but I can understand why she did it. I suspect contacting the loan company to explain is the first step. But hopefully it can be resolved amicably.
Is that...real? I mean it isn't a spoof or anything?
So I’m currently writing a paper on some research I have been getting my group to do, involving anti cancer properties from some novel capsaicinoids (think capsaicin and other compounds from chillies, but made more potent by modifications). I did my lit review last week, found around 15 papers that looked relevant for the background/intro and then screened them down to 6 which are relevant. I then played with Chatgpt. It produced a thousand words of fluff around the subject. No detail, no references, no actual science. I can see why it scares the crap out of our resident journalist - it seems competent at spitting out fluff already. But for serious scientific argument? I could use the basic structure and modify, but to be honest I wrote the draft intro over a couple of hours and it includes around twenty accurate citations. It may (and surely will get better). But at the moment it’s miles away from replacing me (long may that continue…)
Claude 3 is significantly better than ChatGPT. And GPT4 - which is the basis of ChatGPT - will likely be superseded this summer by GPT5. Which some claim is a huge leap in capability, some even claim it is AGI
It’s coming
Will Claude 4 run the Labour Party ?
There will come a point when A.I. (whether it is sentient or not) will be obviously better at making vastly complex political-economic decisions. It will be better because it will be able to draw on near-infinite amounts of data at incredible speed - and hugely better at extrapolating the outcomes (the same way it is now superior at chess and Go - Ai can think much further ahead)
At this point, if logic prevails, we should hand over most governance to the machines. This juncture could easily arrive in the next 5 years
That's a doubtful proposition. However smart they become, why would we assume they have any interest in our interests ?
Of course it's not impossible that we might, in due course, have no choice in the matter.
Anyway, you might at least have acknowledged the pun.
Is that...real? I mean it isn't a spoof or anything?
So I’m currently writing a paper on some research I have been getting my group to do, involving anti cancer properties from some novel capsaicinoids (think capsaicin and other compounds from chillies, but made more potent by modifications). I did my lit review last week, found around 15 papers that looked relevant for the background/intro and then screened them down to 6 which are relevant. I then played with Chatgpt. It produced a thousand words of fluff around the subject. No detail, no references, no actual science. I can see why it scares the crap out of our resident journalist - it seems competent at spitting out fluff already. But for serious scientific argument? I could use the basic structure and modify, but to be honest I wrote the draft intro over a couple of hours and it includes around twenty accurate citations. It may (and surely will get better). But at the moment it’s miles away from replacing me (long may that continue…)
Claude 3 is significantly better than ChatGPT. And GPT4 - which is the basis of ChatGPT - will likely be superseded this summer by GPT5. Which some claim is a huge leap in capability, some even claim it is AGI
It’s coming
Will Claude 4 run the Labour Party ?
Are you suggesting Starmer will have his Claude 4 moment?
O/T I came across an interesting issue today at CAB. It's a bit long but I have a PB brains trust question at the end. I can obviously only share the general details but in essence:
- This person was subject to a clever phishing attack late last year and unwittingly gave the scammers enough information to guess her password and access her bank account. - As she is relatively poor the scammers couldn't pinch much money from her already heavily overdrawn account. - Her high street bank spotted the unusual activity and quickly cancelled her debit card, made her change her online password, and refunded the fraudulent transactions (well done them). - In the meantime the scammers, presumably realising the account was empty, used the victim's personal details to arrange a £5,000 loan from a well-known online loans platform that lends to clients with poor credit ratings. - Sadly for the scammers, by the time the loan arrived in the victim's account they were locked out.
So far, so straighforward. At this point simply contact the lender, get them to cancel the loan and return the £5,000 - sorted.
Unfortunately though, the individual is not great with money, she is poor and heavily overdrawn. Or rather was - but now the overdraft has been cleared and there's a thousand or so to spare in the account.
Not pretending (or really wanting) to know how that's happened she decided to clear one or two overdue bills and before you know it the £5,000 has completely gone.
Then she realises that she's on the hook for £190 pm repayments to the lender (at 48% APR ffs!), that she can't afford. For five years.
So, what to do?
She can't pay back the principal (it's certain her bank will not be so generous with her overdraft this time round).
Should she approach the lender explain the situation, get them to cancel the loan, and offer to pay it back at what she can afford (£20pm max), ideally with no interest? That'll take over 20 years btw, much longer if the insist on interest.
If she takes debt advice and she'll probably be led to a Debt Relief Order, which would clear this, her only debt. Lender loses out but fuck it - 48% APR, they must expect some losses.
Bottom line is, she never took out the loan - though she has spent the money, of course.
Any ideas?
Needs PB legal brains but strikes me maybe the loan is legally invalid as she did not agree to arrange it.
Having taken ayahuasca twice (and for other reasons) I am utterly convinced there is a much much deeper layer of reality; where consciousness entwines with the universe in some kind of divinely glittering double helix. A descending baroque staircase of beauty and meaning, made of the diamonds of time
Do I “know” this? Not in any scientific way. Do I believe this? No, it is more than “belief”
So what is the word? There isn’t one. But I have seen this and it is the case
Faith is the word. A belief in something for which there is no tangible evidence.
No, I have SEEN this
Perhaps that’s it. I don’t believe in god or know god exists nor do I have a mere faith in a god: I have WITNESSED God (or the divine or another reality or whatever you want to call it).
Is that...real? I mean it isn't a spoof or anything?
So I’m currently writing a paper on some research I have been getting my group to do, involving anti cancer properties from some novel capsaicinoids (think capsaicin and other compounds from chillies, but made more potent by modifications). I did my lit review last week, found around 15 papers that looked relevant for the background/intro and then screened them down to 6 which are relevant. I then played with Chatgpt. It produced a thousand words of fluff around the subject. No detail, no references, no actual science. I can see why it scares the crap out of our resident journalist - it seems competent at spitting out fluff already. But for serious scientific argument? I could use the basic structure and modify, but to be honest I wrote the draft intro over a couple of hours and it includes around twenty accurate citations. It may (and surely will get better). But at the moment it’s miles away from replacing me (long may that continue…)
Claude 3 is significantly better than ChatGPT. And GPT4 - which is the basis of ChatGPT - will likely be superseded this summer by GPT5. Which some claim is a huge leap in capability, some even claim it is AGI
It’s coming
Will Claude 4 run the Labour Party ?
There will come a point when A.I. (whether it is sentient or not) will be obviously better at making vastly complex political-economic decisions. It will be better because it will be able to draw on near-infinite amounts of data at incredible speed - and hugely better at extrapolating the outcomes (the same way it is now superior at chess and Go - Ai can think much further ahead)
At this point, if logic prevails, we should hand over most governance to the machines. This juncture could easily arrive in the next 5 years
Having taken ayahuasca twice (and for other reasons) I am utterly convinced there is a much much deeper layer of reality; where consciousness entwines with the universe in some kind of divinely glittering double helix. A descending baroque staircase of beauty and meaning, made of the diamonds of time
Do I “know” this? Not in any scientific way. Do I believe this? No, it is more than “belief”
So what is the word? There isn’t one. But I have seen this and it is the case
“double helix”
Isn’t it scientifically proven the Strands of DNA entwine in certain way by singing song to each other?
If you are unaware of this science it’s spooky you used this phrase after ayahuasca
Having taken ayahuasca twice (and for other reasons) I am utterly convinced there is a much much deeper layer of reality; where consciousness entwines with the universe in some kind of divinely glittering double helix. A descending baroque staircase of beauty and meaning, made of the diamonds of time
Do I “know” this? Not in any scientific way. Do I believe this? No, it is more than “belief”
So what is the word? There isn’t one. But I have seen this and it is the case
Faith is the word. A belief in something for which there is no tangible evidence.
No, I have SEEN this
Perhaps that’s it. I don’t believe in god or know god exists nor do I have a mere faith in a god: I have WITNESSED God (or the divine or another reality or whatever you want to call it).
You have seen this in your mind's eye. I believe you. That's why I used the word Tangible.
She's like a less attractive version of Kate Middleton. That gives hope I think.
She’s prettier for sure.
She's very pretty - if we're being picky she's got a weak chin, a fairly prominent schnozz and slightly equine teeth.
I think the phrase you are looking for is “a bit horsey.”
I went to school with a classmate who happened to be called Mark Phillips. My RE teacher kept on asking him "You're the one wot married a horse, aren't you?"
Having taken ayahuasca twice (and for other reasons) I am utterly convinced there is a much much deeper layer of reality; where consciousness entwines with the universe in some kind of divinely glittering double helix. A descending baroque staircase of beauty and meaning, made of the diamonds of time
Do I “know” this? Not in any scientific way. Do I believe this? No, it is more than “belief”
So what is the word? There isn’t one. But I have seen this and it is the case
Faith is the word. A belief in something for which there is no tangible evidence.
No, I have SEEN this
Perhaps that’s it. I don’t believe in god or know god exists nor do I have a mere faith in a god: I have WITNESSED God (or the divine or another reality or whatever you want to call it).
You have seen this in your mind's eye. I believe you. That's why I used the word Tangible.
Maybe "witness-faith"?
It’s interesting that English apparently lacks the precise word
O/T I came across an interesting issue today at CAB. It's a bit long but I have a PB brains trust question at the end. I can obviously only share the general details but in essence:
- This person was subject to a clever phishing attack late last year and unwittingly gave the scammers enough information to guess her password and access her bank account. - As she is relatively poor the scammers couldn't pinch much money from her already heavily overdrawn account. - Her high street bank spotted the unusual activity and quickly cancelled her debit card, made her change her online password, and refunded the fraudulent transactions (well done them). - In the meantime the scammers, presumably realising the account was empty, used the victim's personal details to arrange a £5,000 loan from a well-known online loans platform that lends to clients with poor credit ratings. - Sadly for the scammers, by the time the loan arrived in the victim's account they were locked out.
So far, so straighforward. At this point simply contact the lender, get them to cancel the loan and return the £5,000 - sorted.
Unfortunately though, the individual is not great with money, she is poor and heavily overdrawn. Or rather was - but now the overdraft has been cleared and there's a thousand or so to spare in the account.
Not pretending (or really wanting) to know how that's happened she decided to clear one or two overdue bills and before you know it the £5,000 has completely gone.
Then she realises that she's on the hook for £190 pm repayments to the lender (at 48% APR ffs!), that she can't afford. For five years.
So, what to do?
She can't pay back the principal (it's certain her bank will not be so generous with her overdraft this time round).
Should she approach the lender explain the situation, get them to cancel the loan, and offer to pay it back at what she can afford (£20pm max), ideally with no interest? That'll take over 20 years btw, much longer if the insist on interest.
If she takes debt advice and she'll probably be led to a Debt Relief Order, which would clear this, her only debt. Lender loses out but fuck it - 48% APR, they must expect some losses.
Bottom line is, she never took out the loan - though she has spent the money, of course.
Any ideas?
She didn't take out the loan, so it should be cancelled.
If a debt relied order is needed, so be it, at any APR some losses are factored in let alone a 48% one.
If she ends up opting for a DRO there's no real point in cancelling the loan, cos she won't be paying it anyway, but I think the reasonable thing to do would be to explain the situation to them. (I did wonder about asking them to refund the three £190 repayments they have already direct debited. )
Having taken ayahuasca twice (and for other reasons) I am utterly convinced there is a much much deeper layer of reality; where consciousness entwines with the universe in some kind of divinely glittering double helix. A descending baroque staircase of beauty and meaning, made of the diamonds of time
Do I “know” this? Not in any scientific way. Do I believe this? No, it is more than “belief”
So what is the word? There isn’t one. But I have seen this and it is the case
Faith is the word. A belief in something for which there is no tangible evidence.
No, I have SEEN this
Perhaps that’s it. I don’t believe in god or know god exists nor do I have a mere faith in a god: I have WITNESSED God (or the divine or another reality or whatever you want to call it).
You have SEEN it, having ingested a powerful hallucinogenic. All that demonstrates is the power of your imagination. Which we know is quite creative.
Having taken ayahuasca twice (and for other reasons) I am utterly convinced there is a much much deeper layer of reality; where consciousness entwines with the universe in some kind of divinely glittering double helix. A descending baroque staircase of beauty and meaning, made of the diamonds of time
Do I “know” this? Not in any scientific way. Do I believe this? No, it is more than “belief”
So what is the word? There isn’t one. But I have seen this and it is the case
“double helix”
Isn’t it scientifically proven the Strands of DNA entwine in certain way by singing song to each other?
If you are unaware of this science it’s spooky you used this phrase after ayahuasca
What? They sing?? Yes I was unaware of this
Are you having a laugh?!
Sounds like the kind of thing Professor Brian Cox might say in a Blockbuster Sunday Night Science Documentary.
Trying to think what it might mean. The two strands certainly interact, which is neat from a copying point of view.
O/T I came across an interesting issue today at CAB. It's a bit long but I have a PB brains trust question at the end. I can obviously only share the general details but in essence:
- This person was subject to a clever phishing attack late last year and unwittingly gave the scammers enough information to guess her password and access her bank account. - As she is relatively poor the scammers couldn't pinch much money from her already heavily overdrawn account. - Her high street bank spotted the unusual activity and quickly cancelled her debit card, made her change her online password, and refunded the fraudulent transactions (well done them). - In the meantime the scammers, presumably realising the account was empty, used the victim's personal details to arrange a £5,000 loan from a well-known online loans platform that lends to clients with poor credit ratings. - Sadly for the scammers, by the time the loan arrived in the victim's account they were locked out.
So far, so straighforward. At this point simply contact the lender, get them to cancel the loan and return the £5,000 - sorted.
Unfortunately though, the individual is not great with money, she is poor and heavily overdrawn. Or rather was - but now the overdraft has been cleared and there's a thousand or so to spare in the account.
Not pretending (or really wanting) to know how that's happened she decided to clear one or two overdue bills and before you know it the £5,000 has completely gone.
Then she realises that she's on the hook for £190 pm repayments to the lender (at 48% APR ffs!), that she can't afford. For five years.
So, what to do?
She can't pay back the principal (it's certain her bank will not be so generous with her overdraft this time round).
Should she approach the lender explain the situation, get them to cancel the loan, and offer to pay it back at what she can afford (£20pm max), ideally with no interest? That'll take over 20 years btw, much longer if the insist on interest.
If she takes debt advice and she'll probably be led to a Debt Relief Order, which would clear this, her only debt. Lender loses out but fuck it - 48% APR, they must expect some losses.
Bottom line is, she never took out the loan - though she has spent the money, of course.
Any ideas?
Needs PB legal brains but strikes me maybe the loan is legally invalid as she did not agree to arrange it.
But once she found out, was she acting illegally by spending it? Whether the number in the bank account increased from £50 to £5050 or £-4000 to £1000. She should get legal advice first to cover her back, surely? (Not a lawyer).
Is that...real? I mean it isn't a spoof or anything?
So I’m currently writing a paper on some research I have been getting my group to do, involving anti cancer properties from some novel capsaicinoids (think capsaicin and other compounds from chillies, but made more potent by modifications). I did my lit review last week, found around 15 papers that looked relevant for the background/intro and then screened them down to 6 which are relevant. I then played with Chatgpt. It produced a thousand words of fluff around the subject. No detail, no references, no actual science. I can see why it scares the crap out of our resident journalist - it seems competent at spitting out fluff already. But for serious scientific argument? I could use the basic structure and modify, but to be honest I wrote the draft intro over a couple of hours and it includes around twenty accurate citations. It may (and surely will get better). But at the moment it’s miles away from replacing me (long may that continue…)
Claude 3 is significantly better than ChatGPT. And GPT4 - which is the basis of ChatGPT - will likely be superseded this summer by GPT5. Which some claim is a huge leap in capability, some even claim it is AGI
It’s coming
Will Claude 4 run the Labour Party ?
Are you suggesting Starmer will have his Claude 4 moment?
O/T I came across an interesting issue today at CAB. It's a bit long but I have a PB brains trust question at the end. I can obviously only share the general details but in essence:
- This person was subject to a clever phishing attack late last year and unwittingly gave the scammers enough information to guess her password and access her bank account. - As she is relatively poor the scammers couldn't pinch much money from her already heavily overdrawn account. - Her high street bank spotted the unusual activity and quickly cancelled her debit card, made her change her online password, and refunded the fraudulent transactions (well done them). - In the meantime the scammers, presumably realising the account was empty, used the victim's personal details to arrange a £5,000 loan from a well-known online loans platform that lends to clients with poor credit ratings. - Sadly for the scammers, by the time the loan arrived in the victim's account they were locked out.
So far, so straighforward. At this point simply contact the lender, get them to cancel the loan and return the £5,000 - sorted.
Unfortunately though, the individual is not great with money, she is poor and heavily overdrawn. Or rather was - but now the overdraft has been cleared and there's a thousand or so to spare in the account.
Not pretending (or really wanting) to know how that's happened she decided to clear one or two overdue bills and before you know it the £5,000 has completely gone.
Then she realises that she's on the hook for £190 pm repayments to the lender (at 48% APR ffs!), that she can't afford. For five years.
So, what to do?
She can't pay back the principal (it's certain her bank will not be so generous with her overdraft this time round).
Should she approach the lender explain the situation, get them to cancel the loan, and offer to pay it back at what she can afford (£20pm max), ideally with no interest? That'll take over 20 years btw, much longer if the insist on interest.
If she takes debt advice and she'll probably be led to a Debt Relief Order, which would clear this, her only debt. Lender loses out but fuck it - 48% APR, they must expect some losses.
Bottom line is, she never took out the loan - though she has spent the money, of course.
Any ideas?
Needs PB legal brains but strikes me maybe the loan is legally invalid as she did not agree to arrange it.
But once she found out, was she acting illegally by spending it? Whether the number in the bank account increased from £50 to £5050 or £-4000 to £1000. She should get legal advice first to cover her back, surely? (Not a lawyer).
Once she tells the lender of the fraud, her subsequent behaviour looks bad, is my point.
Is that...real? I mean it isn't a spoof or anything?
So I’m currently writing a paper on some research I have been getting my group to do, involving anti cancer properties from some novel capsaicinoids (think capsaicin and other compounds from chillies, but made more potent by modifications). I did my lit review last week, found around 15 papers that looked relevant for the background/intro and then screened them down to 6 which are relevant. I then played with Chatgpt. It produced a thousand words of fluff around the subject. No detail, no references, no actual science. I can see why it scares the crap out of our resident journalist - it seems competent at spitting out fluff already. But for serious scientific argument? I could use the basic structure and modify, but to be honest I wrote the draft intro over a couple of hours and it includes around twenty accurate citations. It may (and surely will get better). But at the moment it’s miles away from replacing me (long may that continue…)
Claude 3 is significantly better than ChatGPT. And GPT4 - which is the basis of ChatGPT - will likely be superseded this summer by GPT5. Which some claim is a huge leap in capability, some even claim it is AGI
It’s coming
Will Claude 4 run the Labour Party ?
There will come a point when A.I. (whether it is sentient or not) will be obviously better at making vastly complex political-economic decisions. It will be better because it will be able to draw on near-infinite amounts of data at incredible speed - and hugely better at extrapolating the outcomes (the same way it is now superior at chess and Go - Ai can think much further ahead)
At this point, if logic prevails, we should hand over most governance to the machines. This juncture could easily arrive in the next 5 years
Could be a Platonic nirvana
I tried it out again and found that GPT is some way off being any use in my work. It is excellent at persuasive reasoning but can't wade through detail.
Having taken ayahuasca twice (and for other reasons) I am utterly convinced there is a much much deeper layer of reality; where consciousness entwines with the universe in some kind of divinely glittering double helix. A descending baroque staircase of beauty and meaning, made of the diamonds of time
Do I “know” this? Not in any scientific way. Do I believe this? No, it is more than “belief”
So what is the word? There isn’t one. But I have seen this and it is the case
Faith is the word. A belief in something for which there is no tangible evidence.
No, I have SEEN this
Perhaps that’s it. I don’t believe in god or know god exists nor do I have a mere faith in a god: I have WITNESSED God (or the divine or another reality or whatever you want to call it).
You have seen this in your mind's eye. I believe you. That's why I used the word Tangible.
Maybe "witness-faith"?
It’s interesting that English apparently lacks the precise word
I suspect there may be a German word for this. But I did Latin, not German. Hopefully we can, between us, either find or create an appropriate German word...
Having taken ayahuasca twice (and for other reasons) I am utterly convinced there is a much much deeper layer of reality; where consciousness entwines with the universe in some kind of divinely glittering double helix. A descending baroque staircase of beauty and meaning, made of the diamonds of time
Do I “know” this? Not in any scientific way. Do I believe this? No, it is more than “belief”
So what is the word? There isn’t one. But I have seen this and it is the case
Faith is the word. A belief in something for which there is no tangible evidence.
No, I have SEEN this
Perhaps that’s it. I don’t believe in god or know god exists nor do I have a mere faith in a god: I have WITNESSED God (or the divine or another reality or whatever you want to call it).
You have SEEN it, having ingested a powerful hallucinogenic. All that demonstrates is the power of your imagination. Which we know is quite creative.
I’m not going to argue over what I personally witnessed and you didn’t. Let’s leave it there
However I will note that a lot of people - even the most atheistic of atheists - find ayahuasca a profoundly spiritual experience and a fair few of them become convinced “believers” after taking it
I am now going to display my faith in the barbers of Palomino Colombia by asking them to give me a haircut when none of them speak English and they basically use spoons
There's something peculiar about Britain in that we can shy away from our strengths.
London and the South East is a strength. There are a huge number of highly productive sectors in the capital with some companies in satellite locations in the area. There are a large number of commuter towns with fast trains into London that are of a modest size and could be easily expanded if the political will existed.
Lots of people want to live in the region. Build and they shall come.
Having taken ayahuasca twice (and for other reasons) I am utterly convinced there is a much much deeper layer of reality; where consciousness entwines with the universe in some kind of divinely glittering double helix. A descending baroque staircase of beauty and meaning, made of the diamonds of time
Do I “know” this? Not in any scientific way. Do I believe this? No, it is more than “belief”
So what is the word? There isn’t one. But I have seen this and it is the case
Faith is the word. A belief in something for which there is no tangible evidence.
No, I have SEEN this
Perhaps that’s it. I don’t believe in god or know god exists nor do I have a mere faith in a god: I have WITNESSED God (or the divine or another reality or whatever you want to call it).
You have SEEN it, having ingested a powerful hallucinogenic. All that demonstrates is the power of your imagination. Which we know is quite creative.
I’m not going to argue over what I personally witnessed and you didn’t. Let’s leave it there
However I will note that a lot of people - even the most atheistic of atheists - find ayahuasca a profoundly spiritual experience and a fair few of them become convinced “believers” after taking it
Having taken ayahuasca twice (and for other reasons) I am utterly convinced there is a much much deeper layer of reality; where consciousness entwines with the universe in some kind of divinely glittering double helix. A descending baroque staircase of beauty and meaning, made of the diamonds of time
Do I “know” this? Not in any scientific way. Do I believe this? No, it is more than “belief”
So what is the word? There isn’t one. But I have seen this and it is the case
Faith is the word. A belief in something for which there is no tangible evidence.
No, I have SEEN this
Perhaps that’s it. I don’t believe in god or know god exists nor do I have a mere faith in a god: I have WITNESSED God (or the divine or another reality or whatever you want to call it).
You have SEEN it, having ingested a powerful hallucinogenic. All that demonstrates is the power of your imagination. Which we know is quite creative.
I’m not going to argue over what I personally witnessed and you didn’t. Let’s leave it there
However I will note that a lot of people - even the most atheistic of atheists - find ayahuasca a profoundly spiritual experience and a fair few of them become convinced “believers” after taking it
I'm not judging either way - simply pointing out that your experience isn't evidence of any kind of persuasiveness for the rest of us.
O/T I came across an interesting issue today at CAB. It's a bit long but I have a PB brains trust question at the end. I can obviously only share the general details but in essence:
- This person was subject to a clever phishing attack late last year and unwittingly gave the scammers enough information to guess her password and access her bank account. - As she is relatively poor the scammers couldn't pinch much money from her already heavily overdrawn account. - Her high street bank spotted the unusual activity and quickly cancelled her debit card, made her change her online password, and refunded the fraudulent transactions (well done them). - In the meantime the scammers, presumably realising the account was empty, used the victim's personal details to arrange a £5,000 loan from a well-known online loans platform that lends to clients with poor credit ratings. - Sadly for the scammers, by the time the loan arrived in the victim's account they were locked out.
So far, so straighforward. At this point simply contact the lender, get them to cancel the loan and return the £5,000 - sorted.
Unfortunately though, the individual is not great with money, she is poor and heavily overdrawn. Or rather was - but now the overdraft has been cleared and there's a thousand or so to spare in the account.
Not pretending (or really wanting) to know how that's happened she decided to clear one or two overdue bills and before you know it the £5,000 has completely gone.
Then she realises that she's on the hook for £190 pm repayments to the lender (at 48% APR ffs!), that she can't afford. For five years.
So, what to do?
She can't pay back the principal (it's certain her bank will not be so generous with her overdraft this time round).
Should she approach the lender explain the situation, get them to cancel the loan, and offer to pay it back at what she can afford (£20pm max), ideally with no interest? That'll take over 20 years btw, much longer if the insist on interest.
If she takes debt advice and she'll probably be led to a Debt Relief Order, which would clear this, her only debt. Lender loses out but fuck it - 48% APR, they must expect some losses.
Bottom line is, she never took out the loan - though she has spent the money, of course.
Any ideas?
Needs PB legal brains but strikes me maybe the loan is legally invalid as she did not agree to arrange it.
But once she found out, was she acting illegally by spending it? Whether the number in the bank account increased from £50 to £5050 or £-4000 to £1000. She should get legal advice first to cover her back, surely? (Not a lawyer).
It's an interesting point and if correct, she'd be better not mentioning the fraud, just defaulting on the loan. Although, what if the loan had taken her over draft from -£6,000 to -£1,000, and the bank won't let her have a larger overdraft back again? Has she 'spent' the money then since it would have happened completely without her knowledge.
I am now going to display my faith in the barbers of Palomino Colombia by asking them to give me a haircut when none of them speak English and they basically use spoons
Having taken ayahuasca twice (and for other reasons) I am utterly convinced there is a much much deeper layer of reality; where consciousness entwines with the universe in some kind of divinely glittering double helix. A descending baroque staircase of beauty and meaning, made of the diamonds of time
Do I “know” this? Not in any scientific way. Do I believe this? No, it is more than “belief”
So what is the word? There isn’t one. But I have seen this and it is the case
“double helix”
Isn’t it scientifically proven the Strands of DNA entwine in certain way by singing song to each other?
If you are unaware of this science it’s spooky you used this phrase after ayahuasca
Certainly terms of seeing we don’t see reality with all the filters our DNA switched on, and things like those drugs mess with the brain filters for sure, but they probably mess with the sound filters too - there’s probably a background noise DNA switches off because we don’t need to constantly hear it, gets in tge way of hunting gathering and you subconsciously heard it and recognised it for what it was. The two strands of your own DNA singing tge song what made you.
Having taken ayahuasca twice (and for other reasons) I am utterly convinced there is a much much deeper layer of reality; where consciousness entwines with the universe in some kind of divinely glittering double helix. A descending baroque staircase of beauty and meaning, made of the diamonds of time
Do I “know” this? Not in any scientific way. Do I believe this? No, it is more than “belief”
So what is the word? There isn’t one. But I have seen this and it is the case
Faith is the word. A belief in something for which there is no tangible evidence.
No, I have SEEN this
Perhaps that’s it. I don’t believe in god or know god exists nor do I have a mere faith in a god: I have WITNESSED God (or the divine or another reality or whatever you want to call it).
You have SEEN it, having ingested a powerful hallucinogenic. All that demonstrates is the power of your imagination. Which we know is quite creative.
I’m not going to argue over what I personally witnessed and you didn’t. Let’s leave it there
However I will note that a lot of people - even the most atheistic of atheists - find ayahuasca a profoundly spiritual experience and a fair few of them become convinced “believers” after taking it
I'm not judging either way - simply pointing out that your experience isn't evidence of any kind of persuasiveness for the rest of us.
No, I accept that
However my point about ayahuasca being spiritual for many people - often to their own surprise - is worth addressing
Nor is this spirituality cheaply won. Ayahuasca is always scary, often physically painful (vomiting and the shits), can be extremely distressing, it is sometimes the cause of breakdowns, and death is not unknown
O/T I came across an interesting issue today at CAB. It's a bit long but I have a PB brains trust question at the end. I can obviously only share the general details but in essence:
- This person was subject to a clever phishing attack late last year and unwittingly gave the scammers enough information to guess her password and access her bank account. - As she is relatively poor the scammers couldn't pinch much money from her already heavily overdrawn account. - Her high street bank spotted the unusual activity and quickly cancelled her debit card, made her change her online password, and refunded the fraudulent transactions (well done them). - In the meantime the scammers, presumably realising the account was empty, used the victim's personal details to arrange a £5,000 loan from a well-known online loans platform that lends to clients with poor credit ratings. - Sadly for the scammers, by the time the loan arrived in the victim's account they were locked out.
So far, so straighforward. At this point simply contact the lender, get them to cancel the loan and return the £5,000 - sorted.
Unfortunately though, the individual is not great with money, she is poor and heavily overdrawn. Or rather was - but now the overdraft has been cleared and there's a thousand or so to spare in the account.
Not pretending (or really wanting) to know how that's happened she decided to clear one or two overdue bills and before you know it the £5,000 has completely gone.
Then she realises that she's on the hook for £190 pm repayments to the lender (at 48% APR ffs!), that she can't afford. For five years.
So, what to do?
She can't pay back the principal (it's certain her bank will not be so generous with her overdraft this time round).
Should she approach the lender explain the situation, get them to cancel the loan, and offer to pay it back at what she can afford (£20pm max), ideally with no interest? That'll take over 20 years btw, much longer if the insist on interest.
If she takes debt advice and she'll probably be led to a Debt Relief Order, which would clear this, her only debt. Lender loses out but fuck it - 48% APR, they must expect some losses.
Bottom line is, she never took out the loan - though she has spent the money, of course.
Any ideas?
Needs PB legal brains but strikes me maybe the loan is legally invalid as she did not agree to arrange it.
But once she found out, was she acting illegally by spending it? Whether the number in the bank account increased from £50 to £5050 or £-4000 to £1000. She should get legal advice first to cover her back, surely? (Not a lawyer).
It's an interesting point and if correct, she'd be better not mentioning the fraud, just defaulting on the loan. Although, what if the loan had taken her over draft from -£6,000 to -£1,000, and the bank won't let her have a larger overdraft back again? Has she 'spent' the money then since it would have happened completely without her knowledge.
(PS She can't afford legal advice of course.)
An overdraft is a facility - it doesn’t normally change.
Having taken ayahuasca twice (and for other reasons) I am utterly convinced there is a much much deeper layer of reality; where consciousness entwines with the universe in some kind of divinely glittering double helix. A descending baroque staircase of beauty and meaning, made of the diamonds of time
Do I “know” this? Not in any scientific way. Do I believe this? No, it is more than “belief”
So what is the word? There isn’t one. But I have seen this and it is the case
Faith is the word. A belief in something for which there is no tangible evidence.
No, I have SEEN this
Perhaps that’s it. I don’t believe in god or know god exists nor do I have a mere faith in a god: I have WITNESSED God (or the divine or another reality or whatever you want to call it).
You have SEEN it, having ingested a powerful hallucinogenic. All that demonstrates is the power of your imagination. Which we know is quite creative.
I’m not going to argue over what I personally witnessed and you didn’t. Let’s leave it there
However I will note that a lot of people - even the most atheistic of atheists - find ayahuasca a profoundly spiritual experience and a fair few of them become convinced “believers” after taking it
I'm not judging either way - simply pointing out that your experience isn't evidence of any kind of persuasiveness for the rest of us.
No, I accept that
However my point about ayahuasca being spiritual for many people - often to their own surprise - is worth addressing
Nor is this spirituality cheaply won. Ayahuasca is always scary, often physically painful (vomiting and the shits), can be extremely distressing, it is sometimes the cause of breakdowns, and death is not unknown
He's got until the 17th December 2024 at the absolute latest to call an election (and dissolve parliament the same day) for a 28th January 2025 election.
There's something peculiar about Britain in that we can shy away from our strengths.
London and the South East is a strength. There are a huge number of highly productive sectors in the capital with some companies in satellite locations in the area. There are a large number of commuter towns with fast trains into London that are of a modest size and could be easily expanded if the political will existed.
Lots of people want to live in the region. Build and they shall come.
Having taken ayahuasca twice (and for other reasons) I am utterly convinced there is a much much deeper layer of reality; where consciousness entwines with the universe in some kind of divinely glittering double helix. A descending baroque staircase of beauty and meaning, made of the diamonds of time
Do I “know” this? Not in any scientific way. Do I believe this? No, it is more than “belief”
So what is the word? There isn’t one. But I have seen this and it is the case
“double helix”
Isn’t it scientifically proven the Strands of DNA entwine in certain way by singing song to each other?
If you are unaware of this science it’s spooky you used this phrase after ayahuasca
Certainly terms of seeing we don’t see reality with all the filters our DNA switched on, and things like those drugs mess with the brain filters for sure, but they probably mess with the sound filters too - there’s probably a background noise DNA switches off because we don’t need to constantly hear it, gets in tge way of hunting gathering and you subconsciously heard it and recognised it for what it was. The two strands of your own DNA singing tge song what made you.
Are you high? I’ve not seen this much drivel since I last marked first year exams…
The Cook Political Report, which has tracked the gritty day-to-day of politics for four decades, will put its entire archive online tomorrow, offering a remarkable and nonpartisan window into modern American political history.
Having taken ayahuasca twice (and for other reasons) I am utterly convinced there is a much much deeper layer of reality; where consciousness entwines with the universe in some kind of divinely glittering double helix. A descending baroque staircase of beauty and meaning, made of the diamonds of time
Do I “know” this? Not in any scientific way. Do I believe this? No, it is more than “belief”
So what is the word? There isn’t one. But I have seen this and it is the case
Faith is the word. A belief in something for which there is no tangible evidence.
No, I have SEEN this
Perhaps that’s it. I don’t believe in god or know god exists nor do I have a mere faith in a god: I have WITNESSED God (or the divine or another reality or whatever you want to call it).
You have seen this in your mind's eye. I believe you. That's why I used the word Tangible.
Maybe "witness-faith"?
It’s interesting that English apparently lacks the precise word
Having taken ayahuasca twice (and for other reasons) I am utterly convinced there is a much much deeper layer of reality; where consciousness entwines with the universe in some kind of divinely glittering double helix. A descending baroque staircase of beauty and meaning, made of the diamonds of time
Do I “know” this? Not in any scientific way. Do I believe this? No, it is more than “belief”
So what is the word? There isn’t one. But I have seen this and it is the case
“double helix”
Isn’t it scientifically proven the Strands of DNA entwine in certain way by singing song to each other?
If you are unaware of this science it’s spooky you used this phrase after ayahuasca
Certainly terms of seeing we don’t see reality with all the filters our DNA switched on, and things like those drugs mess with the brain filters for sure, but they probably mess with the sound filters too - there’s probably a background noise DNA switches off because we don’t need to constantly hear it, gets in tge way of hunting gathering and you subconsciously heard it and recognised it for what it was. The two strands of your own DNA singing tge song what made you.
Fascinating
I absolutely believe ayahuasca throws open the doors of perception. All the reality that is normally filtered out - because we don’t need it to survive as am omnivorous but vulnerable ape on the plains of Africa - suddenly surges in. It is a flood of super reality - magnificent but terrifying - and I can see how you could drown. I can see why we filter it out. It is unnecessary and REALLY distracting
You’d get eaten by a leopard if you saw all that all the time, standing there like a star struck dork under the acacia
Comments
Daft as Mordaunt's daft conference speech.
He is utterly utterly useless. He might actually be the most unskilled PM we’ve ever had!
The government that takes the taxes and issues the visas pays its own way, from the taxes it takes which are levied on the people it issued the visas too and everyone else.
What do we pay our taxes for, if not investment in public services?
If the Government won't pay for the investment population growth requires then it shouldn't issue the visas. But it can, from the taxes it levies on those it issued the visas too and others.
It not wanting to is a different matter.
Hence why I've been advocating we abolish our planning system and switch to zonal with codes instead.
You pointing out the nation with a zoning system that I've been calling for and using as an example of a model that works, has a zoning system, is not news to me.
He doesn't make any argument, never mind a coherent one.
Never give a spreadsheet to a barrister who wants to troll Guardianistas into buying the book he's launching next week ...
Alternatively there are beliefs that don't welcome questioning and think everyone should have to comply to their standards. These are malign beliefs
There is a huge difference
On the general topic of being controversial though - keep it up. I enjoy your posts, even the ones I disagree with. They are often thought provoking.
Spare bedrooms have risen by 2 million according to you in the last decade.
Our population has grown by 4 million in the last decade.
How is 2 million more than 4 million? In what universe?
We aren't building lots of empty homes, we need more homes for young people, young people have kids, so we need to build three bedroom homes.
That old people remain where they already were is irrelevant.
What are our taxes for if not for paying for schools and hospitals?
Why should new homeowners pay for them instead?
At this point, if logic prevails, we should hand over most governance to the machines. This juncture could easily arrive in the next 5 years
And yet no one mentioned this was their lead story this morning.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-68606201
Agnosticism merely recognises that we cannot know.
I think this is what distinguishes a belief from a conclusion.
And it's worth pointing out that beliefs don't have to relate only to religions. People will tend to have all sorts of beliefs that they might not realise are beliefs, because they don't relate to a religion.
Do I “know” this? Not in any scientific way. Do I believe this? No, it is more than “belief”
So what is the word? There isn’t one. But I have seen this and it is the case
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNa1RYgV17o
- This person was subject to a clever phishing attack late last year and unwittingly gave the scammers enough information to guess her password and access her bank account.
- As she is relatively poor the scammers couldn't pinch much money from her already heavily overdrawn account.
- Her high street bank spotted the unusual activity and quickly cancelled her debit card, made her change her online password, and refunded the fraudulent transactions (well done them).
- In the meantime the scammers, presumably realising the account was empty, used the victim's personal details to arrange a £5,000 loan from a well-known online loans platform that lends to clients with poor credit ratings.
- Sadly for the scammers, by the time the loan arrived in the victim's account they were locked out.
So far, so straighforward. At this point simply contact the lender, get them to cancel the loan and return the £5,000 - sorted.
Unfortunately though, the individual is not great with money, she is poor and heavily overdrawn. Or rather was - but now the overdraft has been cleared and there's a thousand or so to spare in the account.
Not pretending (or really wanting) to know how that's happened she decided to clear one or two overdue bills and before you know it the £5,000 has completely gone.
Then she realises that she's on the hook for £190 pm repayments to the lender (at 48% APR ffs!), that she can't afford. For five years.
So, what to do?
She can't pay back the principal (it's certain her bank will not be so generous with her overdraft this time round).
Should she approach the lender explain the situation, get them to cancel the loan, and offer to pay it back at what she can afford (£20pm max), ideally with no interest? That'll take over 20 years btw, much longer if the insist on interest.
If she takes debt advice and she'll probably be led to a Debt Relief Order, which would clear this, her only debt. Lender loses out but fuck it - 48% APR, they must expect some losses.
Bottom line is, she never took out the loan - though she has spent the money, of course.
Any ideas?
However smart they become, why would we assume they have any interest in our interests
?
Of course it's not impossible that we might, in due course, have no choice in the matter.
Anyway, you might at least have acknowledged the pun.
Sunak looks like a bright kid on work experience who has somehow been left in charge. Maybe everyone else has been sacked and he just didn't get the memo.
He can't do politics because he hasn't got the practice in. The wet Wednesday nights away at Accrington. The years doing weekly rep. Fighting a hopeless seat or being opposition spokesman on school photocopiers.
Or he's Mickey Mouse in the Sorcerer's Apprentice sequence in Fantasia, increasingly overwhelmed by forces he thought he could control, but can't.
Isn’t it scientifically proven the Strands of DNA entwine in certain way by singing song to each other?
If you are unaware of this science it’s spooky you used this phrase after ayahuasca
Perhaps that’s it. I don’t believe in god or know god exists nor do I have a mere faith in a god: I have WITNESSED God (or the divine or another reality or whatever you want to call it).
If a debt relied order is needed, so be it, at any APR some losses are factored in let alone a 48% one.
She has been rather foolish, but I can understand why she did it. I suspect contacting the loan company to explain is the first step. But hopefully it can be resolved amicably.
They are not like and take these things seriously. Btw The Creator lost the Oscar. It’s Godzilla wot won it.
Are you having a laugh?!
Maybe "witness-faith"?
All that demonstrates is the power of your imagination. Which we know is quite creative.
Trying to think what it might mean. The two strands certainly interact, which is neat from a copying point of view.
However I will note that a lot of people - even the most atheistic of atheists - find ayahuasca a profoundly spiritual experience and a fair few of them become convinced “believers” after taking it
London and the South East is a strength. There are a huge number of highly productive sectors in the capital with some companies in satellite locations in the area. There are a large number of commuter towns with fast trains into London that are of a modest size and could be easily expanded if the political will existed.
Lots of people want to live in the region. Build and they shall come.
(PS She can't afford legal advice of course.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_music#:~:text=Pink noise (the correlation structure,to music, it sounds musical.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dna-makes-sweet-music/#
Certainly terms of seeing we don’t see reality with all the filters our DNA switched on, and things like those drugs mess with the brain filters for sure, but they probably mess with the sound filters too - there’s probably a background noise DNA switches off because we don’t need to constantly hear it, gets in tge way of hunting gathering and you subconsciously heard it and recognised it for what it was. The two strands of your own DNA singing tge song what made you.
However my point about ayahuasca being spiritual for many people - often to their own surprise - is worth addressing
Nor is this spirituality cheaply won. Ayahuasca is always scary, often physically painful (vomiting and the shits), can be extremely distressing, it is sometimes the cause of breakdowns, and death is not unknown
Apparently he was in the USA for St Patrick's Day and met Biden.
Harry and Paul was an excellent show as well. Doesn’t seem to be on the TV much these days. Perhaps he’s retired.
Here’s a favourite of mine of his.
https://youtu.be/Zh9XzFhGI8g?si=qBRGu0MScGxD_DKY
He's got until the 17th December 2024 at the absolute latest to call an election (and dissolve parliament the same day) for a 28th January 2025 election.
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1770567073812361532
https://www.semafor.com/article/03/17/2024/a-new-archive-of-modern-american-political-history
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJD9smeA-HA
(FWIW I am not a Jungian, but I believe in giving credit where it's due.)
I absolutely believe ayahuasca throws open the doors of perception. All the reality that is normally filtered out - because we don’t need it to survive as am omnivorous but vulnerable ape on the plains of
Africa - suddenly surges in. It is a flood of super reality - magnificent but terrifying - and I can see how you could drown. I can see why we filter it out. It is unnecessary and REALLY distracting
You’d get eaten by a leopard if you saw all that all the time, standing there like a star struck dork under the acacia