I've no reason to believe that her conviction was unjust, or that a miscarriage of justice was involved. But I do think having dramas and documentaries made *whilst* the case is ongoing, with the active participation of people involved with the case, is troubling. As I've said before about other 'contemporary' or near-contemporary documentaries.
(Again, this post is not about the Letby case; it's about the media interactions with it.)
Interesting. Justice and showbiz don't mix for a very simple reason. The moment anyone connected with the prosecution of a case has a financial interest in the outcome, or a financial interest in the evidence pointing towards any particular conclusion, then the case is tainted, and the entire edifice is the fruit of a poisoned tree. This particularly applies when this is unknown, undeclared or not obvious.
(BTW my working assumption is that if in fact Letby had a viable defence they would have called quite extensive expert evidence, and they didn't. This would not be for want of trying.)
I hope to God the case against her was sound, if only for the sake of the parents. Although that sounds a bit like Lord Denning on the Birmingham Six!
Justice needs to be done; not scapegoating.
I was predisposed to be suspicious of the case against her, because the initial reporting of the evidence sounded vaguely similar to the cot death cases in terms of a potential misuse of statistics. But having looked further it was completely different and much stronger.
The main doubt in the case was over which specific baby deaths and near-deaths to attribute to her actions. There was more evidence for some than others.
The fact that the jury didn't convict on all counts (and acquitted on two) gave me some confidence that they'd done a thorough job, rather than just deciding she was a bad'un.
I am afraid all my heuristics about prosecutors and defenders and jurors have gone out of the window post Post Office. She may have done it, but the fact of her conviction is not evidence that she did it.
I'd have thought the whole history of miscarriages of justice would have got you to that point, not just the PO.
There are factors present in the PO example which are unlikely to be replicated elsewhere - for example, The Law Commissioners decision that computer evidence should be regarded as correct until proven otherwise, and also the PO's rights in respect of private prosecutions.
You can add perhaps that it was an extraordinarily badly run organisation, but maybe that's not as uncommon as we would like to think.
On topic, I'd agree that 120 Tory MPs would be about the minimum if we were still dealing with the 1997 world of 3-party politics. But we're not.
The pterodactyl in the ointment is Reform. Voting intention + leadership ratings + relative issues competence + tactical voting + semi-proportional swing could well push the Tories down to 120 seats.
However, the 'worst case' scenario is that Reform's vote comes primarily from ex-2019 Tories (we know this is true at the moment: Deltapoll's most recent had about two-thirds of their current support coming from there; most of the rest, presumably was the Brexit Party), and holds up at current levels.
Now, I know there's a degree of double-counting there but I think there's also a widespread assumption that polls will tighten as we head to the election, as they usually do. And perhaps, probably, they will. But it's no guarantee. The usual pressures on minor-party squeeze aren't there in anything like the scale that they were in 2019. Labour isn't as extreme, the issues aren't as stark, the election isn't as close: and the Tories are really disliked. Swingback has usually started well before now whereas if anything, the Tories are still sinking in support. If Reform polls 10%+ it's possible that the 'worst case' is the Conservatives well down into double figures.
We shouldn't allow our thinking to be hemmed in by past events. I suspect that '120' is considered a minimum because it's ballpark within the worst-ever Tory experience; it cannot go lower because it has not gone lower.
Yet the Tories are polling 10% below where they were in 1997. True, Labour is also lower but then the polls also exaggerated their support then (a point often forgotten because of the landslide delivered and because tactical voting produced a result more consistent with the predictions of those bigger leads; the two effects cancelled each other out to an extent).
Even discounting black swans - and it does look as if Sunak is there for the duration and that the Tories won't accidentally re-elect Liz Truss or similar - we should take seriously the possibility, though not the probability, of a 1931-type outcome.
As I said earlier current polling puts the Tory party on the precipice where the difference between 200 seats and 20 is 4% / margin of error and even that depends on the level of tactical voting.
I can easily see the Tories getting 200 seats, I can equally given a little bit of bad news see them getting few to none
I mean, the Tories need to hope for a few things to keep upwards of 200 seats. They need to keep too many voters heading to other parties (predominantly Reform and Labour) and they need Labour to fail at their squeeze messaging. I don't think they have the talent to do both of those things at the moment. The longer Sunak waits, the more people want him to leave, and the more time there is for more Tory MPs to jump ship, not restand, do normal Tory MP stuff and fuck it all up, etc. For pure damage mitigation he should call a GE and run a campaign of "we know we're going to lose, but you don't want to give Labour free reign to do anything they want / you don't want the Tories to become a laughing stock, so vote for us anyway in some places". That would open up more people to feel they can vote Green and LD if they want to. It would be an admission of failure, which politicians hate, and it would be weak, which politicians hate, but it would at least be honest - and I think the electorate would reward a bit of honesty. They wouldn't elect another Tory government based on it, but I think it would prevent a Canada 93 event - which is what I think the Tories are heading for.
Just on the timing, we're almost at the point where any election called now would be into the Scottish school holidays (an election called today would be held on June 20; the Scottish schools break up the following week). That wouldn't necessarily be a blocker but it would introduce another inconvenient element into the story (and more SNP grievance to feed off). Personally, I don't think it's that big a deal. If a relatively small part of the UK, population-wise, chooses to do it's own thing then that's its right and what devolution's about but it can't (or shouldn't) expect everyone else to run around its exceptional arrangements.
But it's not long before we'd be into the period where you couldn't hold an election before the rest of the schools break up for summer too, and that would matter more in terms of practical arrangements, for public, for media, for activists and candidates and - not least - for local councils running the thing.
I mean, from a purely cynical point of view, wouldn't that likely work in the favour of the Tories?
Is not the current shilly-shallying and silly what-sitting over the election date evidence of the stupidity of scrapping the FTPA?
Yes and no. Yes, it's great to just have the date set well in advance, and there is no picking and choosing by the party in power. No in that the act itself proved to be not worth the lambskin it was written on - no parliament can bind its successors and if you want a general election you get it.
In practice, a government could bring forward the date of a general election, because opposition parties had to support this.
But postponing an election indefinitely? Or at least until the prime minister in office could make up his mind?
Prediction: Biden will start to lead consistently in the national polls within a month of the Dow hitting 40,000.
Problem: He really needs to be ahead by a few percent given the electoral college.
Biden seems to have lost the Sun Belt, so he needs to win the Rust Belt. Currently he is not... I don't see how the Dow hitting 40k will help with the Rust Belt. Some economic populism or clear impact of infrastructure spending could help. Making the argument that Alito and Thomas are gonna die soon so he could reshape SCOTUS might help (although that could also mobilise the GOP voters who care about the courts). But he can't win them by tacking to the right, because Trump can always just go further rightward or claim he's the safest bet for right wing outcomes.
Biden favourability / unfavourability scores are ugly, on a historic scale. I still think it’s not impossible there’s a Dem convention bait and switch.
I mean, maybe - but I don't know who is the clear inheritor. They don't want it to be Kamala Harris, because she is also not popular. Gavin Newsom has tried to set himself up as the heir to Biden, but I don't see him doing this seamlessly. And they would have to say that Biden had a health issue - they couldn't just swap him out after the primaries with no excuse. And if they say he has a health issue, that basically would be admitting they were wrong when the entire news cycle was "it's ageist to claim that Biden shouldn't rerun" etc...
I just say so from playing with 270towin. Before the toss ups it’s Trump 235 Biden 226. Of the “toss ups” state level polling shows that Arizona, Nevada and Georgia are likely beyond Biden’s reach.
Which puts Trump on 268. And means he has a route through any one of Michigan, Penn or Wisconsin. Which are genuine toss ups. But it should be enough to give Dem decision makers the fear and take one last look at an alternative to Biden.
Who exactly are these "Democrat decision-makers"? They don't exist. It's an imaginary group; a mental echo of a time long gone.
The true decision-makers are the primary voters and their decisions have been made. Biden has around 3400 of the 3934 delegates to the convention, with 8 states still to vote. There's no way around that unless Biden himself chooses to stand down - and he won't, for all the reasons he hasn't stood down already.
Prediction: Biden will start to lead consistently in the national polls within a month of the Dow hitting 40,000.
Problem: He really needs to be ahead by a few percent given the electoral college.
Biden seems to have lost the Sun Belt, so he needs to win the Rust Belt. Currently he is not... I don't see how the Dow hitting 40k will help with the Rust Belt. Some economic populism or clear impact of infrastructure spending could help. Making the argument that Alito and Thomas are gonna die soon so he could reshape SCOTUS might help (although that could also mobilise the GOP voters who care about the courts). But he can't win them by tacking to the right, because Trump can always just go further rightward or claim he's the safest bet for right wing outcomes.
Biden favourability / unfavourability scores are ugly, on a historic scale. I still think it’s not impossible there’s a Dem convention bait and switch.
I mean, maybe - but I don't know who is the clear inheritor. They don't want it to be Kamala Harris, because she is also not popular. Gavin Newsom has tried to set himself up as the heir to Biden, but I don't see him doing this seamlessly. And they would have to say that Biden had a health issue - they couldn't just swap him out after the primaries with no excuse. And if they say he has a health issue, that basically would be admitting they were wrong when the entire news cycle was "it's ageist to claim that Biden shouldn't rerun" etc...
The Dems really should have made the call on Biden at the start of the year, but now they’re damned if they do and damned if they don’t, and still risk being overrun by events if his health deteriorates further.
Yes some thought needed to be put into Kamala Harris, as she’s terribly unpopular outside the Dem base, but they could have shuffled her onto the Supreme Court or a similar role, and may still do so, which would have left a standard primary season to choose a new nominee.
But now all the eggs are in the Biden basket, which is potentially a big risk for the next six months. He’s sad to watch on a human level, and really should be enjoying what’s left of a quality life with his family. From a political point of view, people in the UK are underestimating the support for Trump, who’s currently leading in the swing state polls. He’s a very divisive figure, and many are projecting their dislike of him onto their prediction for the result.
Sounds like a signal to the rest of the world not to buy US EVs.
How do you work that one out?
I assume because it suggests US made EVs won't win in a free marketplace against Chinese EVs?
Nobody wins other than China when she dumps evs across the world
Expect as @Sandpit says tariffs will be applied by the EUand UK following the US decision
There are other winners, at least in the short term. This is one of the extreme Brexiteer arguments. Let British agriculture die and import cheap food from Australia, or the United States. Drop those pesky food standards that interfere with free markets. Or in this case, let British consumers benefit from cheap cars subsidised by the Chinese government. Dumping is only bad if you look at the long term and understand economics.
Sounds like a signal to the rest of the world not to buy US EVs.
How do you work that one out?
Assuming its to protect the US auto industry, suggests that US consumers would pay up to double for a Chinese EV than a US EV if there were no tariffs.
The Chinese government is attempting with EVs to do what they did with solar - subsidy to kill foreign competition until the whole supply chain shifts to China, locking in an advantage.
Why should every one put their hands over their eyes and pretend?
Aren't the EU still considering some form of protection, potentially even applying tariffs retrospectively? Which gives the US cover for their move, if so.
What are others doing? Japan and India, I assume, will be quite tariff-happy, whilst the rest of Asia and most of Africa will gladly take the subsidised Chinese exports.
The UK will follow whatever the EU ends up doing, I assume - certainly if Labour win the election, but I'd expect that to be the broad consensus position. Maybe there's an opportunity for someone like Refuk to stand out from the crowd?
Also, what's this bollocks about Spurs fans wanting to lose to prevent the Arse winning the league. As an Arsenal fan of some years, I'm going to say I've been supporting them longer than anyone else on here so there, and if the positions were reversed, I would want us to be playing CL football next season rather than prevent Spurs from winning the League.
Spurs not winning the league would be some kind of consolation were we not to qualify for the CL but the CL is the most important competition out there (oh Thierry, oh Freddie - how much did those misses cost us). And I would want to be playing there.
An early memory was "that" moment of Charlie George. And I was watching it with my best friend, a Spurs fan now of all things.
Prediction: Biden will start to lead consistently in the national polls within a month of the Dow hitting 40,000.
Problem: He really needs to be ahead by a few percent given the electoral college.
Biden seems to have lost the Sun Belt, so he needs to win the Rust Belt. Currently he is not... I don't see how the Dow hitting 40k will help with the Rust Belt. Some economic populism or clear impact of infrastructure spending could help. Making the argument that Alito and Thomas are gonna die soon so he could reshape SCOTUS might help (although that could also mobilise the GOP voters who care about the courts). But he can't win them by tacking to the right, because Trump can always just go further rightward or claim he's the safest bet for right wing outcomes.
Biden favourability / unfavourability scores are ugly, on a historic scale. I still think it’s not impossible there’s a Dem convention bait and switch.
I mean, maybe - but I don't know who is the clear inheritor. They don't want it to be Kamala Harris, because she is also not popular. Gavin Newsom has tried to set himself up as the heir to Biden, but I don't see him doing this seamlessly. And they would have to say that Biden had a health issue - they couldn't just swap him out after the primaries with no excuse. And if they say he has a health issue, that basically would be admitting they were wrong when the entire news cycle was "it's ageist to claim that Biden shouldn't rerun" etc...
I just say so from playing with 270towin. Before the toss ups it’s Trump 235 Biden 226. Of the “toss ups” state level polling shows that Arizona, Nevada and Georgia are likely beyond Biden’s reach.
Which puts Trump on 268. And means he has a route through any one of Michigan, Penn or Wisconsin. Which are genuine toss ups. But it should be enough to give Dem decisions makers the fear and take one last look at an alternative to Biden.
Sure, and it should also make Democrats think about doing popular policies / stop doing things that are unpopular with their base. But they won't. Because the Democrats are shit at politics and only do the vote-scolding of "the alternative is so much worse, of course you'll vote for us".
Which they will. Because it is.
Oh, and the most recent Wisconsin polling has Biden 6% clear in a head-to-head match up:
Does this apply to any other demographic, Landon? Do I get to be black if I like Motown and fancy myself in cornrows? What if I claim the authentic me has always been black and that you're being racist to me? Would that be OK, or would you find it ludicrous and deeply offensive?
Stonewall are back in front of an Employment Tribunal today for trying to get a black lesbian barrister fired.
To be fair, constant derailing without ever participating in the flow of conversation doesn't really seem much like debate to me.
Which is exactly Rowling’s complaint, that those of differing viewpoints to her own don’t want to actually debate with her, they want her to shut up and go away.
JKR doesn't debate anyone when anyone tries to engage with her tweets so for her to complain that people don't want to debate her seems dishonest.
See this thread:
You’ve asked me several questions on this thread and accused me of avoiding answering, so here goes….
Which is not a 'debate'; it's a position platform.
" I do not, however, believe that surgeries and cross-sex hormones literally turn a person into the opposite sex, nor do I believe in the idea that each of us has a nebulous ‘gender identity’ that may or might not match our sexed bodies. "
Which is where, having known a few trans people, I think she's *very* wrong.
You are as entitled to your belief as Rowling is to hers.
The issue has been the TRA absolutist position and the consequences that would have for women’s rights, and sports, to take two examples.
The transition to EVs has unleashed a fusilade of subsidies and trade restrictions on all sides. Yes, China is subsidising the sector, but so is the West (eg the US IRA and various sweeteners across Europe to encourage battery factories to locate there). So, yes, there is an element of dumping on China's side, but also I suspect they have quite legitimately produced cars that are cheaper and better quality than US or European products. I'm not sure than consumer interests are at the forefront of any government's mind right now, though.
Sounds like a signal to the rest of the world not to buy US EVs.
How do you work that one out?
I assume because it suggests US made EVs won't win in a free marketplace against Chinese EVs?
Nobody wins other than China when she dumps evs across the world
Expect as @Sandpit says tariffs will be applied by the EUand UK following the US decision
I read an article a month or so back that the next 10 years will be China trying to keep their economy going by manufacturing and dumping everything it can just to keep its internal politics from falling apart.
Basically the economy is set up to manufacture goods with mass unemployment otherwise. Hence a need to keep manufacturing going no matter what to avoid civil unrest
I've no reason to believe that her conviction was unjust, or that a miscarriage of justice was involved. But I do think having dramas and documentaries made *whilst* the case is ongoing, with the active participation of people involved with the case, is troubling. As I've said before about other 'contemporary' or near-contemporary documentaries.
(Again, this post is not about the Letby case; it's about the media interactions with it.)
Interesting. Justice and showbiz don't mix for a very simple reason. The moment anyone connected with the prosecution of a case has a financial interest in the outcome, or a financial interest in the evidence pointing towards any particular conclusion, then the case is tainted, and the entire edifice is the fruit of a poisoned tree. This particularly applies when this is unknown, undeclared or not obvious.
(BTW my working assumption is that if in fact Letby had a viable defence they would have called quite extensive expert evidence, and they didn't. This would not be for want of trying.)
I hope to God the case against her was sound, if only for the sake of the parents. Although that sounds a bit like Lord Denning on the Birmingham Six!
Justice needs to be done; not scapegoating.
I was predisposed to be suspicious of the case against her, because the initial reporting of the evidence sounded vaguely similar to the cot death cases in terms of a potential misuse of statistics. But having looked further it was completely different and much stronger.
The main doubt in the case was over which specific baby deaths and near-deaths to attribute to her actions. There was more evidence for some than others.
The fact that the jury didn't convict on all counts (and acquitted on two) gave me some confidence that they'd done a thorough job, rather than just deciding she was a bad'un.
I am afraid all my heuristics about prosecutors and defenders and jurors have gone out of the window post Post Office. She may have done it, but the fact of her conviction is not evidence that she did it.
I'd have thought the whole history of miscarriages of justice would have got you to that point, not just the PO.
Well, yes and no. Post Office is a sinister new development. It used to be the job of the police to fit people up from motives of improving their conviction rate, personal grudge, and misplaced zeal (they knew the accused dunnit but the evidence could use some beefing up}. The tools at their disposal were bogus confessions and planting evidence. Police and Criminal Evidence Act recording requirements and better forensic science put paid to a lot of that. In the Post Office case the motive is much stronger - you are trying to avoid the loss of a very highly paid career and having to hand in the OBE - and you have control over a great deal of highly technical evidence which is much easier to misrepresent and harder to rebut than a police verbal and a planted bag of weed. And you not the police are the prosecution.
On topic, I'd agree that 120 Tory MPs would be about the minimum if we were still dealing with the 1997 world of 3-party politics. But we're not.
The pterodactyl in the ointment is Reform. Voting intention + leadership ratings + relative issues competence + tactical voting + semi-proportional swing could well push the Tories down to 120 seats.
However, the 'worst case' scenario is that Reform's vote comes primarily from ex-2019 Tories (we know this is true at the moment: Deltapoll's most recent had about two-thirds of their current support coming from there; most of the rest, presumably was the Brexit Party), and holds up at current levels.
Now, I know there's a degree of double-counting there but I think there's also a widespread assumption that polls will tighten as we head to the election, as they usually do. And perhaps, probably, they will. But it's no guarantee. The usual pressures on minor-party squeeze aren't there in anything like the scale that they were in 2019. Labour isn't as extreme, the issues aren't as stark, the election isn't as close: and the Tories are really disliked. Swingback has usually started well before now whereas if anything, the Tories are still sinking in support. If Reform polls 10%+ it's possible that the 'worst case' is the Conservatives well down into double figures.
We shouldn't allow our thinking to be hemmed in by past events. I suspect that '120' is considered a minimum because it's ballpark within the worst-ever Tory experience; it cannot go lower because it has not gone lower.
Yet the Tories are polling 10% below where they were in 1997. True, Labour is also lower but then the polls also exaggerated their support then (a point often forgotten because of the landslide delivered and because tactical voting produced a result more consistent with the predictions of those bigger leads; the two effects cancelled each other out to an extent).
Even discounting black swans - and it does look as if Sunak is there for the duration and that the Tories won't accidentally re-elect Liz Truss or similar - we should take seriously the possibility, though not the probability, of a 1931-type outcome.
As I said earlier current polling puts the Tory party on the precipice where the difference between 200 seats and 20 is 4% / margin of error and even that depends on the level of tactical voting.
I can easily see the Tories getting 200 seats, I can equally given a little bit of bad news see them getting few to none
I mean, the Tories need to hope for a few things to keep upwards of 200 seats. They need to keep too many voters heading to other parties (predominantly Reform and Labour) and they need Labour to fail at their squeeze messaging. I don't think they have the talent to do both of those things at the moment. The longer Sunak waits, the more people want him to leave, and the more time there is for more Tory MPs to jump ship, not restand, do normal Tory MP stuff and fuck it all up, etc. For pure damage mitigation he should call a GE and run a campaign of "we know we're going to lose, but you don't want to give Labour free reign to do anything they want / you don't want the Tories to become a laughing stock, so vote for us anyway in some places". That would open up more people to feel they can vote Green and LD if they want to. It would be an admission of failure, which politicians hate, and it would be weak, which politicians hate, but it would at least be honest - and I think the electorate would reward a bit of honesty. They wouldn't elect another Tory government based on it, but I think it would prevent a Canada 93 event - which is what I think the Tories are heading for.
Just on the timing, we're almost at the point where any election called now would be into the Scottish school holidays (an election called today would be held on June 20; the Scottish schools break up the following week). That wouldn't necessarily be a blocker but it would introduce another inconvenient element into the story (and more SNP grievance to feed off). Personally, I don't think it's that big a deal. If a relatively small part of the UK, population-wise, chooses to do it's own thing then that's its right and what devolution's about but it can't (or shouldn't) expect everyone else to run around its exceptional arrangements.
But it's not long before we'd be into the period where you couldn't hold an election before the rest of the schools break up for summer too, and that would matter more in terms of practical arrangements, for public, for media, for activists and candidates and - not least - for local councils running the thing.
i doubt Sunak gives two figs about the Scottish school holidays. However I think he is just gonna run the clock down until January.
Sounds like a signal to the rest of the world not to buy US EVs.
How do you work that one out?
I assume because it suggests US made EVs won't win in a free marketplace against Chinese EVs?
Nobody wins other than China when she dumps evs across the world
Expect as @Sandpit says tariffs will be applied by the EUand UK following the US decision
I read an article a month or so back that the next 10 years will be China trying to keep their economy going by manufacturing and dumping everything it can just to keep its internal politics from falling apart.
Basically the economy is set up to manufacture goods with mass unemployment otherwise. Hence a need to keep manufacturing going no matter what to avoid civil unrest
There might be some truth in that, although sectors like EV manufacturing are not very labour intensive, and China is going to be suffering from labour shortages soon given their population is about to plummet. The issue is that Chinese Policy-makers don't believe in Keynesian demand management. They are absolute supply-siders.
Sounds like a signal to the rest of the world not to buy US EVs.
How do you work that one out?
I assume because it suggests US made EVs won't win in a free marketplace against Chinese EVs?
Nobody wins other than China when she dumps evs across the world
Expect as @Sandpit says tariffs will be applied by the EUand UK following the US decision
I read an article a month or so back that the next 10 years will be China trying to keep their economy going by manufacturing and dumping everything it can just to keep its internal politics from falling apart.
Basically the economy is set up to manufacture goods with mass unemployment otherwise. Hence a need to keep manufacturing going no matter what to avoid civil unrest
Perhaps there'll be a market in remaking gritty British films about the decline of heavy industry and the devastation of unemployment.
On topic, I'd agree that 120 Tory MPs would be about the minimum if we were still dealing with the 1997 world of 3-party politics. But we're not.
The pterodactyl in the ointment is Reform. Voting intention + leadership ratings + relative issues competence + tactical voting + semi-proportional swing could well push the Tories down to 120 seats.
However, the 'worst case' scenario is that Reform's vote comes primarily from ex-2019 Tories (we know this is true at the moment: Deltapoll's most recent had about two-thirds of their current support coming from there; most of the rest, presumably was the Brexit Party), and holds up at current levels.
Now, I know there's a degree of double-counting there but I think there's also a widespread assumption that polls will tighten as we head to the election, as they usually do. And perhaps, probably, they will. But it's no guarantee. The usual pressures on minor-party squeeze aren't there in anything like the scale that they were in 2019. Labour isn't as extreme, the issues aren't as stark, the election isn't as close: and the Tories are really disliked. Swingback has usually started well before now whereas if anything, the Tories are still sinking in support. If Reform polls 10%+ it's possible that the 'worst case' is the Conservatives well down into double figures.
We shouldn't allow our thinking to be hemmed in by past events. I suspect that '120' is considered a minimum because it's ballpark within the worst-ever Tory experience; it cannot go lower because it has not gone lower.
Yet the Tories are polling 10% below where they were in 1997. True, Labour is also lower but then the polls also exaggerated their support then (a point often forgotten because of the landslide delivered and because tactical voting produced a result more consistent with the predictions of those bigger leads; the two effects cancelled each other out to an extent).
Even discounting black swans - and it does look as if Sunak is there for the duration and that the Tories won't accidentally re-elect Liz Truss or similar - we should take seriously the possibility, though not the probability, of a 1931-type outcome.
As I said earlier current polling puts the Tory party on the precipice where the difference between 200 seats and 20 is 4% / margin of error and even that depends on the level of tactical voting.
I can easily see the Tories getting 200 seats, I can equally given a little bit of bad news see them getting few to none
I mean, the Tories need to hope for a few things to keep upwards of 200 seats. They need to keep too many voters heading to other parties (predominantly Reform and Labour) and they need Labour to fail at their squeeze messaging. I don't think they have the talent to do both of those things at the moment. The longer Sunak waits, the more people want him to leave, and the more time there is for more Tory MPs to jump ship, not restand, do normal Tory MP stuff and fuck it all up, etc. For pure damage mitigation he should call a GE and run a campaign of "we know we're going to lose, but you don't want to give Labour free reign to do anything they want / you don't want the Tories to become a laughing stock, so vote for us anyway in some places". That would open up more people to feel they can vote Green and LD if they want to. It would be an admission of failure, which politicians hate, and it would be weak, which politicians hate, but it would at least be honest - and I think the electorate would reward a bit of honesty. They wouldn't elect another Tory government based on it, but I think it would prevent a Canada 93 event - which is what I think the Tories are heading for.
Just on the timing, we're almost at the point where any election called now would be into the Scottish school holidays (an election called today would be held on June 20; the Scottish schools break up the following week). That wouldn't necessarily be a blocker but it would introduce another inconvenient element into the story (and more SNP grievance to feed off). Personally, I don't think it's that big a deal. If a relatively small part of the UK, population-wise, chooses to do it's own thing then that's its right and what devolution's about but it can't (or shouldn't) expect everyone else to run around its exceptional arrangements.
But it's not long before we'd be into the period where you couldn't hold an election before the rest of the schools break up for summer too, and that would matter more in terms of practical arrangements, for public, for media, for activists and candidates and - not least - for local councils running the thing.
I mean, from a purely cynical point of view, wouldn't that likely work in the favour of the Tories?
Holding an election in the school holidays would mean teachers (not exactly the most Tory-friendly community) would have lots of free to time to campaign.
Sounds like a signal to the rest of the world not to buy US EVs.
How do you work that one out?
I assume because it suggests US made EVs won't win in a free marketplace against Chinese EVs?
Nobody wins other than China when she dumps evs across the world
Expect as @Sandpit says tariffs will be applied by the EUand UK following the US decision
I thought protectionism was generally regarded as a bad thing?
The UK doesn't have much of a BEV industry to protect, the only mass market products are the Leaf (LOL) and whatever crap Stellantis are loosely spannering together at Ellesmere Port.
The other products like the latest practical joke from Lotus are in a different market to the Chinese shit.
Does this apply to any other demographic, Landon? Do I get to be black if I like Motown and fancy myself in cornrows? What if I claim the authentic me has always been black and that you're being racist to me? Would that be OK, or would you find it ludicrous and deeply offensive?
Stonewall are back in front of an Employment Tribunal today for trying to get a black lesbian barrister fired.
To be fair, constant derailing without ever participating in the flow of conversation doesn't really seem much like debate to me.
Which is exactly Rowling’s complaint, that those of differing viewpoints to her own don’t want to actually debate with her, they want her to shut up and go away.
So what exactly are her differing viewpoints about voting systems, swing states, election timing, the effect of the media on the justice system or any of the other topics we were debating before the thread got derailed yet again?
The universities debate was interesting and I'd happily go back to it! I was half way into writing something about it when I ended up on a work call and lost what I was going to post.
In brief, the 'should universities be a public good or a business' was interesting and made me think of a friend in academia who pointed out that there is much more pressure to pass students than there used to be, because rich international students are in effect paying for a finishing school and the degree is the rubber stamp.
Supposedly also cheating is rampant with half the essays clearly being written by essay mills but staff unable to do anything about it. I imagine AI has made everything worse - surely it can't be that long before universities introduce the viva for masters students at least. Unless of course university is just a 'rubber stamp', in which case, what value does a degree really have at this point?
My lad's girlfriend is nearing the end of her Master's in chemistry and has to do a viva, so at least some Master's students already do have to sit one. Also, he tells me that while he's tried using AI to help with essays, he finds the output too generic and error prone, and so has gone back to researching and writing them from scratch.
Interesting. When I use AI to, say, knock out a first draft of a report I'm writing, it reminds me of the old Raymond Chandler quote: "From 30 feet away, she looked like a lot of class. From 10 feet away, she looked like she was made to be seen from 30 feet away". I.e. t looks good at first glance but doesn't pass closer inspection. However, the question is, is 'from 30 feet away' enough to get a passing grade in an undergrad (or even masters level) essay, with a few minor edits and citations thrown in? (Hope it's OK to mention AI in this way as opposed to thread derailing!). My academic friend was of the opinion that you could pass but not excel in most arts and humanities, social sciences etc, in this way. Hard stuff with right/wrong answers like chemistry is probably harder.
Which is why I think a viva is probably more essential for 'soft' degrees where the purpose is to provide an interpretation or put forward a thesis, e.g. on the topic of English literature. There is no chemical formula to the question of "Was Fitzgerald a better writer than Hemingway?" but a student could easily get AI or, to go old school, an essay mill to write a paper on it.
As I understand it the problem with the viva is twofold, firstly in that it takes up a lot more time than just marking an essay/exam, secondly in that it's much harder to strip out bias, whether that's a result of personal "unconscious bias" towards a student, or the bias that comes from some people being much better speakers and debaters than others. For example, as has been noted here before, public school students often exude confidence and excel in presentations where others might not.
Does this apply to any other demographic, Landon? Do I get to be black if I like Motown and fancy myself in cornrows? What if I claim the authentic me has always been black and that you're being racist to me? Would that be OK, or would you find it ludicrous and deeply offensive?
Stonewall are back in front of an Employment Tribunal today for trying to get a black lesbian barrister fired.
To be fair, constant derailing without ever participating in the flow of conversation doesn't really seem much like debate to me.
Which is exactly Rowling’s complaint, that those of differing viewpoints to her own don’t want to actually debate with her, they want her to shut up and go away.
JKR doesn't debate anyone when anyone tries to engage with her tweets so for her to complain that people don't want to debate her seems dishonest.
See this thread:
You’ve asked me several questions on this thread and accused me of avoiding answering, so here goes….
Which is not a 'debate'; it's a position platform.
" I do not, however, believe that surgeries and cross-sex hormones literally turn a person into the opposite sex, nor do I believe in the idea that each of us has a nebulous ‘gender identity’ that may or might not match our sexed bodies. "
Which is where, having known a few trans people, I think she's *very* wrong.
You are as entitled to your belief as Rowling is to hers.
The issue has been the TRA absolutist position and the consequences that would have for women’s rights, and sports, to take two examples.
I don't think there's anyone here and very very few on Twitter that have what you call a "TRA absolutist position"
For example, trans women in women's jails. Do you hold an absolutist position that all trans women should be in male prisons? My position is more nuanced, a male rapist who suddenly decides to "turn trans" shouldn't be allowed to go to a female prison, a 60 year old transwoman who's had a GRC for 20 years in prison for non-payment of their tv licence should be able to serve time in a female prison. I don't know where the line should be drawn but it's somewhere between those two positions.
Also, what's this bollocks about Spurs fans wanting to lose to prevent the Arse winning the league. As an Arsenal fan of some years, I'm going to say I've been supporting them longer than anyone else on here so there, and if the positions were reversed, I would want us to be playing CL football next season rather than prevent Spurs from winning the League.
Spurs not winning the league would be some kind of consolation were we not to qualify for the CL but the CL is the most important competition out there (oh Thierry, oh Freddie - how much did those misses cost us). And I would want to be playing there.
Are you sure this isn't where Rishi gets his election winning strategy from, through the looking glass?
Certain Tories are Spurs fans. including iirc one Iain Dale.
Why are Western governments so spinelessly weak against China? This is outrageous behaviour by Beijing, effectively kidnapping Australian citizens from Australia.
Sounds like a signal to the rest of the world not to buy US EVs.
How do you work that one out?
I assume because it suggests US made EVs won't win in a free marketplace against Chinese EVs?
Nobody wins other than China when she dumps evs across the world
Expect as @Sandpit says tariffs will be applied by the EUand UK following the US decision
I thought protectionism was generally regarded as a bad thing?
Yes, it is.
But standing there with your thumb up your bum in response to the other side subsiding so blatantly is absurd.
This is why GATT etc involved years of slowly negotiating tariff and subsidy reductions, as mutual disarmament.
Note that a big thing in the EU is forbidding the subsidies internally. As well as the tarrifs.
Hasn't the WTO got anti-dumping agreements in place already, though? Do these not apply to BEVs, or are they simply not sufficient to deal with the problem?
Also, what's this bollocks about Spurs fans wanting to lose to prevent the Arse winning the league. As an Arsenal fan of some years, I'm going to say I've been supporting them longer than anyone else on here so there, and if the positions were reversed, I would want us to be playing CL football next season rather than prevent Spurs from winning the League.
Spurs not winning the league would be some kind of consolation were we not to qualify for the CL but the CL is the most important competition out there (oh Thierry, oh Freddie - how much did those misses cost us). And I would want to be playing there.
Are you sure this isn't where Rishi gets his election winning strategy from, through the looking glass?
Certain Tories are Spurs fans. including iirc one Iain Dale.
Iain has said he is no longer a Tory. But he remains a West Ham fab... neither are exactly winning teams, these days.
Also, what's this bollocks about Spurs fans wanting to lose to prevent the Arse winning the league. As an Arsenal fan of some years, I'm going to say I've been supporting them longer than anyone else on here so there, and if the positions were reversed, I would want us to be playing CL football next season rather than prevent Spurs from winning the League.
Spurs not winning the league would be some kind of consolation were we not to qualify for the CL but the CL is the most important competition out there (oh Thierry, oh Freddie - how much did those misses cost us). And I would want to be playing there.
Are you sure this isn't where Rishi gets his election winning strategy from, through the looking glass?
Certain Tories are Spurs fans. including iirc one Iain Dale.
Spurs aren't going to beat Man City anyway. At least if Spurs convince themselves that they wanted to lose it will make them feel better about the inevitable. cf any Tory who claims that this 2024/25 general election is "a good one to lose"
Sounds like a signal to the rest of the world not to buy US EVs.
How do you work that one out?
I assume because it suggests US made EVs won't win in a free marketplace against Chinese EVs?
Nobody wins other than China when she dumps evs across the world
Expect as @Sandpit says tariffs will be applied by the EUand UK following the US decision
I thought protectionism was generally regarded as a bad thing?
It is, but so also is being on the receiving end of economic dumping of strategically important products.
One problem is that Tesla when trying to implement his gigapress process used Chinese money to fund it so they also have the technology.
Add in their vast battery supply advantage and you can see why Chinese EVs are a big problem for the US / EU.
The Chinese cars are already half decent and the manufacturers don’t have the legacy costs western car firms have to cover
Yes, Tesla were complaining that they had to use a Chinese supplier for their new body stamping process, because no-one else could do it, and now it unsurprisingly appears that the tech has been stolen, as usually happens with any Western IP that goes through China.
Tesla are also saying that the Chinese EV with an 80kWh battery is the same price as the Chinese will sell them just the battery of the same size, which is why they’re being accused of dumping.
Chinese cars themselves are pretty good, there’s loads of them in my part of the world and they’re pretty close in quality to the Korean manufacturers but about 20% cheaper for petrol cars). For EVs, they’re a lot cheaper (30-40%) than the Koreans for an equivalent product, thanks to the battery price advantage.
Basically everyone else is stuffed, until there’s enough battery capacity out there without Chinese fingerprints on it. That’s likely going to need to involve Western countries in the entire supply chain of many of the minerals involved, as the CCP has worked really hard to secure exclusive rights to mines and deposits around the world.
Sounds like a signal to the rest of the world not to buy US EVs.
How do you work that one out?
I assume because it suggests US made EVs won't win in a free marketplace against Chinese EVs?
Nobody wins other than China when she dumps evs across the world
Expect as @Sandpit says tariffs will be applied by the EUand UK following the US decision
There are other winners, at least in the short term. This is one of the extreme Brexiteer arguments. Let British agriculture die and import cheap food from Australia, or the United States. Drop those pesky food standards that interfere with free markets. Or in this case, let British consumers benefit from cheap cars subsidised by the Chinese government. Dumping is only bad if you look at the long term and understand economics.
Your last sentence is laughable, given the economically uninformed tend to want protectionism and economists of right, left and centre tend to overwhelmingly support free trade.
I've no reason to believe that her conviction was unjust, or that a miscarriage of justice was involved. But I do think having dramas and documentaries made *whilst* the case is ongoing, with the active participation of people involved with the case, is troubling. As I've said before about other 'contemporary' or near-contemporary documentaries.
(Again, this post is not about the Letby case; it's about the media interactions with it.)
Interesting. Justice and showbiz don't mix for a very simple reason. The moment anyone connected with the prosecution of a case has a financial interest in the outcome, or a financial interest in the evidence pointing towards any particular conclusion, then the case is tainted, and the entire edifice is the fruit of a poisoned tree. This particularly applies when this is unknown, undeclared or not obvious.
(BTW my working assumption is that if in fact Letby had a viable defence they would have called quite extensive expert evidence, and they didn't. This would not be for want of trying.)
I hope to God the case against her was sound, if only for the sake of the parents. Although that sounds a bit like Lord Denning on the Birmingham Six!
Justice needs to be done; not scapegoating.
I was predisposed to be suspicious of the case against her, because the initial reporting of the evidence sounded vaguely similar to the cot death cases in terms of a potential misuse of statistics. But having looked further it was completely different and much stronger.
The main doubt in the case was over which specific baby deaths and near-deaths to attribute to her actions. There was more evidence for some than others.
The fact that the jury didn't convict on all counts (and acquitted on two) gave me some confidence that they'd done a thorough job, rather than just deciding she was a bad'un.
I am afraid all my heuristics about prosecutors and defenders and jurors have gone out of the window post Post Office. She may have done it, but the fact of her conviction is not evidence that she did it.
I'd have thought the whole history of miscarriages of justice would have got you to that point, not just the PO.
Well, yes and no. Post Office is a sinister new development. It used to be the job of the police to fit people up from motives of improving their conviction rate, personal grudge, and misplaced zeal (they knew the accused dunnit but the evidence could use some beefing up}. The tools at their disposal were bogus confessions and planting evidence. Police and Criminal Evidence Act recording requirements and better forensic science put paid to a lot of that. In the Post Office case the motive is much stronger - you are trying to avoid the loss of a very highly paid career and having to hand in the OBE - and you have control over a great deal of highly technical evidence which is much easier to misrepresent and harder to rebut than a police verbal and a planted bag of weed. And you not the police are the prosecution.
Though the same result was obtained on Scotchland, where the PO didn’t have prosecutorial powers.
They simply handed over files of evidence they’d created, “proving” fraud, and the prosecutors ran with them.
As someone mentioned above, the judicial system depends to a serious degree on people telling the truth. With enough organisations of lies, any result can be created.
Sounds like a signal to the rest of the world not to buy US EVs.
How do you work that one out?
Assuming its to protect the US auto industry, suggests that US consumers would pay up to double for a Chinese EV than a US EV if there were no tariffs.
The Chinese government is attempting with EVs to do what they did with solar - subsidy to kill foreign competition until the whole supply chain shifts to China, locking in an advantage.
Why should every one put their hands over their eyes and pretend?
If the West (and rest of the world) rightly want China to cut back on emissions then isn't investment and subsidies in solar and EVs what they should be doing?
Does this apply to any other demographic, Landon? Do I get to be black if I like Motown and fancy myself in cornrows? What if I claim the authentic me has always been black and that you're being racist to me? Would that be OK, or would you find it ludicrous and deeply offensive?
Stonewall are back in front of an Employment Tribunal today for trying to get a black lesbian barrister fired.
To be fair, constant derailing without ever participating in the flow of conversation doesn't really seem much like debate to me.
Which is exactly Rowling’s complaint, that those of differing viewpoints to her own don’t want to actually debate with her, they want her to shut up and go away.
JKR doesn't debate anyone when anyone tries to engage with her tweets so for her to complain that people don't want to debate her seems dishonest.
See this thread:
You’ve asked me several questions on this thread and accused me of avoiding answering, so here goes….
Which is not a 'debate'; it's a position platform.
" I do not, however, believe that surgeries and cross-sex hormones literally turn a person into the opposite sex, nor do I believe in the idea that each of us has a nebulous ‘gender identity’ that may or might not match our sexed bodies. "
Which is where, having known a few trans people, I think she's *very* wrong.
You are as entitled to your belief as Rowling is to hers.
The issue has been the TRA absolutist position and the consequences that would have for women’s rights, and sports, to take two examples.
I don't think there's anyone here and very very few on Twitter that have what you call a "TRA absolutist position"
For example, trans women in women's jails. Do you hold an absolutist position that all trans women should be in male prisons? My position is more nuanced, a male rapist who suddenly decides to "turn trans" shouldn't be allowed to go to a female prison, a 60 year old transwoman who's had a GRC for 20 years in prison for non-payment of their tv licence should be able to serve time in a female prison. I don't know where the line should be drawn but it's somewhere between those two positions.
Yes - “people” should be assessed as “individuals” - everyone is different - and “motivation” is clearly an important factor in assessing where people should be incarcerated.
On sports, on the other hand, I think “blanket” solutions are appropriate. You compete in the sex you went through puberty in. Mediocre male athletes are taking women’s prizes. And when offered the chance to “compete as themselves”
Sounds like a signal to the rest of the world not to buy US EVs.
How do you work that one out?
I assume because it suggests US made EVs won't win in a free marketplace against Chinese EVs?
Nobody wins other than China when she dumps evs across the world
Expect as @Sandpit says tariffs will be applied by the EUand UK following the US decision
I thought protectionism was generally regarded as a bad thing?
The UK doesn't have much of a BEV industry to protect, the only mass market products are the Leaf (LOL) and whatever crap Stellantis are loosely spannering together at Ellesmere Port.
The other products like the latest practical joke from Lotus are in a different market to the Chinese shit.
Leaf is no longer in production.
Sunderland is currently going through a massive refurbishment for new EV manufacturing.
Ironically the battery factory there is owned by the Chinese.
Does this apply to any other demographic, Landon? Do I get to be black if I like Motown and fancy myself in cornrows? What if I claim the authentic me has always been black and that you're being racist to me? Would that be OK, or would you find it ludicrous and deeply offensive?
Stonewall are back in front of an Employment Tribunal today for trying to get a black lesbian barrister fired.
To be fair, constant derailing without ever participating in the flow of conversation doesn't really seem much like debate to me.
Which is exactly Rowling’s complaint, that those of differing viewpoints to her own don’t want to actually debate with her, they want her to shut up and go away.
JKR doesn't debate anyone when anyone tries to engage with her tweets so for her to complain that people don't want to debate her seems dishonest.
See this thread:
You’ve asked me several questions on this thread and accused me of avoiding answering, so here goes….
Which is not a 'debate'; it's a position platform.
" I do not, however, believe that surgeries and cross-sex hormones literally turn a person into the opposite sex, nor do I believe in the idea that each of us has a nebulous ‘gender identity’ that may or might not match our sexed bodies. "
Which is where, having known a few trans people, I think she's *very* wrong.
You are as entitled to your belief as Rowling is to hers.
The issue has been the TRA absolutist position and the consequences that would have for women’s rights, and sports, to take two examples.
I don't think there's anyone here and very very few on Twitter that have what you call a "TRA absolutist position"
For example, trans women in women's jails. Do you hold an absolutist position that all trans women should be in male prisons? My position is more nuanced, a male rapist who suddenly decides to "turn trans" shouldn't be allowed to go to a female prison, a 60 year old transwoman who's had a GRC for 20 years in prison for non-payment of their tv licence should be able to serve time in a female prison. I don't know where the line should be drawn but it's somewhere between those two positions.
Is there not a growing number of special "transgender unit" wings in prison. I've no idea if any followed the trailblazing "E Wing" at HMP Downview.
Also, what's this bollocks about Spurs fans wanting to lose to prevent the Arse winning the league. As an Arsenal fan of some years, I'm going to say I've been supporting them longer than anyone else on here so there, and if the positions were reversed, I would want us to be playing CL football next season rather than prevent Spurs from winning the League.
Spurs not winning the league would be some kind of consolation were we not to qualify for the CL but the CL is the most important competition out there (oh Thierry, oh Freddie - how much did those misses cost us). And I would want to be playing there.
Are you sure this isn't where Rishi gets his election winning strategy from, through the looking glass?
Certain Tories are Spurs fans. including iirc one Iain Dale.
Iain has said he is no longer a Tory. But he remains a West Ham fab... neither are exactly winning teams, these days.
I'm going to have to rely on "it's all south of Watford" justification, aren't I?
Does this apply to any other demographic, Landon? Do I get to be black if I like Motown and fancy myself in cornrows? What if I claim the authentic me has always been black and that you're being racist to me? Would that be OK, or would you find it ludicrous and deeply offensive?
Stonewall are back in front of an Employment Tribunal today for trying to get a black lesbian barrister fired.
To be fair, constant derailing without ever participating in the flow of conversation doesn't really seem much like debate to me.
Which is exactly Rowling’s complaint, that those of differing viewpoints to her own don’t want to actually debate with her, they want her to shut up and go away.
JKR doesn't debate anyone when anyone tries to engage with her tweets so for her to complain that people don't want to debate her seems dishonest.
See this thread:
You’ve asked me several questions on this thread and accused me of avoiding answering, so here goes….
Which is not a 'debate'; it's a position platform.
" I do not, however, believe that surgeries and cross-sex hormones literally turn a person into the opposite sex, nor do I believe in the idea that each of us has a nebulous ‘gender identity’ that may or might not match our sexed bodies. "
Which is where, having known a few trans people, I think she's *very* wrong.
You are as entitled to your belief as Rowling is to hers.
The issue has been the TRA absolutist position and the consequences that would have for women’s rights, and sports, to take two examples.
I don't think there's anyone here and very very few on Twitter that have what you call a "TRA absolutist position"
For example, trans women in women's jails. Do you hold an absolutist position that all trans women should be in male prisons? My position is more nuanced, a male rapist who suddenly decides to "turn trans" shouldn't be allowed to go to a female prison, a 60 year old transwoman who's had a GRC for 20 years in prison for non-payment of their tv licence should be able to serve time in a female prison. I don't know where the line should be drawn but it's somewhere between those two positions.
What about making the determination part of sentencing? In the recent case in Scotland, it was a fiat decision of the FM, IIRC.
Would it not be better for the judge to impose a Safeguarding Others order (invented name) that bars such a dangerous individual from Womens prisons etc?
It would then be appealable and subject to judicial review.
There’s plenty of precedent in U.K. law of orders barring people from various things as part of sentencing.
Does this apply to any other demographic, Landon? Do I get to be black if I like Motown and fancy myself in cornrows? What if I claim the authentic me has always been black and that you're being racist to me? Would that be OK, or would you find it ludicrous and deeply offensive?
Stonewall are back in front of an Employment Tribunal today for trying to get a black lesbian barrister fired.
To be fair, constant derailing without ever participating in the flow of conversation doesn't really seem much like debate to me.
Which is exactly Rowling’s complaint, that those of differing viewpoints to her own don’t want to actually debate with her, they want her to shut up and go away.
Which is exactly the case when you look at how the more extreme elements target her on Twitter. None of them want to debate they just want to abuse.
It is. The Castle is great - bee orchids in the corner near the Quaker's prison ruin, or is it too early? The rail line (of course!) from York is a treat in itself. And I'm sure Sunil will ride on the cliff railway(s). But a real surprise is the Rotunda Museum which is a Regency take on local geology - including the building design.
We should be grateful that at least one major economy has spent heavily in developing electric vehicles and battery plants. We ought to have done the same.
Sounds like a signal to the rest of the world not to buy US EVs.
How do you work that one out?
I assume because it suggests US made EVs won't win in a free marketplace against Chinese EVs?
It is hardly a free marketplace if they are dumping product and in the longer term could lead to higher prices all round if the Chinese dumping caused other players to go out of business.
Sounds like a signal to the rest of the world not to buy US EVs.
How do you work that one out?
Assuming its to protect the US auto industry, suggests that US consumers would pay up to double for a Chinese EV than a US EV if there were no tariffs.
The Chinese government is attempting with EVs to do what they did with solar - subsidy to kill foreign competition until the whole supply chain shifts to China, locking in an advantage.
Why should every one put their hands over their eyes and pretend?
If the West (and rest of the world) rightly want China to cut back on emissions then isn't investment and subsidies in solar and EVs what they should be doing?
There comes a point in subsidy when it is deliberately about damaging competitors.
What would you say if the US government provided a 100% subsidy for exports of Teslas, say? So litterally a Model 3 would cost £0
All very Green.
But it would also wipe out most of the saloon car building industry on the planet.
On topic, I'd agree that 120 Tory MPs would be about the minimum if we were still dealing with the 1997 world of 3-party politics. But we're not.
The pterodactyl in the ointment is Reform. Voting intention + leadership ratings + relative issues competence + tactical voting + semi-proportional swing could well push the Tories down to 120 seats.
However, the 'worst case' scenario is that Reform's vote comes primarily from ex-2019 Tories (we know this is true at the moment: Deltapoll's most recent had about two-thirds of their current support coming from there; most of the rest, presumably was the Brexit Party), and holds up at current levels.
Now, I know there's a degree of double-counting there but I think there's also a widespread assumption that polls will tighten as we head to the election, as they usually do. And perhaps, probably, they will. But it's no guarantee. The usual pressures on minor-party squeeze aren't there in anything like the scale that they were in 2019. Labour isn't as extreme, the issues aren't as stark, the election isn't as close: and the Tories are really disliked. Swingback has usually started well before now whereas if anything, the Tories are still sinking in support. If Reform polls 10%+ it's possible that the 'worst case' is the Conservatives well down into double figures.
We shouldn't allow our thinking to be hemmed in by past events. I suspect that '120' is considered a minimum because it's ballpark within the worst-ever Tory experience; it cannot go lower because it has not gone lower.
Yet the Tories are polling 10% below where they were in 1997. True, Labour is also lower but then the polls also exaggerated their support then (a point often forgotten because of the landslide delivered and because tactical voting produced a result more consistent with the predictions of those bigger leads; the two effects cancelled each other out to an extent).
Even discounting black swans - and it does look as if Sunak is there for the duration and that the Tories won't accidentally re-elect Liz Truss or similar - we should take seriously the possibility, though not the probability, of a 1931-type outcome.
As I said earlier current polling puts the Tory party on the precipice where the difference between 200 seats and 20 is 4% / margin of error and even that depends on the level of tactical voting.
I can easily see the Tories getting 200 seats, I can equally given a little bit of bad news see them getting few to none
I mean, the Tories need to hope for a few things to keep upwards of 200 seats. They need to keep too many voters heading to other parties (predominantly Reform and Labour) and they need Labour to fail at their squeeze messaging. I don't think they have the talent to do both of those things at the moment. The longer Sunak waits, the more people want him to leave, and the more time there is for more Tory MPs to jump ship, not restand, do normal Tory MP stuff and fuck it all up, etc. For pure damage mitigation he should call a GE and run a campaign of "we know we're going to lose, but you don't want to give Labour free reign to do anything they want / you don't want the Tories to become a laughing stock, so vote for us anyway in some places". That would open up more people to feel they can vote Green and LD if they want to. It would be an admission of failure, which politicians hate, and it would be weak, which politicians hate, but it would at least be honest - and I think the electorate would reward a bit of honesty. They wouldn't elect another Tory government based on it, but I think it would prevent a Canada 93 event - which is what I think the Tories are heading for.
Just on the timing, we're almost at the point where any election called now would be into the Scottish school holidays (an election called today would be held on June 20; the Scottish schools break up the following week). That wouldn't necessarily be a blocker but it would introduce another inconvenient element into the story (and more SNP grievance to feed off). Personally, I don't think it's that big a deal. If a relatively small part of the UK, population-wise, chooses to do it's own thing then that's its right and what devolution's about but it can't (or shouldn't) expect everyone else to run around its exceptional arrangements.
But it's not long before we'd be into the period where you couldn't hold an election before the rest of the schools break up for summer too, and that would matter more in terms of practical arrangements, for public, for media, for activists and candidates and - not least - for local councils running the thing.
I mean, from a purely cynical point of view, wouldn't that likely work in the favour of the Tories?
Holding an election in the school holidays would mean teachers (not exactly the most Tory-friendly community) would have lots of free to time to campaign.
Also, plenty of empty schools to use as polling stations, which brings me to another question. Why don’t we vote on Sunday, like civilised nations? It not as if we are a religious society any more, apart from Northern Ireland and the Western Isles.
Does this apply to any other demographic, Landon? Do I get to be black if I like Motown and fancy myself in cornrows? What if I claim the authentic me has always been black and that you're being racist to me? Would that be OK, or would you find it ludicrous and deeply offensive?
Stonewall are back in front of an Employment Tribunal today for trying to get a black lesbian barrister fired.
To be fair, constant derailing without ever participating in the flow of conversation doesn't really seem much like debate to me.
Which is exactly Rowling’s complaint, that those of differing viewpoints to her own don’t want to actually debate with her, they want her to shut up and go away.
So what exactly are her differing viewpoints about voting systems, swing states, election timing, the effect of the media on the justice system or any of the other topics we were debating before the thread got derailed yet again?
The universities debate was interesting and I'd happily go back to it! I was half way into writing something about it when I ended up on a work call and lost what I was going to post.
In brief, the 'should universities be a public good or a business' was interesting and made me think of a friend in academia who pointed out that there is much more pressure to pass students than there used to be, because rich international students are in effect paying for a finishing school and the degree is the rubber stamp.
Supposedly also cheating is rampant with half the essays clearly being written by essay mills but staff unable to do anything about it. I imagine AI has made everything worse - surely it can't be that long before universities introduce the viva for masters students at least. Unless of course university is just a 'rubber stamp', in which case, what value does a degree really have at this point?
My lad's girlfriend is nearing the end of her Master's in chemistry and has to do a viva, so at least some Master's students already do have to sit one. Also, he tells me that while he's tried using AI to help with essays, he finds the output too generic and error prone, and so has gone back to researching and writing them from scratch.
Interesting. When I use AI to, say, knock out a first draft of a report I'm writing, it reminds me of the old Raymond Chandler quote: "From 30 feet away, she looked like a lot of class. From 10 feet away, she looked like she was made to be seen from 30 feet away". I.e. t looks good at first glance but doesn't pass closer inspection. However, the question is, is 'from 30 feet away' enough to get a passing grade in an undergrad (or even masters level) essay, with a few minor edits and citations thrown in? (Hope it's OK to mention AI in this way as opposed to thread derailing!). My academic friend was of the opinion that you could pass but not excel in most arts and humanities, social sciences etc, in this way. Hard stuff with right/wrong answers like chemistry is probably harder.
Which is why I think a viva is probably more essential for 'soft' degrees where the purpose is to provide an interpretation or put forward a thesis, e.g. on the topic of English literature. There is no chemical formula to the question of "Was Fitzgerald a better writer than Hemingway?" but a student could easily get AI or, to go old school, an essay mill to write a paper on it.
As I understand it the problem with the viva is twofold, firstly in that it takes up a lot more time than just marking an essay/exam, secondly in that it's much harder to strip out bias, whether that's a result of personal "unconscious bias" towards a student, or the bias that comes from some people being much better speakers and debaters than others. For example, as has been noted here before, public school students often exude confidence and excel in presentations where others might not.
I think it partly depends on the what the viva is for. Traditionally vivas were used as a chance for students just below a grade boundary (for bachelors) to move up if they impressed. So a 68% (2:1) could become a first if they viva'd well. For masters, we mark both a report (essentially a mini-paper) and then viva - the viva is partly about seeing that the person in front of you actually wrote the report - you ask questions arising and see.
I too have tried AI/LLM to generate useful text. I asked for an introduction into my next research paper. It produced a nice story, but missed the point of what was being asked, did not reference and was in fact, garbage, just well written garbage.
Now a certain poster (currently in the sin bin) would claim that this will ALL CHANGE AT 5.00PM TONIGHT, but I have not seen evidence of that yet. What AI/LLM can be plausibly doing for students is giving a passable first draft of an essay that then gets developed by the student. Arguably that just using it as a tool, so probably ok.
Sounds like a signal to the rest of the world not to buy US EVs.
How do you work that one out?
Assuming its to protect the US auto industry, suggests that US consumers would pay up to double for a Chinese EV than a US EV if there were no tariffs.
The Chinese government is attempting with EVs to do what they did with solar - subsidy to kill foreign competition until the whole supply chain shifts to China, locking in an advantage.
Why should every one put their hands over their eyes and pretend?
Aren't the EU still considering some form of protection, potentially even applying tariffs retrospectively? Which gives the US cover for their move, if so.
What are others doing? Japan and India, I assume, will be quite tariff-happy, whilst the rest of Asia and most of Africa will gladly take the subsidised Chinese exports.
The UK will follow whatever the EU ends up doing, I assume - certainly if Labour win the election, but I'd expect that to be the broad consensus position. Maybe there's an opportunity for someone like Refuk to stand out from the crowd?
The rest of Asia is negotiating manufacturing joint ventures - as should we. Chinese battery manufacturing is more advanced than anything the UK has.
We should be grateful that at least one major economy has spent heavily in developing electric vehicles and battery plants. We ought to have done the same.
Certainly one way of looking at it. We need to move to lower carbon emissions and EV is a major way of doing it and the Chinese are letting consumers buy EV at low(er) cost.
Does this apply to any other demographic, Landon? Do I get to be black if I like Motown and fancy myself in cornrows? What if I claim the authentic me has always been black and that you're being racist to me? Would that be OK, or would you find it ludicrous and deeply offensive?
Stonewall are back in front of an Employment Tribunal today for trying to get a black lesbian barrister fired.
To be fair, constant derailing without ever participating in the flow of conversation doesn't really seem much like debate to me.
Which is exactly Rowling’s complaint, that those of differing viewpoints to her own don’t want to actually debate with her, they want her to shut up and go away.
JKR doesn't debate anyone when anyone tries to engage with her tweets so for her to complain that people don't want to debate her seems dishonest.
See this thread:
You’ve asked me several questions on this thread and accused me of avoiding answering, so here goes….
Which is not a 'debate'; it's a position platform.
" I do not, however, believe that surgeries and cross-sex hormones literally turn a person into the opposite sex, nor do I believe in the idea that each of us has a nebulous ‘gender identity’ that may or might not match our sexed bodies. "
Which is where, having known a few trans people, I think she's *very* wrong.
You are as entitled to your belief as Rowling is to hers.
The issue has been the TRA absolutist position and the consequences that would have for women’s rights, and sports, to take two examples.
I don't think there's anyone here and very very few on Twitter that have what you call a "TRA absolutist position"
For example, trans women in women's jails. Do you hold an absolutist position that all trans women should be in male prisons? My position is more nuanced, a male rapist who suddenly decides to "turn trans" shouldn't be allowed to go to a female prison, a 60 year old transwoman who's had a GRC for 20 years in prison for non-payment of their tv licence should be able to serve time in a female prison. I don't know where the line should be drawn but it's somewhere between those two positions.
Is there not a growing number of special "transgender unit" wings in prison. I've no idea if any followed the trailblazing "E Wing" at HMP Downview.
Good lord, what a terrible idea. As we all know, prison doesn't work because it is 'like university for criminals', it concentrates crims together so they can learn new criminal skills and network with other like minded crims.
Concentrate enough trans people together in a confined space for long enough, and the UK might be in danger of winning the next Eurovision.
He suggested that not only had the restriction wiped out the 100,000 dependents who would have come but was also leading to falls of between 50 and 60 per cent in the number of foreign students seeking to come to the UK for postgraduate study.
From my reading that 50-60% reduction is shall we say 80,000 post grads - at £40,000 per post grad - it’s £3.2bn lost to the university sector
A cabinet split has opened up on civil service rainbow lanyards as it emerges that guidance agreed across government will not actually ban officials from wearing them.
Esther McVey, who was appointed to attend Rishi Sunak’s cabinet as a minister without portfolio, said on Monday that staff would be disciplined for any messaging on lanyards to hold security passes, describing it as “political activism in a visible way”.
But official guidance due to be issued on Tuesday makes no mention of lanyards and the policy was not raised with other government ministers, The Times understands.
On Tuesday morning Grant Shapps, the defence secretary, distanced himself from McVey’s criticism of rainbow lanyards, telling Times Radio: “Personally, I don’t mind people expressing their views on these things. What lanyard somebody wears doesn’t particularly concern me.” He said he was “more interested in the jobs that the civil service do” than in what they wore.
Sounds like a signal to the rest of the world not to buy US EVs.
How do you work that one out?
Assuming its to protect the US auto industry, suggests that US consumers would pay up to double for a Chinese EV than a US EV if there were no tariffs.
The Chinese government is attempting with EVs to do what they did with solar - subsidy to kill foreign competition until the whole supply chain shifts to China, locking in an advantage.
Why should every one put their hands over their eyes and pretend?
If the West (and rest of the world) rightly want China to cut back on emissions then isn't investment and subsidies in solar and EVs what they should be doing?
Yes. Feels like the problem is more that we haven't been matching the investment and subsidy.
Though I'm sure China could find domestic demand for its solar PV production if it was motivated by a desire to stop burning coal. So there's that.
He suggested that not only had the restriction wiped out the 100,000 dependents who would have come but was also leading to falls of between 50 and 60 per cent in the number of foreign students seeking to come to the UK for postgraduate study.
From my reading that 50-60% reduction is shall we say 80,000 post grads - at £40,000 per post grad - it’s £3.2bn lost to the university sector
I also wonder how many party donors have money invested in the expensive private student lodgings aimed at wealthy students. But iirc @Malmesbury explained some while ago now that they can be instantly repurposed to still saleable formats (residences etc.)
Does this apply to any other demographic, Landon? Do I get to be black if I like Motown and fancy myself in cornrows? What if I claim the authentic me has always been black and that you're being racist to me? Would that be OK, or would you find it ludicrous and deeply offensive?
Stonewall are back in front of an Employment Tribunal today for trying to get a black lesbian barrister fired.
To be fair, constant derailing without ever participating in the flow of conversation doesn't really seem much like debate to me.
Which is exactly Rowling’s complaint, that those of differing viewpoints to her own don’t want to actually debate with her, they want her to shut up and go away.
JKR doesn't debate anyone when anyone tries to engage with her tweets so for her to complain that people don't want to debate her seems dishonest.
See this thread:
You’ve asked me several questions on this thread and accused me of avoiding answering, so here goes….
Which is not a 'debate'; it's a position platform.
" I do not, however, believe that surgeries and cross-sex hormones literally turn a person into the opposite sex, nor do I believe in the idea that each of us has a nebulous ‘gender identity’ that may or might not match our sexed bodies. "
Which is where, having known a few trans people, I think she's *very* wrong.
You are as entitled to your belief as Rowling is to hers.
The issue has been the TRA absolutist position and the consequences that would have for women’s rights, and sports, to take two examples.
I don't think there's anyone here and very very few on Twitter that have what you call a "TRA absolutist position"
For example, trans women in women's jails. Do you hold an absolutist position that all trans women should be in male prisons? My position is more nuanced, a male rapist who suddenly decides to "turn trans" shouldn't be allowed to go to a female prison, a 60 year old transwoman who's had a GRC for 20 years in prison for non-payment of their tv licence should be able to serve time in a female prison. I don't know where the line should be drawn but it's somewhere between those two positions.
Is there not a growing number of special "transgender unit" wings in prison. I've no idea if any followed the trailblazing "E Wing" at HMP Downview.
Good lord, what a terrible idea. As we all know, prison doesn't work because it is 'like university for criminals', it concentrates crims together so they can learn new criminal skills and network with other like minded crims.
Concentrate enough trans people together in a confined space for long enough, and the UK might be in danger of winning the next Eurovision.
There is a searing, acute, scathing indictment of something or other in this post just that I can't quite work out what the target is.
A cabinet split has opened up on civil service rainbow lanyards as it emerges that guidance agreed across government will not actually ban officials from wearing them.
Esther McVey, who was appointed to attend Rishi Sunak’s cabinet as a minister without portfolio, said on Monday that staff would be disciplined for any messaging on lanyards to hold security passes, describing it as “political activism in a visible way”.
But official guidance due to be issued on Tuesday makes no mention of lanyards and the policy was not raised with other government ministers, The Times understands.
On Tuesday morning Grant Shapps, the defence secretary, distanced himself from McVey’s criticism of rainbow lanyards, telling Times Radio: “Personally, I don’t mind people expressing their views on these things. What lanyard somebody wears doesn’t particularly concern me.” He said he was “more interested in the jobs that the civil service do” than in what they wore.
It's all a bit odd. I went to a meeting down in Oz many years ago and wore the lanyard from that for decades at work - nobody even noticed, it was the security pass on the end that mattered (and I could keep that in my shirt pocket when outside work so it wasn't obvious where I worked from either pass or lanyard). A generic rainbow lanyard is positively useful in that respect, unless one works somwhere which is so high security that colour coding is important - in which case it's irrelevant to ban rainbow lanyards.
Sounds like a signal to the rest of the world not to buy US EVs.
How do you work that one out?
I assume because it suggests US made EVs won't win in a free marketplace against Chinese EVs?
Nobody wins other than China when she dumps evs across the world
Expect as @Sandpit says tariffs will be applied by the EUand UK following the US decision
I thought protectionism was generally regarded as a bad thing?
The UK doesn't have much of a BEV industry to protect, the only mass market products are the Leaf (LOL) and whatever crap Stellantis are loosely spannering together at Ellesmere Port.
The other products like the latest practical joke from Lotus are in a different market to the Chinese shit.
So it's all down to immigration. Wrong. It's all down to the perception of immigration. One bloke, paid fifty grand to go to Rwanda, a 0.01% decrease in numbers coming by boat, net immigration down by six people because that nice family in Staines decided to make a new life in Bruges.
Expect the clarion calls to be deafening. Expect also a potential change of perception. Think about the red wall. Well they finally are doing something about immigration, what would Lab do probably open the flood gates again.
That the flood gates have been open these past ten years is immaterial. People will worry.
Immigration, immigration, and control of immigration.
Sounds like a signal to the rest of the world not to buy US EVs.
How do you work that one out?
Assuming its to protect the US auto industry, suggests that US consumers would pay up to double for a Chinese EV than a US EV if there were no tariffs.
The Chinese government is attempting with EVs to do what they did with solar - subsidy to kill foreign competition until the whole supply chain shifts to China, locking in an advantage.
Why should every one put their hands over their eyes and pretend?
If the West (and rest of the world) rightly want China to cut back on emissions then isn't investment and subsidies in solar and EVs what they should be doing?
Yes. Feels like the problem is more that we haven't been matching the investment and subsidy.
Though I'm sure China could find domestic demand for its solar PV production if it was motivated by a desire to stop burning coal. So there's that.
It has; it's installing more solar capacity than any other country.
Does this apply to any other demographic, Landon? Do I get to be black if I like Motown and fancy myself in cornrows? What if I claim the authentic me has always been black and that you're being racist to me? Would that be OK, or would you find it ludicrous and deeply offensive?
Stonewall are back in front of an Employment Tribunal today for trying to get a black lesbian barrister fired.
To be fair, constant derailing without ever participating in the flow of conversation doesn't really seem much like debate to me.
Which is exactly Rowling’s complaint, that those of differing viewpoints to her own don’t want to actually debate with her, they want her to shut up and go away.
JKR doesn't debate anyone when anyone tries to engage with her tweets so for her to complain that people don't want to debate her seems dishonest.
See this thread:
You’ve asked me several questions on this thread and accused me of avoiding answering, so here goes….
Which is not a 'debate'; it's a position platform.
" I do not, however, believe that surgeries and cross-sex hormones literally turn a person into the opposite sex, nor do I believe in the idea that each of us has a nebulous ‘gender identity’ that may or might not match our sexed bodies. "
Which is where, having known a few trans people, I think she's *very* wrong.
You are as entitled to your belief as Rowling is to hers.
The issue has been the TRA absolutist position and the consequences that would have for women’s rights, and sports, to take two examples.
I don't think there's anyone here and very very few on Twitter that have what you call a "TRA absolutist position"
For example, trans women in women's jails. Do you hold an absolutist position that all trans women should be in male prisons? My position is more nuanced, a male rapist who suddenly decides to "turn trans" shouldn't be allowed to go to a female prison, a 60 year old transwoman who's had a GRC for 20 years in prison for non-payment of their tv licence should be able to serve time in a female prison. I don't know where the line should be drawn but it's somewhere between those two positions.
Is there not a growing number of special "transgender unit" wings in prison. I've no idea if any followed the trailblazing "E Wing" at HMP Downview.
Good lord, what a terrible idea. As we all know, prison doesn't work because it is 'like university for criminals', it concentrates crims together so they can learn new criminal skills and network with other like minded crims.
Concentrate enough trans people together in a confined space for long enough, and the UK might be in danger of winning the next Eurovision.
A cabinet split has opened up on civil service rainbow lanyards as it emerges that guidance agreed across government will not actually ban officials from wearing them.
Esther McVey, who was appointed to attend Rishi Sunak’s cabinet as a minister without portfolio, said on Monday that staff would be disciplined for any messaging on lanyards to hold security passes, describing it as “political activism in a visible way”.
But official guidance due to be issued on Tuesday makes no mention of lanyards and the policy was not raised with other government ministers, The Times understands.
On Tuesday morning Grant Shapps, the defence secretary, distanced himself from McVey’s criticism of rainbow lanyards, telling Times Radio: “Personally, I don’t mind people expressing their views on these things. What lanyard somebody wears doesn’t particularly concern me.” He said he was “more interested in the jobs that the civil service do” than in what they wore.
A cabinet split has opened up on civil service rainbow lanyards as it emerges that guidance agreed across government will not actually ban officials from wearing them.
Esther McVey, who was appointed to attend Rishi Sunak’s cabinet as a minister without portfolio, said on Monday that staff would be disciplined for any messaging on lanyards to hold security passes, describing it as “political activism in a visible way”.
But official guidance due to be issued on Tuesday makes no mention of lanyards and the policy was not raised with other government ministers, The Times understands.
On Tuesday morning Grant Shapps, the defence secretary, distanced himself from McVey’s criticism of rainbow lanyards, telling Times Radio: “Personally, I don’t mind people expressing their views on these things. What lanyard somebody wears doesn’t particularly concern me.” He said he was “more interested in the jobs that the civil service do” than in what they wore.
In the pub last night this was literally the ONLY topic of conversation. Never mind mortgage rates or the CoL, never mind how long it takes to see a GP or the get a hospital appointment, never mind the state of the roads or public transport, the question on everyone's minds was: Why hasn't the government banned RAINBOW LANYARDS !?
A cabinet split has opened up on civil service rainbow lanyards as it emerges that guidance agreed across government will not actually ban officials from wearing them.
Esther McVey, who was appointed to attend Rishi Sunak’s cabinet as a minister without portfolio, said on Monday that staff would be disciplined for any messaging on lanyards to hold security passes, describing it as “political activism in a visible way”.
But official guidance due to be issued on Tuesday makes no mention of lanyards and the policy was not raised with other government ministers, The Times understands.
On Tuesday morning Grant Shapps, the defence secretary, distanced himself from McVey’s criticism of rainbow lanyards, telling Times Radio: “Personally, I don’t mind people expressing their views on these things. What lanyard somebody wears doesn’t particularly concern me.” He said he was “more interested in the jobs that the civil service do” than in what they wore.
It's all a bit odd. I went to a meeting down in Oz many years ago and wore the lanyard from that for decades at work - nobody even noticed, it was the security pass on the end that mattered (and I could keep that in my shirt pocket when outside work so it wasn't obvious where I worked from either pass or lanyard). A generic rainbow lanyard is positively useful in that respect, unless one works somwhere which is so high security that colour coding is important - in which case it's irrelevant to ban rainbow lanyards.
What if people some people start wearing star of David lanyards, and others wearing Palestinian flag lanyards?
He suggested that not only had the restriction wiped out the 100,000 dependents who would have come but was also leading to falls of between 50 and 60 per cent in the number of foreign students seeking to come to the UK for postgraduate study.
From my reading that 50-60% reduction is shall we say 80,000 post grads - at £40,000 per post grad - it’s £3.2bn lost to the university sector
I also wonder how many party donors have money invested in the expensive private student lodgings aimed at wealthy students. But iirc @Malmesbury explained some while ago now that they can be instantly repurposed to still saleable formats (residences etc.)
Not so much explained as had confirmed by builders working on student accommodation in London, that they were building them to be easily converted into “Luxury Flats”
Apparently this was specified in the drawings - they’d asked why the soil stacks etc were being arranged as they were.
The idea was that they would only need to demolish some non structural walls and refit.
A cabinet split has opened up on civil service rainbow lanyards as it emerges that guidance agreed across government will not actually ban officials from wearing them.
Esther McVey, who was appointed to attend Rishi Sunak’s cabinet as a minister without portfolio, said on Monday that staff would be disciplined for any messaging on lanyards to hold security passes, describing it as “political activism in a visible way”.
But official guidance due to be issued on Tuesday makes no mention of lanyards and the policy was not raised with other government ministers, The Times understands.
On Tuesday morning Grant Shapps, the defence secretary, distanced himself from McVey’s criticism of rainbow lanyards, telling Times Radio: “Personally, I don’t mind people expressing their views on these things. What lanyard somebody wears doesn’t particularly concern me.” He said he was “more interested in the jobs that the civil service do” than in what they wore.
It's all a bit odd. I went to a meeting down in Oz many years ago and wore the lanyard from that for decades at work - nobody even noticed, it was the security pass on the end that mattered (and I could keep that in my shirt pocket when outside work so it wasn't obvious where I worked from either pass or lanyard). A generic rainbow lanyard is positively useful in that respect, unless one works somwhere which is so high security that colour coding is important - in which case it's irrelevant to ban rainbow lanyards.
Nobody will notice except the Woke Finder General.
Sounds like a signal to the rest of the world not to buy US EVs.
How do you work that one out?
Assuming its to protect the US auto industry, suggests that US consumers would pay up to double for a Chinese EV than a US EV if there were no tariffs.
The Chinese government is attempting with EVs to do what they did with solar - subsidy to kill foreign competition until the whole supply chain shifts to China, locking in an advantage.
Why should every one put their hands over their eyes and pretend?
If the West (and rest of the world) rightly want China to cut back on emissions then isn't investment and subsidies in solar and EVs what they should be doing?
There comes a point in subsidy when it is deliberately about damaging competitors.
What would you say if the US government provided a 100% subsidy for exports of Teslas, say? So litterally a Model 3 would cost £0
All very Green.
But it would also wipe out most of the saloon car building industry on the planet.
Does this apply to any other demographic, Landon? Do I get to be black if I like Motown and fancy myself in cornrows? What if I claim the authentic me has always been black and that you're being racist to me? Would that be OK, or would you find it ludicrous and deeply offensive?
Stonewall are back in front of an Employment Tribunal today for trying to get a black lesbian barrister fired.
To be fair, constant derailing without ever participating in the flow of conversation doesn't really seem much like debate to me.
Which is exactly Rowling’s complaint, that those of differing viewpoints to her own don’t want to actually debate with her, they want her to shut up and go away.
JKR doesn't debate anyone when anyone tries to engage with her tweets so for her to complain that people don't want to debate her seems dishonest.
See this thread:
You’ve asked me several questions on this thread and accused me of avoiding answering, so here goes….
Which is not a 'debate'; it's a position platform.
" I do not, however, believe that surgeries and cross-sex hormones literally turn a person into the opposite sex, nor do I believe in the idea that each of us has a nebulous ‘gender identity’ that may or might not match our sexed bodies. "
Which is where, having known a few trans people, I think she's *very* wrong.
You are as entitled to your belief as Rowling is to hers.
The issue has been the TRA absolutist position and the consequences that would have for women’s rights, and sports, to take two examples.
I don't think there's anyone here and very very few on Twitter that have what you call a "TRA absolutist position"
For example, trans women in women's jails. Do you hold an absolutist position that all trans women should be in male prisons? My position is more nuanced, a male rapist who suddenly decides to "turn trans" shouldn't be allowed to go to a female prison, a 60 year old transwoman who's had a GRC for 20 years in prison for non-payment of their tv licence should be able to serve time in a female prison. I don't know where the line should be drawn but it's somewhere between those two positions.
Yes - “people” should be assessed as “individuals” - everyone is different - and “motivation” is clearly an important factor in assessing where people should be incarcerated.
On sports, on the other hand, I think “blanket” solutions are appropriate. You compete in the sex you went through puberty in. Mediocre male athletes are taking women’s prizes. And when offered the chance to “compete as themselves”
I'm in a similar position in sports. There are some sports where men and women have always competed as equals like equestrian sports so there's no issue about transmen or transwomen in competition. Then there's chess and I'm not convinced that transgender players would have any advantage in competitive play. Darts I'm not convinced of either, but there could be an advantage, needs more research. But yes, in most sports, muscle mass and height does make a big difference. You can artificially reduce muscle mass but height (and wingspan in swimming) you can't change so it's right to restrict trans women from most professional and high level sports.
I don't think that consideration applies to non-elite sport. Do I think trans women should be banned from their local Park Run, the local five-a-side football league or even the London Marathon? I think that would be draconian. Recreational sport is enjoyable and good for a person's fitness and mental wellbeing, I don't see any reason to disallow a trans person the opportunity to engage in a whole social activity like that.
Sounds like a signal to the rest of the world not to buy US EVs.
How do you work that one out?
I assume because it suggests US made EVs won't win in a free marketplace against Chinese EVs?
Nobody wins other than China when she dumps evs across the world
Expect as @Sandpit says tariffs will be applied by the EUand UK following the US decision
I thought protectionism was generally regarded as a bad thing?
It is, but so also is being on the receiving end of economic dumping of strategically important products.
One problem is that Tesla when trying to implement his gigapress process used Chinese money to fund it so they also have the technology.
Add in their vast battery supply advantage and you can see why Chinese EVs are a big problem for the US / EU.
The Chinese cars are already half decent and the manufacturers don’t have the legacy costs western car firms have to cover
Yes, Tesla were complaining that they had to use a Chinese supplier for their new body stamping process, because no-one else could do it, and now it unsurprisingly appears that the tech has been stolen, as usually happens with any Western IP that goes through China.
Tesla are also saying that the Chinese EV with an 80kWh battery is the same price as the Chinese will sell them just the battery of the same size, which is why they’re being accused of dumping.
Chinese cars themselves are pretty good, there’s loads of them in my part of the world and they’re pretty close in quality to the Korean manufacturers but about 20% cheaper for petrol cars). For EVs, they’re a lot cheaper (30-40%) than the Koreans for an equivalent product, thanks to the battery price advantage.
Basically everyone else is stuffed, until there’s enough battery capacity out there without Chinese fingerprints on it. That’s likely going to need to involve Western countries in the entire supply chain of many of the minerals involved, as the CCP has worked really hard to secure exclusive rights to mines and deposits around the world.
They're not dumping; rather they're exploiting their cost advantage and semi-monopoly position in batteries.
If you start arguing about industry subsidies, they'll say the west is also subsidising. Which is true.
A cabinet split has opened up on civil service rainbow lanyards as it emerges that guidance agreed across government will not actually ban officials from wearing them.
Esther McVey, who was appointed to attend Rishi Sunak’s cabinet as a minister without portfolio, said on Monday that staff would be disciplined for any messaging on lanyards to hold security passes, describing it as “political activism in a visible way”.
But official guidance due to be issued on Tuesday makes no mention of lanyards and the policy was not raised with other government ministers, The Times understands.
On Tuesday morning Grant Shapps, the defence secretary, distanced himself from McVey’s criticism of rainbow lanyards, telling Times Radio: “Personally, I don’t mind people expressing their views on these things. What lanyard somebody wears doesn’t particularly concern me.” He said he was “more interested in the jobs that the civil service do” than in what they wore.
It's all a bit odd. I went to a meeting down in Oz many years ago and wore the lanyard from that for decades at work - nobody even noticed, it was the security pass on the end that mattered (and I could keep that in my shirt pocket when outside work so it wasn't obvious where I worked from either pass or lanyard). A generic rainbow lanyard is positively useful in that respect, unless one works somwhere which is so high security that colour coding is important - in which case it's irrelevant to ban rainbow lanyards.
What if people some people start wearing star of David lanyards, and others wearing Palestinian flag lanyards?
Or, God forbid, TERF lanyards?
Couldn't that make things a bit tetchy ay work?
Already covered by basic employment legislation. Doesn't matter what the emblem is. If it disrupts things, out it goes.
Indeed, that shows the complete stupidity of focussing solely on rainbow lanyards ...
Also, what's this bollocks about Spurs fans wanting to lose to prevent the Arse winning the league. As an Arsenal fan of some years, I'm going to say I've been supporting them longer than anyone else on here so there, and if the positions were reversed, I would want us to be playing CL football next season rather than prevent Spurs from winning the League.
Spurs not winning the league would be some kind of consolation were we not to qualify for the CL but the CL is the most important competition out there (oh Thierry, oh Freddie - how much did those misses cost us). And I would want to be playing there.
Are you sure this isn't where Rishi gets his election winning strategy from, through the looking glass?
Certain Tories are Spurs fans. including iirc one Iain Dale.
Spurs aren't going to beat Man City anyway. At least if Spurs convince themselves that they wanted to lose it will make them feel better about the inevitable. cf any Tory who claims that this 2024/25 general election is "a good one to lose"
Spurs drawing is (very probably) good enough for Arsenal, just saying.
So it's all down to immigration. Wrong. It's all down to the perception of immigration. One bloke, paid fifty grand to go to Rwanda, a 0.01% decrease in numbers coming by boat, net immigration down by six people because that nice family in Staines decided to make a new life in Bruges.
Expect the clarion calls to be deafening. Expect also a potential change of perception. Think about the red wall. Well they finally are doing something about immigration, what would Lab do probably open the flood gates again.
That the flood gates have been open these past ten years is immaterial. People will worry.
Immigration, immigration, and control of immigration.
Is what it's all about.
To which the response will be across all the the Red Wall, it’s way more ethnically diverse round here than it used to be even a year or so ago.
And once it’s quietly pointed out the voters who would potentially go back to the Tories will be back voting for Reform again
"Nineteen EU countries demand the right to introduce Rwanda-style deportation schemes amid signs the UK's new law is already having a deterrent effect
The EU is facing demands from a host of member states for the right to introduce Rwanda-style deportation schemes. The Czech and Italian PMs are leading a 19-strong group asking Brussels to let them transfer migration procedures outside the bloc's territory. UK government sources said the move showed that 'the fundamentals of our plan are making sense to people across the world'."
Sounds like a signal to the rest of the world not to buy US EVs.
How do you work that one out?
I assume because it suggests US made EVs won't win in a free marketplace against Chinese EVs?
It is hardly a free marketplace if they are dumping product and in the longer term could lead to higher prices all round if the Chinese dumping caused other players to go out of business.
I've never understood why dumping is an issue in a free market - if you have the capacity to make lots of a product and make it cheaper, isn't that just you being better than competitors? Or is the argument that it has government backing it isn't fair?
And my first statement was not my position on the issue - it was more my guess at what the others were saying
So it's all down to immigration. Wrong. It's all down to the perception of immigration. One bloke, paid fifty grand to go to Rwanda, a 0.01% decrease in numbers coming by boat, net immigration down by six people because that nice family in Staines decided to make a new life in Bruges.
Expect the clarion calls to be deafening. Expect also a potential change of perception. Think about the red wall. Well they finally are doing something about immigration, what would Lab do probably open the flood gates again.
That the flood gates have been open these past ten years is immaterial. People will worry.
Immigration, immigration, and control of immigration.
Is what it's all about.
To which the response will be across all the the Red Wall, it’s way more ethnically diverse round here than it used to be even a year or so ago.
And once it’s quietly pointed out the voters who would potentially go back to the Tories will be back voting for Reform again
And you are saying that people will rejoice in the increase in diversity. Not 100% sure that is the case.
A cabinet split has opened up on civil service rainbow lanyards as it emerges that guidance agreed across government will not actually ban officials from wearing them.
Esther McVey, who was appointed to attend Rishi Sunak’s cabinet as a minister without portfolio, said on Monday that staff would be disciplined for any messaging on lanyards to hold security passes, describing it as “political activism in a visible way”.
But official guidance due to be issued on Tuesday makes no mention of lanyards and the policy was not raised with other government ministers, The Times understands.
On Tuesday morning Grant Shapps, the defence secretary, distanced himself from McVey’s criticism of rainbow lanyards, telling Times Radio: “Personally, I don’t mind people expressing their views on these things. What lanyard somebody wears doesn’t particularly concern me.” He said he was “more interested in the jobs that the civil service do” than in what they wore.
It's all a bit odd. I went to a meeting down in Oz many years ago and wore the lanyard from that for decades at work - nobody even noticed, it was the security pass on the end that mattered (and I could keep that in my shirt pocket when outside work so it wasn't obvious where I worked from either pass or lanyard). A generic rainbow lanyard is positively useful in that respect, unless one works somwhere which is so high security that colour coding is important - in which case it's irrelevant to ban rainbow lanyards.
If you work somewhere with that kind of security clearance, you don't want a lanyard at all lest the Russians use it to strangle you
(I'm only half kidding - Doctors in psych wards wear quick release lanyards for exactly this reason)
» show previous quotes The better Scottish Universities did well in attracting English students willing to pay them £9k a year for courses that the SG was paying just over £5k for. Boris threatened to close that loophole but I don't think he did. The number of funded places available for Scottish student has been falling because the budget simply can't stretch to cover the cost of those who want to attend for this "free" education. Ironically, this has driven quite a lot of Scottish students south, willing to take on English fees to get a better education or a University place. One of these is my son.
But your friend is right. The likes of Edinburgh, Glasgow and St Andrews have balanced the books with ever increasing numbers of foreign students paying up to £20k a year for some courses. How the strand below that are coping is a mystery to me.
David insinuating that you have to go to England to get a decent education is pure bollox. There are brilliant universities in Scotland that are a match for anywhere in the world. Wanting to boast that you went to Oxford or Cambridge is not down to lack of good university courses in Scotland, just means you can buy a bragging place if you have lots of money.
That's not what I am saying Malcolm. I agree that Scotland has some excellent Universities. What is driving some young people south is that it is hard to get an assisted place from the SG in them because the number of assisted places is being restricted as the budget gets tighter.
Scottish Universities are also really struggling to compete because the money they receive from the SG per student is substantially less than the fees charged to students under the English system. The cream of Scottish Universities have compensated by having more foreign students and also (particularly in St Andrews and Edinburgh) having lots of English students paying the same as they would in England. But these options are not available for all or even most Universities. Their financial position is increasingly perilous.
If you are wanting to go to University it can be easier to get a place in a good English University paying the English fees (by borrowing) than getting an assisted place in Scotland. The "free" University option in Scotland seemed like a good idea but it has had negative consequences that will increase sharply if University fees go up again south of the border. Personally, I favour some form of graduate tax as a means of funding Universities.
David I do agree that unfetterd courses for free is pretty stupid. It really should eb limited to skills required courses and be available fro Technical colleges as well. If people want to do courses for a laugh then they should pay for it. It si the correct idea being very badly handled as per usual SNP practice.
Sounds like a signal to the rest of the world not to buy US EVs.
How do you work that one out?
Assuming its to protect the US auto industry, suggests that US consumers would pay up to double for a Chinese EV than a US EV if there were no tariffs.
The Chinese government is attempting with EVs to do what they did with solar - subsidy to kill foreign competition until the whole supply chain shifts to China, locking in an advantage.
Why should every one put their hands over their eyes and pretend?
If the West (and rest of the world) rightly want China to cut back on emissions then isn't investment and subsidies in solar and EVs what they should be doing?
There comes a point in subsidy when it is deliberately about damaging competitors.
What would you say if the US government provided a 100% subsidy for exports of Teslas, say? So litterally a Model 3 would cost £0
All very Green.
But it would also wipe out most of the saloon car building industry on the planet.
I'd say l'll take three Teslas please.
And then, when you have no car industry, the price changes.
Does this apply to any other demographic, Landon? Do I get to be black if I like Motown and fancy myself in cornrows? What if I claim the authentic me has always been black and that you're being racist to me? Would that be OK, or would you find it ludicrous and deeply offensive?
Stonewall are back in front of an Employment Tribunal today for trying to get a black lesbian barrister fired.
To be fair, constant derailing without ever participating in the flow of conversation doesn't really seem much like debate to me.
Which is exactly Rowling’s complaint, that those of differing viewpoints to her own don’t want to actually debate with her, they want her to shut up and go away.
JKR doesn't debate anyone when anyone tries to engage with her tweets so for her to complain that people don't want to debate her seems dishonest.
See this thread:
You’ve asked me several questions on this thread and accused me of avoiding answering, so here goes….
Which is not a 'debate'; it's a position platform.
" I do not, however, believe that surgeries and cross-sex hormones literally turn a person into the opposite sex, nor do I believe in the idea that each of us has a nebulous ‘gender identity’ that may or might not match our sexed bodies. "
Which is where, having known a few trans people, I think she's *very* wrong.
You are as entitled to your belief as Rowling is to hers.
The issue has been the TRA absolutist position and the consequences that would have for women’s rights, and sports, to take two examples.
I don't think there's anyone here and very very few on Twitter that have what you call a "TRA absolutist position"
For example, trans women in women's jails. Do you hold an absolutist position that all trans women should be in male prisons? My position is more nuanced, a male rapist who suddenly decides to "turn trans" shouldn't be allowed to go to a female prison, a 60 year old transwoman who's had a GRC for 20 years in prison for non-payment of their tv licence should be able to serve time in a female prison. I don't know where the line should be drawn but it's somewhere between those two positions.
The person in the first example is just a man, so I don’t think that qualifies as a nuanced position on trans women in prison.
Jo Coburn is usually decent. But today she asked Rebecca L-B several questions and then just talked over Rebecca's answers. FWIW I'm no fan of RLB, but (from what I could actually hear) she gave sensible answers. What is the point of asking someone a question and then just talking over their response? It's annoying.
Sounds like a signal to the rest of the world not to buy US EVs.
How do you work that one out?
I assume because it suggests US made EVs won't win in a free marketplace against Chinese EVs?
Nobody wins other than China when she dumps evs across the world
Expect as @Sandpit says tariffs will be applied by the EUand UK following the US decision
I thought protectionism was generally regarded as a bad thing?
It is, but so also is being on the receiving end of economic dumping of strategically important products.
One problem is that Tesla when trying to implement his gigapress process used Chinese money to fund it so they also have the technology.
Add in their vast battery supply advantage and you can see why Chinese EVs are a big problem for the US / EU.
The Chinese cars are already half decent and the manufacturers don’t have the legacy costs western car firms have to cover
Yes, Tesla were complaining that they had to use a Chinese supplier for their new body stamping process, because no-one else could do it, and now it unsurprisingly appears that the tech has been stolen, as usually happens with any Western IP that goes through China.
Tesla are also saying that the Chinese EV with an 80kWh battery is the same price as the Chinese will sell them just the battery of the same size, which is why they’re being accused of dumping.
Chinese cars themselves are pretty good, there’s loads of them in my part of the world and they’re pretty close in quality to the Korean manufacturers but about 20% cheaper for petrol cars). For EVs, they’re a lot cheaper (30-40%) than the Koreans for an equivalent product, thanks to the battery price advantage.
Basically everyone else is stuffed, until there’s enough battery capacity out there without Chinese fingerprints on it. That’s likely going to need to involve Western countries in the entire supply chain of many of the minerals involved, as the CCP has worked really hard to secure exclusive rights to mines and deposits around the world.
They're not dumping; rather they're exploiting their cost advantage and semi-monopoly position in batteries.
If you start arguing about industry subsidies, they'll say the west is also subsidising. Which is true.
I'll bet the people who are sore about 'dumping' overlap significantly with all those who were arguing against our subsidising the development of a battery and EV industry a decade ago.
Sounds like a signal to the rest of the world not to buy US EVs.
How do you work that one out?
I assume because it suggests US made EVs won't win in a free marketplace against Chinese EVs?
It is hardly a free marketplace if they are dumping product and in the longer term could lead to higher prices all round if the Chinese dumping caused other players to go out of business.
I've never understood why dumping is an issue in a free market - if you have the capacity to make lots of a product and make it cheaper, isn't that just you being better than competitors? Or is the argument that it has government backing it isn't fair?
And my first statement was not my position on the issue - it was more my guess at what the others were saying
Dumping is a problem if it's a short term solution to drive out competitors and then hike the prices once market dominance is assured. We can all think of situations where there's a price war and the company that can sustain the losses long enough ends up with an undeserved market share.
Does this apply to any other demographic, Landon? Do I get to be black if I like Motown and fancy myself in cornrows? What if I claim the authentic me has always been black and that you're being racist to me? Would that be OK, or would you find it ludicrous and deeply offensive?
Stonewall are back in front of an Employment Tribunal today for trying to get a black lesbian barrister fired.
To be fair, constant derailing without ever participating in the flow of conversation doesn't really seem much like debate to me.
Which is exactly Rowling’s complaint, that those of differing viewpoints to her own don’t want to actually debate with her, they want her to shut up and go away.
JKR doesn't debate anyone when anyone tries to engage with her tweets so for her to complain that people don't want to debate her seems dishonest.
See this thread:
You’ve asked me several questions on this thread and accused me of avoiding answering, so here goes….
Which is not a 'debate'; it's a position platform.
" I do not, however, believe that surgeries and cross-sex hormones literally turn a person into the opposite sex, nor do I believe in the idea that each of us has a nebulous ‘gender identity’ that may or might not match our sexed bodies. "
Which is where, having known a few trans people, I think she's *very* wrong.
You are as entitled to your belief as Rowling is to hers.
The issue has been the TRA absolutist position and the consequences that would have for women’s rights, and sports, to take two examples.
I don't think there's anyone here and very very few on Twitter that have what you call a "TRA absolutist position"
For example, trans women in women's jails. Do you hold an absolutist position that all trans women should be in male prisons? My position is more nuanced, a male rapist who suddenly decides to "turn trans" shouldn't be allowed to go to a female prison, a 60 year old transwoman who's had a GRC for 20 years in prison for non-payment of their tv licence should be able to serve time in a female prison. I don't know where the line should be drawn but it's somewhere between those two positions.
The person in the first example is just a man, so I don’t think that qualifies as a nuanced position on trans women in prison.
Yes, I agree, do you agree that the person in the second example is a woman and the line is somewhere between the two examples?
Sounds like a signal to the rest of the world not to buy US EVs.
How do you work that one out?
I assume because it suggests US made EVs won't win in a free marketplace against Chinese EVs?
It is hardly a free marketplace if they are dumping product and in the longer term could lead to higher prices all round if the Chinese dumping caused other players to go out of business.
I've never understood why dumping is an issue in a free market - if you have the capacity to make lots of a product and make it cheaper, isn't that just you being better than competitors? Or is the argument that it has government backing it isn't fair?
And my first statement was not my position on the issue - it was more my guess at what the others were saying
Dumping is selling below cost. This is specially banned in many countries to prevent companies deliberately destroying their competitors.
A related practise is cross-subsidising in conglomerates - using money from a profitable part of the business to fund selling below cost to destroy everyone else in another market.
Subsidies can be used to do the same thing - corner a market with cheap prices, then once you have a monopoly…
Sounds like a signal to the rest of the world not to buy US EVs.
How do you work that one out?
I assume because it suggests US made EVs won't win in a free marketplace against Chinese EVs?
It is hardly a free marketplace if they are dumping product and in the longer term could lead to higher prices all round if the Chinese dumping caused other players to go out of business.
I've never understood why dumping is an issue in a free market - if you have the capacity to make lots of a product and make it cheaper, isn't that just you being better than competitors? Or is the argument that it has government backing it isn't fair?
And my first statement was not my position on the issue - it was more my guess at what the others were saying
No, because that's not what dumping is. Dumping is selling below cost with the intention of driving competitors out of business (and disincentivising potential competitors from entering the market). It's not a sustainable strategy but if it's successful, that doesn't matter because you raise your prices once you dominate the market, both to cover the losses and because, once you're a near-monopoly, you can
If firms were benefiting from selling at or slightly above cost due to those costs being lower than those of competitors (and the products broadly equivalent), then that would be the market in action.
Does this apply to any other demographic, Landon? Do I get to be black if I like Motown and fancy myself in cornrows? What if I claim the authentic me has always been black and that you're being racist to me? Would that be OK, or would you find it ludicrous and deeply offensive?
Stonewall are back in front of an Employment Tribunal today for trying to get a black lesbian barrister fired.
To be fair, constant derailing without ever participating in the flow of conversation doesn't really seem much like debate to me.
Which is exactly Rowling’s complaint, that those of differing viewpoints to her own don’t want to actually debate with her, they want her to shut up and go away.
JKR doesn't debate anyone when anyone tries to engage with her tweets so for her to complain that people don't want to debate her seems dishonest.
See this thread:
You’ve asked me several questions on this thread and accused me of avoiding answering, so here goes….
Which is not a 'debate'; it's a position platform.
" I do not, however, believe that surgeries and cross-sex hormones literally turn a person into the opposite sex, nor do I believe in the idea that each of us has a nebulous ‘gender identity’ that may or might not match our sexed bodies. "
Which is where, having known a few trans people, I think she's *very* wrong.
You are as entitled to your belief as Rowling is to hers.
The issue has been the TRA absolutist position and the consequences that would have for women’s rights, and sports, to take two examples.
There is no conflict between the rights of women and the ability for trans people to live their life in peace. Transwomen have, for example, had access to single sex spaces all my life (and probably all of your life) using only self ID and it has not been a systemic issue. There may be the odd case of an issue here and there, as there is over any large enough number of human interactions, but there is no evidence of ciswomen being systemically harmed by the inclusion of transwomen in their spaces.
Does this apply to any other demographic, Landon? Do I get to be black if I like Motown and fancy myself in cornrows? What if I claim the authentic me has always been black and that you're being racist to me? Would that be OK, or would you find it ludicrous and deeply offensive?
Stonewall are back in front of an Employment Tribunal today for trying to get a black lesbian barrister fired.
To be fair, constant derailing without ever participating in the flow of conversation doesn't really seem much like debate to me.
Which is exactly Rowling’s complaint, that those of differing viewpoints to her own don’t want to actually debate with her, they want her to shut up and go away.
JKR doesn't debate anyone when anyone tries to engage with her tweets so for her to complain that people don't want to debate her seems dishonest.
See this thread:
You’ve asked me several questions on this thread and accused me of avoiding answering, so here goes….
Which is not a 'debate'; it's a position platform.
" I do not, however, believe that surgeries and cross-sex hormones literally turn a person into the opposite sex, nor do I believe in the idea that each of us has a nebulous ‘gender identity’ that may or might not match our sexed bodies. "
Which is where, having known a few trans people, I think she's *very* wrong.
You are as entitled to your belief as Rowling is to hers.
The issue has been the TRA absolutist position and the consequences that would have for women’s rights, and sports, to take two examples.
I don't think there's anyone here and very very few on Twitter that have what you call a "TRA absolutist position"
For example, trans women in women's jails. Do you hold an absolutist position that all trans women should be in male prisons? My position is more nuanced, a male rapist who suddenly decides to "turn trans" shouldn't be allowed to go to a female prison, a 60 year old transwoman who's had a GRC for 20 years in prison for non-payment of their tv licence should be able to serve time in a female prison. I don't know where the line should be drawn but it's somewhere between those two positions.
Yes - “people” should be assessed as “individuals” - everyone is different - and “motivation” is clearly an important factor in assessing where people should be incarcerated.
On sports, on the other hand, I think “blanket” solutions are appropriate. You compete in the sex you went through puberty in. Mediocre male athletes are taking women’s prizes. And when offered the chance to “compete as themselves”
I'm in a similar position in sports. There are some sports where men and women have always competed as equals like equestrian sports so there's no issue about transmen or transwomen in competition. Then there's chess and I'm not convinced that transgender players would have any advantage in competitive play. Darts I'm not convinced of either, but there could be an advantage, needs more research. But yes, in most sports, muscle mass and height does make a big difference. You can artificially reduce muscle mass but height (and wingspan in swimming) you can't change so it's right to restrict trans women from most professional and high level sports.
I don't think that consideration applies to non-elite sport. Do I think trans women should be banned from their local Park Run, the local five-a-side football league or even the London Marathon? I think that would be draconian. Recreational sport is enjoyable and good for a person's fitness and mental wellbeing, I don't see any reason to disallow a trans person the opportunity to engage in a whole social activity like that.
Would it be fair for a team of TransWomen to compete on a female 5 a side league? We’d have to ask the teams of real women they play against I suppose, but I wouldn’t have throughly they’d be thrilled about it
As for park run, the controversy is trans women’s times being included in the female category. I doubt anyone has a problem with them taking part in park run
A cabinet split has opened up on civil service rainbow lanyards as it emerges that guidance agreed across government will not actually ban officials from wearing them.
Esther McVey, who was appointed to attend Rishi Sunak’s cabinet as a minister without portfolio, said on Monday that staff would be disciplined for any messaging on lanyards to hold security passes, describing it as “political activism in a visible way”.
But official guidance due to be issued on Tuesday makes no mention of lanyards and the policy was not raised with other government ministers, The Times understands.
On Tuesday morning Grant Shapps, the defence secretary, distanced himself from McVey’s criticism of rainbow lanyards, telling Times Radio: “Personally, I don’t mind people expressing their views on these things. What lanyard somebody wears doesn’t particularly concern me.” He said he was “more interested in the jobs that the civil service do” than in what they wore.
It's all a bit odd. I went to a meeting down in Oz many years ago and wore the lanyard from that for decades at work - nobody even noticed, it was the security pass on the end that mattered (and I could keep that in my shirt pocket when outside work so it wasn't obvious where I worked from either pass or lanyard). A generic rainbow lanyard is positively useful in that respect, unless one works somwhere which is so high security that colour coding is important - in which case it's irrelevant to ban rainbow lanyards.
What if people some people start wearing star of David lanyards, and others wearing Palestinian flag lanyards?
Or, God forbid, TERF lanyards?
Couldn't that make things a bit tetchy at work?
Come on, you can invent trickier scenarios than that:
What about if I wear a lanyard with mini-swastikas printed all down it? Or what about if I wear a tie with naked glamour mag models on them?
Can't we just apply a bit of common sense? Remind me again, who are the rainbow lanyards offending?
"Nineteen EU countries demand the right to introduce Rwanda-style deportation schemes amid signs the UK's new law is already having a deterrent effect
The EU is facing demands from a host of member states for the right to introduce Rwanda-style deportation schemes. The Czech and Italian PMs are leading a 19-strong group asking Brussels to let them transfer migration procedures outside the bloc's territory. UK government sources said the move showed that 'the fundamentals of our plan are making sense to people across the world'."
Considering there have been small boat arrivals every day in the last week, totalling 876, in what way is the deterrent effect of the Rwanda plan working?
On topic, I'd agree that 120 Tory MPs would be about the minimum if we were still dealing with the 1997 world of 3-party politics. But we're not.
The pterodactyl in the ointment is Reform. Voting intention + leadership ratings + relative issues competence + tactical voting + semi-proportional swing could well push the Tories down to 120 seats.
However, the 'worst case' scenario is that Reform's vote comes primarily from ex-2019 Tories (we know this is true at the moment: Deltapoll's most recent had about two-thirds of their current support coming from there; most of the rest, presumably was the Brexit Party), and holds up at current levels.
Now, I know there's a degree of double-counting there but I think there's also a widespread assumption that polls will tighten as we head to the election, as they usually do. And perhaps, probably, they will. But it's no guarantee. The usual pressures on minor-party squeeze aren't there in anything like the scale that they were in 2019. Labour isn't as extreme, the issues aren't as stark, the election isn't as close: and the Tories are really disliked. Swingback has usually started well before now whereas if anything, the Tories are still sinking in support. If Reform polls 10%+ it's possible that the 'worst case' is the Conservatives well down into double figures.
We shouldn't allow our thinking to be hemmed in by past events. I suspect that '120' is considered a minimum because it's ballpark within the worst-ever Tory experience; it cannot go lower because it has not gone lower.
Yet the Tories are polling 10% below where they were in 1997. True, Labour is also lower but then the polls also exaggerated their support then (a point often forgotten because of the landslide delivered and because tactical voting produced a result more consistent with the predictions of those bigger leads; the two effects cancelled each other out to an extent).
Even discounting black swans - and it does look as if Sunak is there for the duration and that the Tories won't accidentally re-elect Liz Truss or similar - we should take seriously the possibility, though not the probability, of a 1931-type outcome.
As I said earlier current polling puts the Tory party on the precipice where the difference between 200 seats and 20 is 4% / margin of error and even that depends on the level of tactical voting.
I can easily see the Tories getting 200 seats, I can equally given a little bit of bad news see them getting few to none
I mean, the Tories need to hope for a few things to keep upwards of 200 seats. They need to keep too many voters heading to other parties (predominantly Reform and Labour) and they need Labour to fail at their squeeze messaging. I don't think they have the talent to do both of those things at the moment. The longer Sunak waits, the more people want him to leave, and the more time there is for more Tory MPs to jump ship, not restand, do normal Tory MP stuff and fuck it all up, etc. For pure damage mitigation he should call a GE and run a campaign of "we know we're going to lose, but you don't want to give Labour free reign to do anything they want / you don't want the Tories to become a laughing stock, so vote for us anyway in some places". That would open up more people to feel they can vote Green and LD if they want to. It would be an admission of failure, which politicians hate, and it would be weak, which politicians hate, but it would at least be honest - and I think the electorate would reward a bit of honesty. They wouldn't elect another Tory government based on it, but I think it would prevent a Canada 93 event - which is what I think the Tories are heading for.
Just on the timing, we're almost at the point where any election called now would be into the Scottish school holidays (an election called today would be held on June 20; the Scottish schools break up the following week). That wouldn't necessarily be a blocker but it would introduce another inconvenient element into the story (and more SNP grievance to feed off). Personally, I don't think it's that big a deal. If a relatively small part of the UK, population-wise, chooses to do it's own thing then that's its right and what devolution's about but it can't (or shouldn't) expect everyone else to run around its exceptional arrangements.
But it's not long before we'd be into the period where you couldn't hold an election before the rest of the schools break up for summer too, and that would matter more in terms of practical arrangements, for public, for media, for activists and candidates and - not least - for local councils running the thing.
i doubt Sunak gives two figs about the Scottish school holidays. However I think he is just gonna run the clock down until January.
Not January.
If parliament returns after conference season then it will quickly become painfully obvious how little it has to do and the accusations of 'squatting in Downing St' will become loud and persistent. Public opinion is likely to follow. I don't think it will be credible or even possible to stick it out that far - and all for an election period that activists, public and media will hate. Even Tory MPs will start calling for a December election if it starts to look like January is a genuine option.
But I still think Nov 14 most likely, with Oct 17 next.
A cabinet split has opened up on civil service rainbow lanyards as it emerges that guidance agreed across government will not actually ban officials from wearing them.
Esther McVey, who was appointed to attend Rishi Sunak’s cabinet as a minister without portfolio, said on Monday that staff would be disciplined for any messaging on lanyards to hold security passes, describing it as “political activism in a visible way”.
But official guidance due to be issued on Tuesday makes no mention of lanyards and the policy was not raised with other government ministers, The Times understands.
On Tuesday morning Grant Shapps, the defence secretary, distanced himself from McVey’s criticism of rainbow lanyards, telling Times Radio: “Personally, I don’t mind people expressing their views on these things. What lanyard somebody wears doesn’t particularly concern me.” He said he was “more interested in the jobs that the civil service do” than in what they wore.
It's all a bit odd. I went to a meeting down in Oz many years ago and wore the lanyard from that for decades at work - nobody even noticed, it was the security pass on the end that mattered (and I could keep that in my shirt pocket when outside work so it wasn't obvious where I worked from either pass or lanyard). A generic rainbow lanyard is positively useful in that respect, unless one works somwhere which is so high security that colour coding is important - in which case it's irrelevant to ban rainbow lanyards.
What if people some people start wearing star of David lanyards, and others wearing Palestinian flag lanyards?
Or, God forbid, TERF lanyards?
Couldn't that make things a bit tetchy ay work?
Already covered by basic employment legislation. Doesn't matter what the emblem is. If it disrupts things, out it goes.
Indeed, that shows the complete stupidity of focussing solely on rainbow lanyards ...
So if a number of staff have already complained about colleagues wearing rainbow lanyards it's time to ban them already?
I personally dgaf about what lanyards people wear. I'm just trying to understand why rainbows should be treated differently to anything else; because they're so pretty in the sky?
Comments
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/03/14/britain-threatens-sanctions-china-curb-imports-electric-cars/
You can add perhaps that it was an extraordinarily badly run organisation, but maybe that's not as uncommon as we would like to think.
But postponing an election indefinitely? Or at least until the prime minister in office could make up his mind?
The true decision-makers are the primary voters and their decisions have been made. Biden has around 3400 of the 3934 delegates to the convention, with 8 states still to vote. There's no way around that unless Biden himself chooses to stand down - and he won't, for all the reasons he hasn't stood down already.
Yes some thought needed to be put into Kamala Harris, as she’s terribly unpopular outside the Dem base, but they could have shuffled her onto the Supreme Court or a similar role, and may still do so, which would have left a standard primary season to choose a new nominee.
But now all the eggs are in the Biden basket, which is potentially a big risk for the next six months. He’s sad to watch on a human level, and really should be enjoying what’s left of a quality life with his family. From a political point of view, people in the UK are underestimating the support for Trump, who’s currently leading in the swing state polls. He’s a very divisive figure, and many are projecting their dislike of him onto their prediction for the result.
Which gives the US cover for their move, if so.
What are others doing? Japan and India, I assume, will be quite tariff-happy, whilst the rest of Asia and most of Africa will gladly take the subsidised Chinese exports.
The UK will follow whatever the EU ends up doing, I assume - certainly if Labour win the election, but I'd expect that to be the broad consensus position. Maybe there's an opportunity for someone like Refuk to stand out from the crowd?
Oh, and the most recent Wisconsin polling has Biden 6% clear in a head-to-head match up:
https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3897
The issue has been the TRA absolutist position and the consequences that would have for women’s rights, and sports, to take two examples.
Basically the economy is set up to manufacture goods with mass unemployment otherwise. Hence a need to keep manufacturing going no matter what to avoid civil unrest
Add in their vast battery supply advantage and you can see why Chinese EVs are a big problem for the US / EU.
The Chinese cars are already half decent and the manufacturers don’t have the legacy costs western car firms have to cover
What's Mandarin for "Gis' a job"?
The other products like the latest practical joke from Lotus are in a different market to the Chinese shit.
Which is why I think a viva is probably more essential for 'soft' degrees where the purpose is to provide an interpretation or put forward a thesis, e.g. on the topic of English literature. There is no chemical formula to the question of "Was Fitzgerald a better writer than Hemingway?" but a student could easily get AI or, to go old school, an essay mill to write a paper on it.
As I understand it the problem with the viva is twofold, firstly in that it takes up a lot more time than just marking an essay/exam, secondly in that it's much harder to strip out bias, whether that's a result of personal "unconscious bias" towards a student, or the bias that comes from some people being much better speakers and debaters than others. For example, as has been noted here before, public school students often exude confidence and excel in presentations where others might not.
For example, trans women in women's jails. Do you hold an absolutist position that all trans women should be in male prisons? My position is more nuanced, a male rapist who suddenly decides to "turn trans" shouldn't be allowed to go to a female prison, a 60 year old transwoman who's had a GRC for 20 years in prison for non-payment of their tv licence should be able to serve time in a female prison. I don't know where the line should be drawn but it's somewhere between those two positions.
But standing there with your thumb up your bum in response to the other side subsiding so blatantly is absurd.
This is why GATT etc involved years of slowly negotiating tariff and subsidy reductions, as mutual disarmament.
Note that a big thing in the EU is forbidding the subsidies internally. As well as the tarrifs.
‘Scottish economy strengthens, second-top in UK on key measure . @heraldscotland’
https://x.com/ianmcconnellht/status/1789914015507849539?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
Though ‘Scotland was the least optimistic of the 12 UK nations and regions’. I wonder why that might be?
Certain Tories are Spurs fans. including iirc one Iain Dale.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.abc.net.au/article/103840578
Made by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idra_Group of Italy.
Idra is 70% Chinese owned. Which is probably where this story started.
Huge amounts of machinery in China are made in Europe - a major export for Germany and Italy.
Tesla are also saying that the Chinese EV with an 80kWh battery is the same price as the Chinese will sell them just the battery of the same size, which is why they’re being accused of dumping.
Chinese cars themselves are pretty good, there’s loads of them in my part of the world and they’re pretty close in quality to the Korean manufacturers but about 20% cheaper for petrol cars). For EVs, they’re a lot cheaper (30-40%) than the Koreans for an equivalent product, thanks to the battery price advantage.
Basically everyone else is stuffed, until there’s enough battery capacity out there without Chinese fingerprints on it. That’s likely going to need to involve Western countries in the entire supply chain of many of the minerals involved, as the CCP has worked really hard to secure exclusive rights to mines and deposits around the world.
They simply handed over files of evidence they’d created, “proving” fraud, and the prosecutors ran with them.
As someone mentioned above, the judicial system depends to a serious degree on people telling the truth. With enough organisations of lies, any result can be created.
On sports, on the other hand, I think “blanket” solutions are appropriate. You compete in the sex you went through puberty in. Mediocre male athletes are taking women’s prizes. And when offered the chance to “compete as themselves”
https://amp.theguardian.com/sport/2023/oct/03/swimming-world-cup-category-for-transgender-athletes-cancelled-after-no-entries-received
*Headdesk* of the day - safe overtaking Glasgow Police style.
(This will stretch). Try again.
It won't paste - have we hit the upper end of quota gain?
(Mutley noises ... &^%$£" Leon and his holiday snaps.)
Link here:
https://twitter.com/AlanMyles8/status/1789680336105820464
Sunderland is currently going through a massive refurbishment for new EV manufacturing.
Ironically the battery factory there is owned by the Chinese.
Would it not be better for the judge to impose a Safeguarding Others order (invented name) that bars such a dangerous individual from Womens prisons etc?
It would then be appealable and subject to judicial review.
There’s plenty of precedent in U.K. law of orders barring people from various things as part of sentencing.
We ought to have done the same.
What would you say if the US government provided a 100% subsidy for exports of Teslas, say? So litterally a Model 3 would cost £0
All very Green.
But it would also wipe out most of the saloon car building industry on the planet.
I too have tried AI/LLM to generate useful text. I asked for an introduction into my next research paper. It produced a nice story, but missed the point of what was being asked, did not reference and was in fact, garbage, just well written garbage.
Now a certain poster (currently in the sin bin) would claim that this will ALL CHANGE AT 5.00PM TONIGHT, but I have not seen evidence of that yet. What AI/LLM can be plausibly doing for students is giving a passable first draft of an essay that then gets developed by the student. Arguably that just using it as a tool, so probably ok.
Weeeell, let's have a look at what HMG's own advisers say:
https://www.theguardian.com/education/article/2024/may/14/no-evidence-foreign-students-abusing-uk-graduate-visas-review
There is a problem with fraudulent agencies - but that isn't down to the universities.
And the midges.
But mainly the weather.
Chinese battery manufacturing is more advanced than anything the UK has.
Concentrate enough trans people together in a confined space for long enough, and the UK might be in danger of winning the next Eurovision.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/14/government-migration-reject-slash-foreign-students/
He suggested that not only had the restriction wiped out the 100,000 dependents who would have come but was also leading to falls of between 50 and 60 per cent in the number of foreign students seeking to come to the UK for postgraduate study.
From my reading that 50-60% reduction is shall we say 80,000 post grads - at £40,000 per post grad - it’s £3.2bn lost to the university sector
A cabinet split has opened up on civil service rainbow lanyards as it emerges that guidance agreed across government will not actually ban officials from wearing them.
Esther McVey, who was appointed to attend Rishi Sunak’s cabinet as a minister without portfolio, said on Monday that staff would be disciplined for any messaging on lanyards to hold security passes, describing it as “political activism in a visible way”.
But official guidance due to be issued on Tuesday makes no mention of lanyards and the policy was not raised with other government ministers, The Times understands.
On Tuesday morning Grant Shapps, the defence secretary, distanced himself from McVey’s criticism of rainbow lanyards, telling Times Radio: “Personally, I don’t mind people expressing their views on these things. What lanyard somebody wears doesn’t particularly concern me.” He said he was “more interested in the jobs that the civil service do” than in what they wore.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cabinet-ties-itself-in-knots-over-ban-on-rainbow-lanyards-lbl8pqsfc
Though I'm sure China could find domestic demand for its solar PV production if it was motivated by a desire to stop burning coal. So there's that.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/billroberson/2024/02/28/chinese-ev-giant-byd-challenges-teslas-plaid-evs-with-233000-u9-supercar/
Expect the clarion calls to be deafening. Expect also a potential change of perception. Think about the red wall. Well they finally are doing something about immigration, what would Lab do probably open the flood gates again.
That the flood gates have been open these past ten years is immaterial. People will worry.
Immigration, immigration, and control of immigration.
Is what it's all about.
I though it was a Iannucci piss take.
In the pub last night this was literally the ONLY topic of conversation. Never mind mortgage rates or the CoL, never mind how long it takes to see a GP or the get a hospital appointment, never mind the state of the roads or public transport, the question on everyone's minds was: Why hasn't the government banned RAINBOW LANYARDS !?
And now they've backtracked. Shambolic!
Or, God forbid, TERF lanyards?
Couldn't that make things a bit tetchy at work?
Apparently this was specified in the drawings - they’d asked why the soil stacks etc were being arranged as they were.
The idea was that they would only need to demolish some non structural walls and refit.
I don't think that consideration applies to non-elite sport. Do I think trans women should be banned from their local Park Run, the local five-a-side football league or even the London Marathon? I think that would be draconian. Recreational sport is enjoyable and good for a person's fitness and mental wellbeing, I don't see any reason to disallow a trans person the opportunity to engage in a whole social activity like that.
If you start arguing about industry subsidies, they'll say the west is also subsidising. Which is true.
Indeed, that shows the complete stupidity of focussing solely on rainbow lanyards ...
And once it’s quietly pointed out the voters who would potentially go back to the Tories will be back voting for Reform again
The EU is facing demands from a host of member states for the right to introduce Rwanda-style deportation schemes. The Czech and Italian PMs are leading a 19-strong group asking Brussels to let them transfer migration procedures outside the bloc's territory.
UK government sources said the move showed that 'the fundamentals of our plan are making sense to people across the world'."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13416067/EU-Rwanda-deportation-UK-law-deterrent-migrants-Channel.html
And my first statement was not my position on the issue - it was more my guess at what the others were saying
(I'm only half kidding - Doctors in psych wards wear quick release lanyards for exactly this reason)
Funny that.
They were wrong then, and they're wrong now.
A related practise is cross-subsidising in conglomerates - using money from a profitable part of the business to fund selling below cost to destroy everyone else in another market.
Subsidies can be used to do the same thing - corner a market with cheap prices, then once you have a monopoly…
If firms were benefiting from selling at or slightly above cost due to those costs being lower than those of competitors (and the products broadly equivalent), then that would be the market in action.
As for park run, the controversy is trans women’s times being included in the female category. I doubt anyone has a problem with them taking part in park run
What about if I wear a lanyard with mini-swastikas printed all down it? Or what about if I wear a tie with naked glamour mag models on them?
Can't we just apply a bit of common sense? Remind me again, who are the rainbow lanyards offending?
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/migrants-detected-crossing-the-english-channel-in-small-boats/migrants-detected-crossing-the-english-channel-in-small-boats-last-7-days
If parliament returns after conference season then it will quickly become painfully obvious how little it has to do and the accusations of 'squatting in Downing St' will become loud and persistent. Public opinion is likely to follow. I don't think it will be credible or even possible to stick it out that far - and all for an election period that activists, public and media will hate. Even Tory MPs will start calling for a December election if it starts to look like January is a genuine option.
But I still think Nov 14 most likely, with Oct 17 next.
Just like a new offside rule it's up to the sport itself to sort it all out and then everyone just gets on with it.*
*actually endlessly bickers about the uselessness of the new rule...
I personally dgaf about what lanyards people wear. I'm just trying to understand why rainbows should be treated differently to anything else; because they're so pretty in the sky?
I was shocked - shocked I tell you - given the huge controversy over RAYNER- ELPHICKE-CURRY.
Clearly the public are suffering from false consciousness.
(BTW kudos to @Casino_Royale who to his great credit called this spot on)