It's a time of considerable turmoil and it seems to me that, after such a long time in government, the Conservatives should be focussing on what they truly believe. Sorting themselves out, as @Alanbrooke says.
I think people know what the Conservatives believe. It is just they have spent 14 years not doing what they claim to believe, so why should the voters trust them?
2010 - 2015 were spent in coalition with the LibDems. Should they have spent those years doing Conservatve stuff?
Once you get to 2016, you have the political turmoil that dispatched Cameron and Osborne. Then May lingered in an ever weakened state because Parliament was deadlocked.
A deadlock broken by Boris winning in December 2019. But then you get to the start of 2020, and Covid - when the decision was taken by the government to max out the credit card protecting the private sector from destruction (and the massive overtime bill for the NHS).
Then funding lecky bills to mitigate the Cost of Living Crisis.
About the only time in those 14 years there was scope for a proper Conservative agenda was what Sunak and Hunt were trying to implement from 2022 onwards. Albeit, hideously boxed in by what had gone before.
That’s such a load of old cobblers. Cameron won the 2015 election. He was king of all he surveyed, he had it all in front of him and then proceeded to screw it up. An unforced error.
No one forced May to call a GE in 2017 and Boris brought himself down by being Boris. Truss had the opportunity to reset again, but blew it.
Cameron won in 2015 because the Conservative manifesto committed to "a straight in-out referendum on our membership of the European Union by the end of 2017". (Labour, in an echo of its Ming vase strategy of 2024, did not support this, but did commit to an EU membership referendum if any further powers were transferred to the European Union.)
How long would the King of All He Surveys have lasted if he had not delivered the Referendum?
Having a Referendum was voted for by the population in the 2015 General Election.
Leaving the EU was voted for by the population in 2016.
So a load of old cobblers backatcher....
Cameron wrote the manifesto. He could have taken a different route. He chose the timing and terms of the referendum. He could have bought off Boris and run a different campaign. His hubris got in the way.
He was not a passive consumer of events out of his control. This was his priority, enacted by him in the way he saw as most advantageous to him and his party. The fact he screwed up is irrelevant.
He had a huge opportunity to set his form of Conservatism up for years and blew it.
There wasn't an option to ignore the EU as a political issue. The Overton Window had shifted too far.
If all three mainstream parties had done so then the insurgency would have happened earlier, not later, and it would have dominated our domestic politics anyway.
That's pretty much my view. A referendum was inevitable - and the longer it was left, the less likely it was for remain to win. If Blair had held one in 2001 he would have won massively. Perhaps even got Euro membership as well...
(I am not saying I agree with Euro membership; I was against it. Just positing that anti-EU sentiment increased over the years.)
If Cameron and Clegg had held one in 2011, they would have walked it. 60/40. We'd have been locked into the European Project. For ever.
This is the problem with university free speech. How do universities guarantee it against this sort of mass protest?
Is that a free speech problem or a public order problem? The RAF were going about their lawful business having obtained the necessary consents and should be allowed to do so unimpeded.
Surely the protestors were the ones exercising free speech.
I draw the line where it involves impeding or preventing others from going about their lawful business.
At the very least the protestors are breaching the peace, though other offences could apply. I'd suggest a suitable remedy would be a night or two in a police cell and a conditional discharge by the Magistrate the next court day.
And that would apply to farmers driving their tractors down motorways or through London to deliberate slowdown or halt traffic just as much as it would apply to Just Stop Oil protestors.
IIRC the farmers took very considerable legal advice and cooperated with the police on the nature, size and structure of their protest.
So your comparison with Just Stop Oil isn't valid.
Establishment centrists and populist insurgents are about equal, in terms of being self-serving and duplicitous, and selling snake oil.
But the former frequently give the impression that they place the interests of foreigners above the interests of their own people.
The default assumption is that Establishment Centrists must be the more pragmatic and moderate option. But, in recent years, they have taken dogmatic and 'extreme' positions against new nuclear power, the need for a strong defence, and put ideological commitments to free movement, hyper social liberalism and human rights over the pragmatic political and social consequences that causes on the ground.
That's why the noises about them being centrist and sensible don't always resonate.
There is definitely confusion about centrism and being moderate or for the status quo. I'm a radical centrist, I think we are on the wrong track and collectively as a nation deluded about our future, but think the solutions will be a mix of those from the left and right, and we should pick'n'mix what works best, for us, at the moment, from the widest range of policy options, whether mostly socialist or mostly capitalist.
Agree. There's a hell of a lot I'd change, some quite radically. But I'm not wedded to left or right on most things. I'm liberal, which is the strongest factor for me, but on things like state ownership I'm happy with whatever works best and, ideally, I'd probably have a bit of both - e.g. trains, have some state operators, but enable private companies to compete on equal terms for services on the same lines and let the customer decide. A bit of an expanded version of what we have on the East Coast mainline, with LNER, Grand Central, Lumo and Hull trains all competing over at least some journeys
It's a time of considerable turmoil and it seems to me that, after such a long time in government, the Conservatives should be focussing on what they truly believe. Sorting themselves out, as @Alanbrooke says.
I think people know what the Conservatives believe. It is just they have spent 14 years not doing what they claim to believe, so why should the voters trust them?
2010 - 2015 were spent in coalition with the LibDems. Should they have spent those years doing Conservatve stuff?
Once you get to 2016, you have the political turmoil that dispatched Cameron and Osborne. Then May lingered in an ever weakened state because Parliament was deadlocked.
A deadlock broken by Boris winning in December 2019. But then you get to the start of 2020, and Covid - when the decision was taken by the government to max out the credit card protecting the private sector from destruction (and the massive overtime bill for the NHS).
Then funding lecky bills to mitigate the Cost of Living Crisis.
About the only time in those 14 years there was scope for a proper Conservative agenda was what Sunak and Hunt were trying to implement from 2022 onwards. Albeit, hideously boxed in by what had gone before.
That’s such a load of old cobblers. Cameron won the 2015 election. He was king of all he surveyed, he had it all in front of him and then proceeded to screw it up. An unforced error.
No one forced May to call a GE in 2017 and Boris brought himself down by being Boris. Truss had the opportunity to reset again, but blew it.
Cameron won in 2015 because the Conservative manifesto committed to "a straight in-out referendum on our membership of the European Union by the end of 2017". (Labour, in an echo of its Ming vase strategy of 2024, did not support this, but did commit to an EU membership referendum if any further powers were transferred to the European Union.)
How long would the King of All He Surveys have lasted if he had not delivered the Referendum?
Having a Referendum was voted for by the population in the 2015 General Election.
Leaving the EU was voted for by the population in 2016.
So a load of old cobblers backatcher....
Cameron wrote the manifesto. He could have taken a different route. He chose the timing and terms of the referendum. He could have bought off Boris and run a different campaign. His hubris got in the way.
He was not a passive consumer of events out of his control. This was his priority, enacted by him in the way he saw as most advantageous to him and his party. The fact he screwed up is irrelevant.
He had a huge opportunity to set his form of Conservatism up for years and blew it.
There wasn't an option to ignore the EU as a political issue. The Overton Window had shifted too far.
If all three mainstream parties had done so then the insurgency would have happened earlier, not later, and it would have dominated our domestic politics anyway.
I don’t see this as passive. The Overton window shifted in large part because the Conservatives shifted it. They wanted UKIP votes, so brought marginal ideas into the mainstream.
It would be poetic justice that the embers they stocked for tactical gain end up consuming them. However the damage to our country far outweighs the joy of any partisan schadenfreude.
I don't think our full membership of the EU in its confederal structure was political sustainable in the long-term in any event. Even you questioned it.
I wouldn't begrudge a UK political party making the full-throated case for federalism, as Edward Heath, Michael Heseltine or Charles Kennedy would have done, even if I vociferously disagreed, but there wasn't much evidence for its success.
Labour had arrived at a place where they sort of talked a bit about Rights and otherwise tried to ignore it.
By the time a Conservative leader could say “Fuck Business” you were done.
In a parallel universe, or in the far future, there’s a UK centre right party that prioritises entrepreneurship and trade.
Very near future; but trade with the world, as that is growing, whilst trade with our economically weakening European neighbours diminishes.....
When the Tories finally realise that being pro-housing is the key to unlocking economic growth, Brexit politics can be left to the obsessives.....
This is the problem with university free speech. How do universities guarantee it against this sort of mass protest?
Is that a free speech problem or a public order problem? The RAF were going about their lawful business having obtained the necessary consents and should be allowed to do so unimpeded.
Yep, different things. Free speech - students should be completely free to protest outside the venue while not impeding anyone's access. I don't have the details of this story (no subscription) but if they forced closure of stalls then it seems a lot more than exercising a right to free speech.
It can be a fine line. Imagine a large and noisy group of people getting in your face as you make to enter something. They aren't physically stopping you but it's unpleasant and you think, "no, not worth it, I'll go do something else". So then whatever the event is is severely compromised.
Indeed. Which is why a future Tory government should outlaw picketing.
Lots of excitable people on here. None of the leaders are going anywhere for some years. Don't tie up your money, Badenoch is not going any time soon, no reason for it. Far from it.
This is probably about where I suspect things are:
Election Maps UK @ElectionMapsUK · 48m Westminster Voting Intention:
Establishment centrists and populist insurgents are about equal, in terms of being self-serving and duplicitous, and selling snake oil.
But the former frequently give the impression that they place the interests of foreigners above the interests of their own people.
The default assumption is that Establishment Centrists must be the more pragmatic and moderate option. But, in recent years, they have taken dogmatic and 'extreme' positions against new nuclear power, the need for a strong defence, and put ideological commitments to free movement, hyper social liberalism and human rights over the pragmatic political and social consequences that causes on the ground.
That's why the noises about them being centrist and sensible don't always resonate.
You would probably label me a centrist. But I've long argued in favour of nuclear power (just not our crap way of doing it), and in favour of strong defence (but again not managed competently). And I'd take issue with your labelling yourself a social/political pragmatist. You're as much a dogmatist as those you label as "hyper social liberals", whatever that might mean.
I haven't labelled myself. I've labelled Establishment Centrists. Read my post again.
I was referring to Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems policy on civil nuclear power stations, and what they tried as well with Trident renewal, where they went the full sandals.
This is the problem with university free speech. How do universities guarantee it against this sort of mass protest?
Is that a free speech problem or a public order problem? The RAF were going about their lawful business having obtained the necessary consents and should be allowed to do so unimpeded.
Yep, different things. Free speech - students should be completely free to protest outside the venue while not impeding anyone's access. I don't have the details of this story (no subscription) but if they forced closure of stalls then it seems a lot more than exercising a right to free speech.
It can be a fine line. Imagine a large and noisy group of people getting in your face as you make to enter something. They aren't physically stopping you but it's unpleasant and you think, "no, not worth it, I'll go do something else". So then whatever the event is is severely compromised.
Establishment centrists and populist insurgents are about equal, in terms of being self-serving and duplicitous, and selling snake oil.
But the former frequently give the impression that they place the interests of foreigners above the interests of their own people.
The default assumption is that Establishment Centrists must be the more pragmatic and moderate option. But, in recent years, they have taken dogmatic and 'extreme' positions against new nuclear power, the need for a strong defence, and put ideological commitments to free movement, hyper social liberalism and human rights over the pragmatic political and social consequences that causes on the ground.
That's why the noises about them being centrist and sensible don't always resonate.
There is definitely confusion about centrism and being moderate or for the status quo. I'm a radical centrist, I think we are on the wrong track and collectively as a nation deluded about our future, but think the solutions will be a mix of those from the left and right, and we should pick'n'mix what works best, for us, at the moment, from the widest range of policy options, whether mostly socialist or mostly capitalist.
Yes, I think centrism is just a framing of the argument to make one's own views seem like the choice of any sensible, reasonable person.
It probably only literally applies in the field of economics, but with a preference for higher spending, where possible, over lower taxes.
Lots of excitable people on here. None of the leaders are going anywhere for some years. Don't tie up your money, Badenoch is not going any time soon, no reason for it. Far from it.
This is probably about where I suspect things are:
Election Maps UK @ElectionMapsUK · 48m Westminster Voting Intention:
This is the problem with university free speech. How do universities guarantee it against this sort of mass protest?
Is that a free speech problem or a public order problem? The RAF were going about their lawful business having obtained the necessary consents and should be allowed to do so unimpeded.
Surely the protestors were the ones exercising free speech.
I draw the line where it involves impeding or preventing others from going about their lawful business.
At the very least the protestors are breaching the peace, though other offences could apply. I'd suggest a suitable remedy would be a night or two in a police cell and a conditional discharge by the Magistrate the next court day.
And that would apply to farmers driving their tractors down motorways or through London to deliberate slowdown or halt traffic just as much as it would apply to Just Stop Oil protestors.
IIRC the farmers took very considerable legal advice and cooperated with the police on the nature, size and structure of their protest.
So your comparison with Just Stop Oil isn't valid.
This is the problem with university free speech. How do universities guarantee it against this sort of mass protest?
Is that a free speech problem or a public order problem? The RAF were going about their lawful business having obtained the necessary consents and should be allowed to do so unimpeded.
Yep, different things. Free speech - students should be completely free to protest outside the venue while not impeding anyone's access. I don't have the details of this story (no subscription) but if they forced closure of stalls then it seems a lot more than exercising a right to free speech.
It can be a fine line. Imagine a large and noisy group of people getting in your face as you make to enter something. They aren't physically stopping you but it's unpleasant and you think, "no, not worth it, I'll go do something else". So then whatever the event is is severely compromised.
It can. Here it would be the University's job to make sure that didn't happen, I think. Here's where you can stand (which should be near enough to have an impact, but not close enough to block, threaten or intimidate) here's where you have to keep free. Not an easy job necessarily, but it has to be done - and peacenik students should back it, because next time it might be a contingent of RAF veterans shutting down a CND* stall
It's a time of considerable turmoil and it seems to me that, after such a long time in government, the Conservatives should be focussing on what they truly believe. Sorting themselves out, as @Alanbrooke says.
And what would that be ? You'd get very different answers from (say) TSE, HYUFD, Casino and PtP.
The last decade has fragmented their coalition - and some of those fragments may permanently be lost to them.
Suella was on LBC yesterday doubling down on going full frontal Reform with a view to either a coalition or tacit mutual benefit arrangements. Personally, I would have thought that peels off the left flank to the LDs.
Where do people like Cameron, Osborne or May go on that scenario. A new “Coalition” party would become their natural home.
This is classic 'centrist' establishment thinking.
People want immigration brought under control. End of.
But it's not end of, is it? They also want functioning public services, more housing, people to look after their elderly relatives and so on. So what does immigration control actually look like in those circumstances?
None of that is incompatible with much lower immigration. It does however imply some redistribution in how various groups in society do. Particularly at the expense of comfortably off over 50s. But in favour of the lowest paid.
It is in the short term at least. Construction, care and health each have job vacancies in the hundreds of thousands. If we want to offer more construction, and better care we need immigration.
Longer term you could encourage more people into those jobs by paying more (in the case of care that would be tax rises) but it is not going to happen overnight and it won't be at all easy. Personally to do a care type job I would want to be paid at least double what I can get elsewhere, I doubt that is unusual for many Brits.
80%+ of people working in care homes are native to the UK.
The belief that "Brits are too posh to do the jobs that Proper Immigrants will do" reminds me of Oriental Lassitude. The belief, by pith helmeted men in shorts, sipping G&T, that the locals in Thailand, Malaysia etc were irredeemably lazy.
To be fair, a large part of the belief that Brits Do Not Work comes from opinion formers being in Central London, where the demographics & economics mean that much of the bottom end work *is* done by recent immigrants.
So at current rates of pay and vacancies we are about 30% short in attracting enough domestic workers into thos jobs nationally, and that will be higher in London?
Hard to say - because there are other factors in the mix. Such as a belief that cheap labour is a better solution than automation.
The problem there, in London, is that the housing costs are pricing even "the multiple adults living in each room" type accommodation out of existence. So the cheapo workers live further and further out.
Which is why the chain shops are automating ordering and tills, monitored by a couple of staff, for instance.
In small and medium construction, the adamant refusal to automate is beginning to break down.
It isn't really hard to say because more jobs are available and domestic workers aren't applying for them.
We are seeing a problem, in Central London, of *no-one* offering to do jobs at the rate. Even the cash-in-hand-illegals can't afford to.
It's reached the point where solutions that were regarded as impossible or extreme are being implemented - such as automation.
The opposite, too many applicants for advertised jobs is a common problem right now.
Establishment centrists and populist insurgents are about equal, in terms of being self-serving and duplicitous, and selling snake oil.
But the former frequently give the impression that they place the interests of foreigners above the interests of their own people.
The default assumption is that Establishment Centrists must be the more pragmatic and moderate option. But, in recent years, they have taken dogmatic and 'extreme' positions against new nuclear power, the need for a strong defence, and put ideological commitments to free movement, hyper social liberalism and human rights over the pragmatic political and social consequences that causes on the ground.
That's why the noises about them being centrist and sensible don't always resonate.
There is definitely confusion about centrism and being moderate or for the status quo. I'm a radical centrist, I think we are on the wrong track and collectively as a nation deluded about our future, but think the solutions will be a mix of those from the left and right, and we should pick'n'mix what works best, for us, at the moment, from the widest range of policy options, whether mostly socialist or mostly capitalist.
That is indeed how you (and a few other PBers) come across. Key question here for me: Given the nature of our politics (soundbite fantastical promises) would the sort of "radical centrist" manifesto you'd like to see have a cat's chance of winning a GE if a party was to run on it?
This is the problem with university free speech. How do universities guarantee it against this sort of mass protest?
Is that a free speech problem or a public order problem? The RAF were going about their lawful business having obtained the necessary consents and should be allowed to do so unimpeded.
Surely the protestors were the ones exercising free speech.
Free speech is the absence of a negative - i.e. it means you are not persecuted for making your point - not that you have the right to do it when and where wherever you like and disrupt others doing the same or going about their lawful business.
It's a time of considerable turmoil and it seems to me that, after such a long time in government, the Conservatives should be focussing on what they truly believe. Sorting themselves out, as @Alanbrooke says.
And what would that be ? You'd get very different answers from (say) TSE, HYUFD, Casino and PtP.
The last decade has fragmented their coalition - and some of those fragments may permanently be lost to them.
Suella was on LBC yesterday doubling down on going full frontal Reform with a view to either a coalition or tacit mutual benefit arrangements. Personally, I would have thought that peels off the left flank to the LDs.
Where do people like Cameron, Osborne or May go on that scenario. A new “Coalition” party would become their natural home.
This is classic 'centrist' establishment thinking.
People want immigration brought under control. End of.
But it's not end of, is it? They also want functioning public services, more housing, people to look after their elderly relatives and so on. So what does immigration control actually look like in those circumstances?
You just don't get it.
You never will.
I get that you do not want to engage with difficult conversations and would prefer everything to be black and white. I also get that black and white is a very compelling political argument. But it does not solve deep-seated economic challenges.
I engage in difficult conversations on here all the time, but you won't brook anything that goes against your world view - which is that you only want immigration to be about economic benefits.
You are often involved in difficult exchanges, it's true!
Establishment centrists and populist insurgents are about equal, in terms of being self-serving and duplicitous, and selling snake oil.
But the former frequently give the impression that they place the interests of foreigners above the interests of their own people.
The default assumption is that Establishment Centrists must be the more pragmatic and moderate option. But, in recent years, they have taken dogmatic and 'extreme' positions against new nuclear power, the need for a strong defence, and put ideological commitments to free movement, hyper social liberalism and human rights over the pragmatic political and social consequences that causes on the ground.
That's why the noises about them being centrist and sensible don't always resonate.
There is definitely confusion about centrism and being moderate or for the status quo. I'm a radical centrist, I think we are on the wrong track and collectively as a nation deluded about our future, but think the solutions will be a mix of those from the left and right, and we should pick'n'mix what works best, for us, at the moment, from the widest range of policy options, whether mostly socialist or mostly capitalist.
That is indeed how you (and a few other PBers) come across. Key question here for me: Given the nature of our politics (soundbite fantastical promises) would the sort of "radical centrist" manifesto you'd like to see have a cat's chance of winning a GE if a party was to run on it?
That is where the collectively deluded part comes in. We consistently vote for things that make things worse. I can't match up workable solutions and electoral success. Hopefully someone else can but I have my doubts.
It's a time of considerable turmoil and it seems to me that, after such a long time in government, the Conservatives should be focussing on what they truly believe. Sorting themselves out, as @Alanbrooke says.
I think people know what the Conservatives believe. It is just they have spent 14 years not doing what they claim to believe, so why should the voters trust them?
2010 - 2015 were spent in coalition with the LibDems. Should they have spent those years doing Conservatve stuff?
Once you get to 2016, you have the political turmoil that dispatched Cameron and Osborne. Then May lingered in an ever weakened state because Parliament was deadlocked.
A deadlock broken by Boris winning in December 2019. But then you get to the start of 2020, and Covid - when the decision was taken by the government to max out the credit card protecting the private sector from destruction (and the massive overtime bill for the NHS).
Then funding lecky bills to mitigate the Cost of Living Crisis.
About the only time in those 14 years there was scope for a proper Conservative agenda was what Sunak and Hunt were trying to implement from 2022 onwards. Albeit, hideously boxed in by what had gone before.
That’s such a load of old cobblers. Cameron won the 2015 election. He was king of all he surveyed, he had it all in front of him and then proceeded to screw it up. An unforced error.
No one forced May to call a GE in 2017 and Boris brought himself down by being Boris. Truss had the opportunity to reset again, but blew it.
Cameron won in 2015 because the Conservative manifesto committed to "a straight in-out referendum on our membership of the European Union by the end of 2017". (Labour, in an echo of its Ming vase strategy of 2024, did not support this, but did commit to an EU membership referendum if any further powers were transferred to the European Union.)
How long would the King of All He Surveys have lasted if he had not delivered the Referendum?
Having a Referendum was voted for by the population in the 2015 General Election.
Leaving the EU was voted for by the population in 2016.
So a load of old cobblers backatcher....
Cameron wrote the manifesto. He could have taken a different route. He chose the timing and terms of the referendum. He could have bought off Boris and run a different campaign. His hubris got in the way.
He was not a passive consumer of events out of his control. This was his priority, enacted by him in the way he saw as most advantageous to him and his party. The fact he screwed up is irrelevant.
He had a huge opportunity to set his form of Conservatism up for years and blew it.
There wasn't an option to ignore the EU as a political issue. The Overton Window had shifted too far.
If all three mainstream parties had done so then the insurgency would have happened earlier, not later, and it would have dominated our domestic politics anyway.
That's pretty much my view. A referendum was inevitable - and the longer it was left, the less likely it was for remain to win. If Blair had held one in 2001 he would have won massively. Perhaps even got Euro membership as well...
(I am not saying I agree with Euro membership; I was against it. Just positing that anti-EU sentiment increased over the years.)
If Cameron and Clegg had held one in 2011, they would have walked it. 60/40. We'd have been locked into the European Project. For ever.
Too busy having that wonderful AV referendum. Gawd, I remember that tedium.
That should have been a canary down the coal mine for lots of other political stuff, actually.
This is the problem with university free speech. How do universities guarantee it against this sort of mass protest?
Is that a free speech problem or a public order problem? The RAF were going about their lawful business having obtained the necessary consents and should be allowed to do so unimpeded.
Surely the protestors were the ones exercising free speech.
I draw the line where it involves impeding or preventing others from going about their lawful business.
At the very least the protestors are breaching the peace, though other offences could apply. I'd suggest a suitable remedy would be a night or two in a police cell and a conditional discharge by the Magistrate the next court day.
And that would apply to farmers driving their tractors down motorways or through London to deliberate slowdown or halt traffic just as much as it would apply to Just Stop Oil protestors.
There are edge cases - driving slowly is perhaps one of those, as is say Critical Mass, but essentially yes that's what I mean.
This is the problem with university free speech. How do universities guarantee it against this sort of mass protest?
Is that a free speech problem or a public order problem? The RAF were going about their lawful business having obtained the necessary consents and should be allowed to do so unimpeded.
Surely the protestors were the ones exercising free speech.
Free speech is the absence of a negative - i.e. it means you are not persecuted for making your point - not that you have the right to do it when and where wherever you like and disrupt others doing the same or going about their lawful business.
It's a time of considerable turmoil and it seems to me that, after such a long time in government, the Conservatives should be focussing on what they truly believe. Sorting themselves out, as @Alanbrooke says.
And what would that be ? You'd get very different answers from (say) TSE, HYUFD, Casino and PtP.
The last decade has fragmented their coalition - and some of those fragments may permanently be lost to them.
Suella was on LBC yesterday doubling down on going full frontal Reform with a view to either a coalition or tacit mutual benefit arrangements. Personally, I would have thought that peels off the left flank to the LDs.
Where do people like Cameron, Osborne or May go on that scenario. A new “Coalition” party would become their natural home.
This is classic 'centrist' establishment thinking.
People want immigration brought under control. End of.
But it's not end of, is it? They also want functioning public services, more housing, people to look after their elderly relatives and so on. So what does immigration control actually look like in those circumstances?
You just don't get it.
You never will.
I get that you do not want to engage with difficult conversations and would prefer everything to be black and white. I also get that black and white is a very compelling political argument. But it does not solve deep-seated economic challenges.
I engage in difficult conversations on here all the time, but you won't brook anything that goes against your world view - which is that you only want immigration to be about economic benefits.
No, I want immigration to be discussed honestly.
A substantial reduction to immigration levels will have an adverse effect on our economy in multiple ways. I don't think we can afford for that to happen given where our economy is currently.
This is the problem with university free speech. How do universities guarantee it against this sort of mass protest?
Is that a free speech problem or a public order problem? The RAF were going about their lawful business having obtained the necessary consents and should be allowed to do so unimpeded.
Surely the protestors were the ones exercising free speech.
What would you feel if a bunch of Netanyahu supporters forced pro-palestinians to close their stall?
Would you be suggesting that was free speech?
The classic philosophical boundaries on free speech are the point where it shuts down the speech of others. That goes back to the ancient Greeks. At least in written form...
Yes, it comes down to “free speech for people I like.”
University authorities usually adopt the line of least resistance.
Exactly.
People have free speech to support the government and institutions, but are frowned upon when they express contrary opinions.
It's a bit like democracy. In that case the test is - If the Other Lot win the election, what happens?
1) Order the removal people round. Leave a note. Democracy 2) Order the army to shoot the Other Lot. Not-democracy.
For free speech - do the people I dislike get to speak?
And in what circumstances. I personally think the church is, on balance, a blight on the country. But I wouldn't support someone's right to "free speech" to stand in the porch of a church and harangue everyone on the way in and out about why they shouldn't believe this nonsense. Outside the church, fine, unless/until they cause an obstruction or similar.
Likewise, I think that this RAF situation is a public order problem. They can have a protest around the corner / outside the building as long as they don't impede people's lawful right to go about their business.
Similarly, I had no problem with animal rights protestors outside my favourite restaurant. I had to put up with fairly-loud protest which others moaned about but, hey, suck it up and eat your legal foie if that's ethically OK by you. On the other hand, when they started threatening staff and damaging property, that's that.
As the old, small "l" libertarian quip put it - "Your freedom to wave your fist stops where my nose begins."
The problem here is the "The hurtfulness of your existence" - to some people the existence of a counter argument if terrifying and painful. See religion. See also the cases where, in universities, the presence of Germaine Greer in a meeting room required safe spaces and counselling for opponents.
And of course, that libertarian quip is actually a grey area. Waving your fist right up to my nose is unacceptable if it feels to me like you might hit me - whatever you claim your intention was. Which is what slides towards what many would see as the overreactions in your later examples. But equally might be "straw that broke the camel's back" territory for others.
This is the problem with university free speech. How do universities guarantee it against this sort of mass protest?
Is that a free speech problem or a public order problem? The RAF were going about their lawful business having obtained the necessary consents and should be allowed to do so unimpeded.
Surely the protestors were the ones exercising free speech.
I draw the line where it involves impeding or preventing others from going about their lawful business.
At the very least the protestors are breaching the peace, though other offences could apply. I'd suggest a suitable remedy would be a night or two in a police cell and a conditional discharge by the Magistrate the next court day.
And that would apply to farmers driving their tractors down motorways or through London to deliberate slowdown or halt traffic just as much as it would apply to Just Stop Oil protestors.
IIRC the farmers took very considerable legal advice and cooperated with the police on the nature, size and structure of their protest.
So your comparison with Just Stop Oil isn't valid.
This is the problem with university free speech. How do universities guarantee it against this sort of mass protest?
Is that a free speech problem or a public order problem? The RAF were going about their lawful business having obtained the necessary consents and should be allowed to do so unimpeded.
Surely the protestors were the ones exercising free speech.
I draw the line where it involves impeding or preventing others from going about their lawful business.
At the very least the protestors are breaching the peace, though other offences could apply. I'd suggest a suitable remedy would be a night or two in a police cell and a conditional discharge by the Magistrate the next court day.
And that would apply to farmers driving their tractors down motorways or through London to deliberate slowdown or halt traffic just as much as it would apply to Just Stop Oil protestors.
IIRC the farmers took very considerable legal advice and cooperated with the police on the nature, size and structure of their protest.
So your comparison with Just Stop Oil isn't valid.
Let us be very honest, the farmers and the wealthy Just Stop Oil mob are likely to pay the same amount of inheritance tax as each other.
This is the problem with university free speech. How do universities guarantee it against this sort of mass protest?
Is that a free speech problem or a public order problem? The RAF were going about their lawful business having obtained the necessary consents and should be allowed to do so unimpeded.
Surely the protestors were the ones exercising free speech.
Free speech is the absence of a negative - i.e. it means you are not persecuted for making your point - not that you have the right to do it when and where wherever you like and disrupt others doing the same or going about their lawful business.
It's a time of considerable turmoil and it seems to me that, after such a long time in government, the Conservatives should be focussing on what they truly believe. Sorting themselves out, as @Alanbrooke says.
And what would that be ? You'd get very different answers from (say) TSE, HYUFD, Casino and PtP.
The last decade has fragmented their coalition - and some of those fragments may permanently be lost to them.
Suella was on LBC yesterday doubling down on going full frontal Reform with a view to either a coalition or tacit mutual benefit arrangements. Personally, I would have thought that peels off the left flank to the LDs.
Where do people like Cameron, Osborne or May go on that scenario. A new “Coalition” party would become their natural home.
This is classic 'centrist' establishment thinking.
People want immigration brought under control. End of.
But it's not end of, is it? They also want functioning public services, more housing, people to look after their elderly relatives and so on. So what does immigration control actually look like in those circumstances?
You just don't get it.
You never will.
I get that you do not want to engage with difficult conversations and would prefer everything to be black and white. I also get that black and white is a very compelling political argument. But it does not solve deep-seated economic challenges.
I engage in difficult conversations on here all the time, but you won't brook anything that goes against your world view - which is that you only want immigration to be about economic benefits.
No, I want immigration to be discussed honestly.
A substantial reduction to immigration levels will have an adverse effect on our economy in multiple ways. I don't think we can afford for that to happen given where our economy is currently.
A substantial reduction from a 10 year average or 2 year average as those are very different?
This is the problem with university free speech. How do universities guarantee it against this sort of mass protest?
Is that a free speech problem or a public order problem? The RAF were going about their lawful business having obtained the necessary consents and should be allowed to do so unimpeded.
Yep, different things. Free speech - students should be completely free to protest outside the venue while not impeding anyone's access. I don't have the details of this story (no subscription) but if they forced closure of stalls then it seems a lot more than exercising a right to free speech.
It can be a fine line. Imagine a large and noisy group of people getting in your face as you make to enter something. They aren't physically stopping you but it's unpleasant and you think, "no, not worth it, I'll go do something else". So then whatever the event is is severely compromised.
The classic case of this is abortion clinics.
Very much so. And it's not so easy for the women trying to get in there to "go do something else" since that would be to give birth to a child they do not want. Rather more consequential than missing a talk by someone or other.
This is the problem with university free speech. How do universities guarantee it against this sort of mass protest?
Is that a free speech problem or a public order problem? The RAF were going about their lawful business having obtained the necessary consents and should be allowed to do so unimpeded.
Yep, different things. Free speech - students should be completely free to protest outside the venue while not impeding anyone's access. I don't have the details of this story (no subscription) but if they forced closure of stalls then it seems a lot more than exercising a right to free speech.
It can be a fine line. Imagine a large and noisy group of people getting in your face as you make to enter something. They aren't physically stopping you but it's unpleasant and you think, "no, not worth it, I'll go do something else". So then whatever the event is is severely compromised.
The classic case of this is abortion clinics.
And a physical impediment isn't the only form of impediment - shouting threats and obscenities is only one step away from that and is surely covered by public order law. Silently standing with protest banners might still be intimidating but probably moves back into the realms of "you have to suck it up".
This is the problem with university free speech. How do universities guarantee it against this sort of mass protest?
Is that a free speech problem or a public order problem? The RAF were going about their lawful business having obtained the necessary consents and should be allowed to do so unimpeded.
Surely the protestors were the ones exercising free speech.
Free speech is the absence of a negative - i.e. it means you are not persecuted for making your point - not that you have the right to do it when and where wherever you like and disrupt others doing the same or going about their lawful business.
It's a time of considerable turmoil and it seems to me that, after such a long time in government, the Conservatives should be focussing on what they truly believe. Sorting themselves out, as @Alanbrooke says.
And what would that be ? You'd get very different answers from (say) TSE, HYUFD, Casino and PtP.
The last decade has fragmented their coalition - and some of those fragments may permanently be lost to them.
Suella was on LBC yesterday doubling down on going full frontal Reform with a view to either a coalition or tacit mutual benefit arrangements. Personally, I would have thought that peels off the left flank to the LDs.
Where do people like Cameron, Osborne or May go on that scenario. A new “Coalition” party would become their natural home.
This is classic 'centrist' establishment thinking.
People want immigration brought under control. End of.
But it's not end of, is it? They also want functioning public services, more housing, people to look after their elderly relatives and so on. So what does immigration control actually look like in those circumstances?
You just don't get it.
You never will.
I get that you do not want to engage with difficult conversations and would prefer everything to be black and white. I also get that black and white is a very compelling political argument. But it does not solve deep-seated economic challenges.
I engage in difficult conversations on here all the time, but you won't brook anything that goes against your world view - which is that you only want immigration to be about economic benefits.
No, I want immigration to be discussed honestly.
A substantial reduction to immigration levels will have an adverse effect on our economy in multiple ways. I don't think we can afford for that to happen given where our economy is currently.
A substantial reduction from a 10 year average or 2 year average as those are very different?
Well, exactly. Immigration numbers are going to come down significantly over the next year. Is that enough? If not, why not and what will give?
This is the problem with university free speech. How do universities guarantee it against this sort of mass protest?
Is that a free speech problem or a public order problem? The RAF were going about their lawful business having obtained the necessary consents and should be allowed to do so unimpeded.
Surely the protestors were the ones exercising free speech.
What would you feel if a bunch of Netanyahu supporters forced pro-palestinians to close their stall?
Would you be suggesting that was free speech?
The classic philosophical boundaries on free speech are the point where it shuts down the speech of others. That goes back to the ancient Greeks. At least in written form...
Yes, it comes down to “free speech for people I like.”
University authorities usually adopt the line of least resistance.
Exactly.
People have free speech to support the government and institutions, but are frowned upon when they express contrary opinions.
It's a bit like democracy. In that case the test is - If the Other Lot win the election, what happens?
1) Order the removal people round. Leave a note. Democracy 2) Order the army to shoot the Other Lot. Not-democracy.
For free speech - do the people I dislike get to speak?
And in what circumstances. I personally think the church is, on balance, a blight on the country. But I wouldn't support someone's right to "free speech" to stand in the porch of a church and harangue everyone on the way in and out about why they shouldn't believe this nonsense. Outside the church, fine, unless/until they cause an obstruction or similar.
Likewise, I think that this RAF situation is a public order problem. They can have a protest around the corner / outside the building as long as they don't impede people's lawful right to go about their business.
Similarly, I had no problem with animal rights protestors outside my favourite restaurant. I had to put up with fairly-loud protest which others moaned about but, hey, suck it up and eat your legal foie if that's ethically OK by you. On the other hand, when they started threatening staff and damaging property, that's that.
As the old, small "l" libertarian quip put it - "Your freedom to wave your fist stops where my nose begins."
The problem here is the "The hurtfulness of your existence" - to some people the existence of a counter argument if terrifying and painful. See religion. See also the cases where, in universities, the presence of Germaine Greer in a meeting room required safe spaces and counselling for opponents.
And of course, that libertarian quip is actually a grey area. Waving your fist right up to my nose is unacceptable if it feels to me like you might hit me - whatever you claim your intention was. Which is what slides towards what many would see as the overreactions in your later examples. But equally might be "straw that broke the camel's back" territory for others.
Which is why genuine libertarian philosophy has created a vast pile of learned argument on the nature of freedom and it's limits - chiefly with respect to the freedom of others.
Like everything else involving humans - it's complicated.
This is the problem with university free speech. How do universities guarantee it against this sort of mass protest?
Is that a free speech problem or a public order problem? The RAF were going about their lawful business having obtained the necessary consents and should be allowed to do so unimpeded.
Surely the protestors were the ones exercising free speech.
Free speech is the absence of a negative - i.e. it means you are not persecuted for making your point - not that you have the right to do it when and where wherever you like and disrupt others doing the same or going about their lawful business.
It's a time of considerable turmoil and it seems to me that, after such a long time in government, the Conservatives should be focussing on what they truly believe. Sorting themselves out, as @Alanbrooke says.
And what would that be ? You'd get very different answers from (say) TSE, HYUFD, Casino and PtP.
The last decade has fragmented their coalition - and some of those fragments may permanently be lost to them.
Suella was on LBC yesterday doubling down on going full frontal Reform with a view to either a coalition or tacit mutual benefit arrangements. Personally, I would have thought that peels off the left flank to the LDs.
Where do people like Cameron, Osborne or May go on that scenario. A new “Coalition” party would become their natural home.
This is classic 'centrist' establishment thinking.
People want immigration brought under control. End of.
But it's not end of, is it? They also want functioning public services, more housing, people to look after their elderly relatives and so on. So what does immigration control actually look like in those circumstances?
You just don't get it.
You never will.
I get that you do not want to engage with difficult conversations and would prefer everything to be black and white. I also get that black and white is a very compelling political argument. But it does not solve deep-seated economic challenges.
I engage in difficult conversations on here all the time, but you won't brook anything that goes against your world view - which is that you only want immigration to be about economic benefits.
No, I want immigration to be discussed honestly.
A substantial reduction to immigration levels will have an adverse effect on our economy in multiple ways. I don't think we can afford for that to happen given where our economy is currently.
A substantial reduction from a 10 year average or 2 year average as those are very different?
Well, exactly. Immigration numbers are going to come down significantly over the next year. Is that enough? If not, why not and what will give?
Putting your two comments together, should the government be trying to increase immigration to boost the economy or should they be happy that immigration will come down?
This is the problem with university free speech. How do universities guarantee it against this sort of mass protest?
Is that a free speech problem or a public order problem? The RAF were going about their lawful business having obtained the necessary consents and should be allowed to do so unimpeded.
Surely the protestors were the ones exercising free speech.
What would you feel if a bunch of Netanyahu supporters forced pro-palestinians to close their stall?
Would you be suggesting that was free speech?
The classic philosophical boundaries on free speech are the point where it shuts down the speech of others. That goes back to the ancient Greeks. At least in written form...
Yes, it comes down to “free speech for people I like.”
University authorities usually adopt the line of least resistance.
Exactly.
People have free speech to support the government and institutions, but are frowned upon when they express contrary opinions.
It's a bit like democracy. In that case the test is - If the Other Lot win the election, what happens?
1) Order the removal people round. Leave a note. Democracy 2) Order the army to shoot the Other Lot. Not-democracy.
For free speech - do the people I dislike get to speak?
And in what circumstances. I personally think the church is, on balance, a blight on the country. But I wouldn't support someone's right to "free speech" to stand in the porch of a church and harangue everyone on the way in and out about why they shouldn't believe this nonsense. Outside the church, fine, unless/until they cause an obstruction or similar.
Likewise, I think that this RAF situation is a public order problem. They can have a protest around the corner / outside the building as long as they don't impede people's lawful right to go about their business.
Similarly, I had no problem with animal rights protestors outside my favourite restaurant. I had to put up with fairly-loud protest which others moaned about but, hey, suck it up and eat your legal foie if that's ethically OK by you. On the other hand, when they started threatening staff and damaging property, that's that.
As the old, small "l" libertarian quip put it - "Your freedom to wave your fist stops where my nose begins."
The problem here is the "The hurtfulness of your existence" - to some people the existence of a counter argument if terrifying and painful. See religion. See also the cases where, in universities, the presence of Germaine Greer in a meeting room required safe spaces and counselling for opponents.
And of course, that libertarian quip is actually a grey area. Waving your fist right up to my nose is unacceptable if it feels to me like you might hit me - whatever you claim your intention was. Which is what slides towards what many would see as the overreactions in your later examples. But equally might be "straw that broke the camel's back" territory for others.
The fist nearly to nose fails amongst others reasons because assault does not require.
If you lunge your car at a pedestrian on a Zebra crossing and place them in imminent fear of injury, you could be done for assault as well as probably careless driving.
This is the problem with university free speech. How do universities guarantee it against this sort of mass protest?
Is that a free speech problem or a public order problem? The RAF were going about their lawful business having obtained the necessary consents and should be allowed to do so unimpeded.
Yep, different things. Free speech - students should be completely free to protest outside the venue while not impeding anyone's access. I don't have the details of this story (no subscription) but if they forced closure of stalls then it seems a lot more than exercising a right to free speech.
It can be a fine line. Imagine a large and noisy group of people getting in your face as you make to enter something. They aren't physically stopping you but it's unpleasant and you think, "no, not worth it, I'll go do something else". So then whatever the event is is severely compromised.
It can. Here it would be the University's job to make sure that didn't happen, I think. Here's where you can stand (which should be near enough to have an impact, but not close enough to block, threaten or intimidate) here's where you have to keep free. Not an easy job necessarily, but it has to be done - and peacenik students should back it, because next time it might be a contingent of RAF veterans shutting down a CND* stall
*still a thing?
Think so, but the glory days are long gone. I ought to join because I believe in the cause very strongly. Don't suppose I will though.
Lots of excitable people on here. None of the leaders are going anywhere for some years. Don't tie up your money, Badenoch is not going any time soon, no reason for it. Far from it.
This is probably about where I suspect things are:
Election Maps UK @ElectionMapsUK · 48m Westminster Voting Intention:
The thing is with polling like this is that it very much feels like Something’s Got To Give.
I think something has given. Labour's policies in govt are
Green stuff (including Miliband's magic gas)
AI stuff
Less money for pensioners
Less benefits for nonworkers
More money for unioned workers
That's a metropolitan centre-right policy portfolio (ish). I can't for the life of me see that commanding a majority at an election, and if Reeves' gamble does not come off things will get worse for Lab. What are the odds on Farage becoming PM again?
The chap from confused.com on R4 Today at around 06:25 noting that 20mph limits are making a contribution to reductions in car insurance premiums because they make our roads safer.
We'll get real data from places like Wales in the next year or two.
Though where should already be data in the record, from places like Portsmouth, Cambridge, Nottingham, and possibly Hull.
London and Birmingham may be supplying data in 2-5 years.
Aren't the countervailing trends raising our premiums (electric cars being less repairable and so on) much larger?
Picking this up from earlier.
Yes different factors affect insurance prices, but multivariable analysis and different data sets allow the impacts to be teased out.
The data is that there were major increases (31%) 2 years ago on average, and a fall back (~17%) last year. That is part frequency of claims, and part the cost of repair.
The speed limiter technology that has come in is interesting - we may get premiums related to agreeing to obey speed limits one level more than the 'black box monitoing' done previously.
If the data finds that those dogmatically driving at the speed limit are higher risk should they be charged more? I suspect they are higher risk than those who take a perhaps more flexible scenario dependent approach but obviously less risk than the boy racers at the extreme.
This is the problem with university free speech. How do universities guarantee it against this sort of mass protest?
Is that a free speech problem or a public order problem? The RAF were going about their lawful business having obtained the necessary consents and should be allowed to do so unimpeded.
Yep, different things. Free speech - students should be completely free to protest outside the venue while not impeding anyone's access. I don't have the details of this story (no subscription) but if they forced closure of stalls then it seems a lot more than exercising a right to free speech.
It can be a fine line. Imagine a large and noisy group of people getting in your face as you make to enter something. They aren't physically stopping you but it's unpleasant and you think, "no, not worth it, I'll go do something else". So then whatever the event is is severely compromised.
The classic case of this is abortion clinics.
And a physical impediment isn't the only form of impediment - shouting threats and obscenities is only one step away from that and is surely covered by public order law. Silently standing with protest banners might still be intimidating but probably moves back into the realms of "you have to suck it up".
There have been cases where silent protest with banners outside abortion clinics has been blocked by the courts. Because of implied intimidation.
Attempting to reduce this to a simple set of rules is impossible.
This is the problem with university free speech. How do universities guarantee it against this sort of mass protest?
Is that a free speech problem or a public order problem? The RAF were going about their lawful business having obtained the necessary consents and should be allowed to do so unimpeded.
Yep, different things. Free speech - students should be completely free to protest outside the venue while not impeding anyone's access. I don't have the details of this story (no subscription) but if they forced closure of stalls then it seems a lot more than exercising a right to free speech.
It can be a fine line. Imagine a large and noisy group of people getting in your face as you make to enter something. They aren't physically stopping you but it's unpleasant and you think, "no, not worth it, I'll go do something else". So then whatever the event is is severely compromised.
The classic case of this is abortion clinics.
"But they're only praying! What have you got against praying, you bigot!"
This is the problem with university free speech. How do universities guarantee it against this sort of mass protest?
Is that a free speech problem or a public order problem? The RAF were going about their lawful business having obtained the necessary consents and should be allowed to do so unimpeded.
Yep, different things. Free speech - students should be completely free to protest outside the venue while not impeding anyone's access. I don't have the details of this story (no subscription) but if they forced closure of stalls then it seems a lot more than exercising a right to free speech.
It can be a fine line. Imagine a large and noisy group of people getting in your face as you make to enter something. They aren't physically stopping you but it's unpleasant and you think, "no, not worth it, I'll go do something else". So then whatever the event is is severely compromised.
The classic case of this is abortion clinics.
And a physical impediment isn't the only form of impediment - shouting threats and obscenities is only one step away from that and is surely covered by public order law. Silently standing with protest banners might still be intimidating but probably moves back into the realms of "you have to suck it up".
There have been cases where silent protest with banners outside abortion clinics has been blocked by the courts. Because of implied intimidation.
Attempting to reduce this to a simple set of rules is impossible.
Absolutely - and one of the good things about the way the law is applied in England and Wales is that it *isn't* based on rigidly applying a set of "legal rules".
This is the problem with university free speech. How do universities guarantee it against this sort of mass protest?
Is that a free speech problem or a public order problem? The RAF were going about their lawful business having obtained the necessary consents and should be allowed to do so unimpeded.
Surely the protestors were the ones exercising free speech.
Free speech is the absence of a negative - i.e. it means you are not persecuted for making your point - not that you have the right to do it when and where wherever you like and disrupt others doing the same or going about their lawful business.
It's a time of considerable turmoil and it seems to me that, after such a long time in government, the Conservatives should be focussing on what they truly believe. Sorting themselves out, as @Alanbrooke says.
And what would that be ? You'd get very different answers from (say) TSE, HYUFD, Casino and PtP.
The last decade has fragmented their coalition - and some of those fragments may permanently be lost to them.
Suella was on LBC yesterday doubling down on going full frontal Reform with a view to either a coalition or tacit mutual benefit arrangements. Personally, I would have thought that peels off the left flank to the LDs.
Where do people like Cameron, Osborne or May go on that scenario. A new “Coalition” party would become their natural home.
This is classic 'centrist' establishment thinking.
People want immigration brought under control. End of.
But it's not end of, is it? They also want functioning public services, more housing, people to look after their elderly relatives and so on. So what does immigration control actually look like in those circumstances?
You just don't get it.
You never will.
I get that you do not want to engage with difficult conversations and would prefer everything to be black and white. I also get that black and white is a very compelling political argument. But it does not solve deep-seated economic challenges.
I engage in difficult conversations on here all the time, but you won't brook anything that goes against your world view - which is that you only want immigration to be about economic benefits.
No, I want immigration to be discussed honestly.
A substantial reduction to immigration levels will have an adverse effect on our economy in multiple ways. I don't think we can afford for that to happen given where our economy is currently.
A substantial reduction from a 10 year average or 2 year average as those are very different?
Well, exactly. Immigration numbers are going to come down significantly over the next year. Is that enough? If not, why not and what will give?
I think the 2 year average is too high but the 10 year average sustainable, as long we build at a much faster pace than we have done. Much lower immigration and it just creates a different set of problems to those we have.
This is the problem with university free speech. How do universities guarantee it against this sort of mass protest?
Is that a free speech problem or a public order problem? The RAF were going about their lawful business having obtained the necessary consents and should be allowed to do so unimpeded.
Surely the protestors were the ones exercising free speech.
I draw the line where it involves impeding or preventing others from going about their lawful business.
At the very least the protestors are breaching the peace, though other offences could apply. I'd suggest a suitable remedy would be a night or two in a police cell and a conditional discharge by the Magistrate the next court day.
And that would apply to farmers driving their tractors down motorways or through London to deliberate slowdown or halt traffic just as much as it would apply to Just Stop Oil protestors.
IIRC the farmers took very considerable legal advice and cooperated with the police on the nature, size and structure of their protest.
So your comparison with Just Stop Oil isn't valid.
Establishment centrists and populist insurgents are about equal, in terms of being self-serving and duplicitous, and selling snake oil.
But the former frequently give the impression that they place the interests of foreigners above the interests of their own people.
The default assumption is that Establishment Centrists must be the more pragmatic and moderate option. But, in recent years, they have taken dogmatic and 'extreme' positions against new nuclear power, the need for a strong defence, and put ideological commitments to free movement, hyper social liberalism and human rights over the pragmatic political and social consequences that causes on the ground.
That's why the noises about them being centrist and sensible don't always resonate.
There is definitely confusion about centrism and being moderate or for the status quo. I'm a radical centrist, I think we are on the wrong track and collectively as a nation deluded about our future, but think the solutions will be a mix of those from the left and right, and we should pick'n'mix what works best, for us, at the moment, from the widest range of policy options, whether mostly socialist or mostly capitalist.
Yes, I think centrism is just a framing of the argument to make one's own views seem like the choice of any sensible, reasonable person.
It probably only literally applies in the field of economics, but with a preference for higher spending, where possible, over lower taxes.
It's often used as an insult these days. I'm not a centrist but I have noticed that many of those who can't say "centrist" without a scowl and a lip curl are fruitcakes.
A substantial reduction to immigration levels will have an adverse effect on our economy in multiple ways. I don't think we can afford for that to happen given where our economy is currently.
We tried that during the Brexit campaign...
Leave said that it would both decrease immigration and make us richer.
This is the problem with university free speech. How do universities guarantee it against this sort of mass protest?
Is that a free speech problem or a public order problem? The RAF were going about their lawful business having obtained the necessary consents and should be allowed to do so unimpeded.
Surely the protestors were the ones exercising free speech.
Free speech is the absence of a negative - i.e. it means you are not persecuted for making your point - not that you have the right to do it when and where wherever you like and disrupt others doing the same or going about their lawful business.
It's a time of considerable turmoil and it seems to me that, after such a long time in government, the Conservatives should be focussing on what they truly believe. Sorting themselves out, as @Alanbrooke says.
And what would that be ? You'd get very different answers from (say) TSE, HYUFD, Casino and PtP.
The last decade has fragmented their coalition - and some of those fragments may permanently be lost to them.
Suella was on LBC yesterday doubling down on going full frontal Reform with a view to either a coalition or tacit mutual benefit arrangements. Personally, I would have thought that peels off the left flank to the LDs.
Where do people like Cameron, Osborne or May go on that scenario. A new “Coalition” party would become their natural home.
This is classic 'centrist' establishment thinking.
People want immigration brought under control. End of.
But it's not end of, is it? They also want functioning public services, more housing, people to look after their elderly relatives and so on. So what does immigration control actually look like in those circumstances?
You just don't get it.
You never will.
I get that you do not want to engage with difficult conversations and would prefer everything to be black and white. I also get that black and white is a very compelling political argument. But it does not solve deep-seated economic challenges.
I engage in difficult conversations on here all the time, but you won't brook anything that goes against your world view - which is that you only want immigration to be about economic benefits.
No, I want immigration to be discussed honestly.
A substantial reduction to immigration levels will have an adverse effect on our economy in multiple ways. I don't think we can afford for that to happen given where our economy is currently.
A substantial reduction from a 10 year average or 2 year average as those are very different?
Well, exactly. Immigration numbers are going to come down significantly over the next year. Is that enough? If not, why not and what will give?
Putting your two comments together, should the government be trying to increase immigration to boost the economy or should they be happy that immigration will come down?
A healthy economy delivering sustainable growth and improvements to living standards is what I want. Given our ageing workforce, I do not see how that is delivered without a significant level of immigration. My lifestyle would be largely unaffected by a reduction of immigration to zero. But I think it would have a very quick, adverse effect on millions of others.
This is the problem with university free speech. How do universities guarantee it against this sort of mass protest?
Is that a free speech problem or a public order problem? The RAF were going about their lawful business having obtained the necessary consents and should be allowed to do so unimpeded.
Surely the protestors were the ones exercising free speech.
What would you feel if a bunch of Netanyahu supporters forced pro-palestinians to close their stall?
Would you be suggesting that was free speech?
The classic philosophical boundaries on free speech are the point where it shuts down the speech of others. That goes back to the ancient Greeks. At least in written form...
Yes, it comes down to “free speech for people I like.”
University authorities usually adopt the line of least resistance.
Exactly.
People have free speech to support the government and institutions, but are frowned upon when they express contrary opinions.
It's a bit like democracy. In that case the test is - If the Other Lot win the election, what happens?
1) Order the removal people round. Leave a note. Democracy 2) Order the army to shoot the Other Lot. Not-democracy.
For free speech - do the people I dislike get to speak?
And in what circumstances. I personally think the church is, on balance, a blight on the country. But I wouldn't support someone's right to "free speech" to stand in the porch of a church and harangue everyone on the way in and out about why they shouldn't believe this nonsense. Outside the church, fine, unless/until they cause an obstruction or similar.
Likewise, I think that this RAF situation is a public order problem. They can have a protest around the corner / outside the building as long as they don't impede people's lawful right to go about their business.
Similarly, I had no problem with animal rights protestors outside my favourite restaurant. I had to put up with fairly-loud protest which others moaned about but, hey, suck it up and eat your legal foie if that's ethically OK by you. On the other hand, when they started threatening staff and damaging property, that's that.
As the old, small "l" libertarian quip put it - "Your freedom to wave your fist stops where my nose begins."
The problem here is the "The hurtfulness of your existence" - to some people the existence of a counter argument if terrifying and painful. See religion. See also the cases where, in universities, the presence of Germaine Greer in a meeting room required safe spaces and counselling for opponents.
And of course, that libertarian quip is actually a grey area. Waving your fist right up to my nose is unacceptable if it feels to me like you might hit me - whatever you claim your intention was. Which is what slides towards what many would see as the overreactions in your later examples. But equally might be "straw that broke the camel's back" territory for others.
The fist nearly to nose fails amongst others reasons because assault does not require.
If you lunge your car at a pedestrian on a Zebra crossing and place them in imminent fear of injury, you could be done for assault as well as probably careless driving.
This is the problem with university free speech. How do universities guarantee it against this sort of mass protest?
Is that a free speech problem or a public order problem? The RAF were going about their lawful business having obtained the necessary consents and should be allowed to do so unimpeded.
Surely the protestors were the ones exercising free speech.
Free speech is the absence of a negative - i.e. it means you are not persecuted for making your point - not that you have the right to do it when and where wherever you like and disrupt others doing the same or going about their lawful business.
It's a time of considerable turmoil and it seems to me that, after such a long time in government, the Conservatives should be focussing on what they truly believe. Sorting themselves out, as @Alanbrooke says.
And what would that be ? You'd get very different answers from (say) TSE, HYUFD, Casino and PtP.
The last decade has fragmented their coalition - and some of those fragments may permanently be lost to them.
Suella was on LBC yesterday doubling down on going full frontal Reform with a view to either a coalition or tacit mutual benefit arrangements. Personally, I would have thought that peels off the left flank to the LDs.
Where do people like Cameron, Osborne or May go on that scenario. A new “Coalition” party would become their natural home.
This is classic 'centrist' establishment thinking.
People want immigration brought under control. End of.
But it's not end of, is it? They also want functioning public services, more housing, people to look after their elderly relatives and so on. So what does immigration control actually look like in those circumstances?
You just don't get it.
You never will.
I get that you do not want to engage with difficult conversations and would prefer everything to be black and white. I also get that black and white is a very compelling political argument. But it does not solve deep-seated economic challenges.
I engage in difficult conversations on here all the time, but you won't brook anything that goes against your world view - which is that you only want immigration to be about economic benefits.
No, I want immigration to be discussed honestly.
A substantial reduction to immigration levels will have an adverse effect on our economy in multiple ways. I don't think we can afford for that to happen given where our economy is currently.
A substantial reduction from a 10 year average or 2 year average as those are very different?
Well, exactly. Immigration numbers are going to come down significantly over the next year. Is that enough? If not, why not and what will give?
Putting your two comments together, should the government be trying to increase immigration to boost the economy or should they be happy that immigration will come down?
A healthy economy delivering sustainable growth and improvements to living standards is what I want. Given our ageing workforce, I do not see how that is delivered without a significant level of immigration. My lifestyle would be largely unaffected by a reduction of immigration to zero. But I think it would have a very quick, adverse effect on millions of others.
It's all a bit chicken and egg, but I think it's fair to say that immigration is adding to our aging population.
This is the problem with university free speech. How do universities guarantee it against this sort of mass protest?
Is that a free speech problem or a public order problem? The RAF were going about their lawful business having obtained the necessary consents and should be allowed to do so unimpeded.
Yep, different things. Free speech - students should be completely free to protest outside the venue while not impeding anyone's access. I don't have the details of this story (no subscription) but if they forced closure of stalls then it seems a lot more than exercising a right to free speech.
It can be a fine line. Imagine a large and noisy group of people getting in your face as you make to enter something. They aren't physically stopping you but it's unpleasant and you think, "no, not worth it, I'll go do something else". So then whatever the event is is severely compromised.
Indeed. Which is why a future Tory government should outlaw picketing.
Well no. It just means it needs to stay the right side of the line I'm sketching.
Any case there won't be a future Tory government. It's Socialism or Barbarism now.
This is the problem with university free speech. How do universities guarantee it against this sort of mass protest?
Is that a free speech problem or a public order problem? The RAF were going about their lawful business having obtained the necessary consents and should be allowed to do so unimpeded.
Yep, different things. Free speech - students should be completely free to protest outside the venue while not impeding anyone's access. I don't have the details of this story (no subscription) but if they forced closure of stalls then it seems a lot more than exercising a right to free speech.
It can be a fine line. Imagine a large and noisy group of people getting in your face as you make to enter something. They aren't physically stopping you but it's unpleasant and you think, "no, not worth it, I'll go do something else". So then whatever the event is is severely compromised.
The classic case of this is abortion clinics.
"But they're only praying! What have you got against praying, you bigot!"
The chap from confused.com on R4 Today at around 06:25 noting that 20mph limits are making a contribution to reductions in car insurance premiums because they make our roads safer.
We'll get real data from places like Wales in the next year or two.
Though where should already be data in the record, from places like Portsmouth, Cambridge, Nottingham, and possibly Hull.
London and Birmingham may be supplying data in 2-5 years.
Aren't the countervailing trends raising our premiums (electric cars being less repairable and so on) much larger?
Picking this up from earlier.
Yes different factors affect insurance prices, but multivariable analysis and different data sets allow the impacts to be teased out.
The data is that there were major increases (31%) 2 years ago on average, and a fall back (~17%) last year. That is part frequency of claims, and part the cost of repair.
The speed limiter technology that has come in is interesting - we may get premiums related to agreeing to obey speed limits one level more than the 'black box monitoing' done previously.
If the data finds that those dogmatically driving at the speed limit are higher risk should they be charged more? I suspect they are higher risk than those who take a perhaps more flexible scenario dependent approach but obviously less risk than the boy racers at the extreme.
Perhaps rcs has insight?
I doubt whether the UK is comparable with the USA for a whole plethora of reasons.
This is the problem with university free speech. How do universities guarantee it against this sort of mass protest?
Is that a free speech problem or a public order problem? The RAF were going about their lawful business having obtained the necessary consents and should be allowed to do so unimpeded.
Surely the protestors were the ones exercising free speech.
Free speech is the absence of a negative - i.e. it means you are not persecuted for making your point - not that you have the right to do it when and where wherever you like and disrupt others doing the same or going about their lawful business.
It's a time of considerable turmoil and it seems to me that, after such a long time in government, the Conservatives should be focussing on what they truly believe. Sorting themselves out, as @Alanbrooke says.
And what would that be ? You'd get very different answers from (say) TSE, HYUFD, Casino and PtP.
The last decade has fragmented their coalition - and some of those fragments may permanently be lost to them.
Suella was on LBC yesterday doubling down on going full frontal Reform with a view to either a coalition or tacit mutual benefit arrangements. Personally, I would have thought that peels off the left flank to the LDs.
Where do people like Cameron, Osborne or May go on that scenario. A new “Coalition” party would become their natural home.
This is classic 'centrist' establishment thinking.
People want immigration brought under control. End of.
But it's not end of, is it? They also want functioning public services, more housing, people to look after their elderly relatives and so on. So what does immigration control actually look like in those circumstances?
You just don't get it.
You never will.
I get that you do not want to engage with difficult conversations and would prefer everything to be black and white. I also get that black and white is a very compelling political argument. But it does not solve deep-seated economic challenges.
I engage in difficult conversations on here all the time, but you won't brook anything that goes against your world view - which is that you only want immigration to be about economic benefits.
No, I want immigration to be discussed honestly.
A substantial reduction to immigration levels will have an adverse effect on our economy in multiple ways. I don't think we can afford for that to happen given where our economy is currently.
A substantial reduction from a 10 year average or 2 year average as those are very different?
Well, exactly. Immigration numbers are going to come down significantly over the next year. Is that enough? If not, why not and what will give?
Putting your two comments together, should the government be trying to increase immigration to boost the economy or should they be happy that immigration will come down?
I wonder how the people who would currently support broadly a 'No Immigration' policy would be impacted by it, if it was actually implemented?
How many would benefit by wages rising to a decent level for all the minimum wage jobs that currently rely on immigrants to fill vacancies? A net positive for working people in the lower-paid end of the job market.
And how many would be squealing at the tax rises needed to pay for social care and health costs, or (alternatively) growth in NHS waiting lists and the inability to see a GP? Or services in general because wages have risen? I expect a lot of the 55+ cohort supporting Reform would be far from happy.
I expect the comfortably off middle classes could manage to find their way to the local takeaway once more instead of using Deliveroo...
Conclusion - Labour should adopt zero immigration as it will benefit their natural support and punish the Reform vote most. They won't though,
If Reform got in, it would kill them stone dead. If elected, they won't do it either.
The chap from confused.com on R4 Today at around 06:25 noting that 20mph limits are making a contribution to reductions in car insurance premiums because they make our roads safer.
We'll get real data from places like Wales in the next year or two.
Though where should already be data in the record, from places like Portsmouth, Cambridge, Nottingham, and possibly Hull.
London and Birmingham may be supplying data in 2-5 years.
Aren't the countervailing trends raising our premiums (electric cars being less repairable and so on) much larger?
Picking this up from earlier.
Yes different factors affect insurance prices, but multivariable analysis and different data sets allow the impacts to be teased out.
The data is that there were major increases (31%) 2 years ago on average, and a fall back (~17%) last year. That is part frequency of claims, and part the cost of repair.
The speed limiter technology that has come in is interesting - we may get premiums related to agreeing to obey speed limits one level more than the 'black box monitoing' done previously.
If the data finds that those dogmatically driving at the speed limit are higher risk should they be charged more? I suspect they are higher risk than those who take a perhaps more flexible scenario dependent approach but obviously less risk than the boy racers at the extreme.
Perhaps rcs has insight?
I doubt whether the UK is comparable with the USA for a whole plethora of reasons.
So classless, what is it about Arsenal that turns nice people into wind up merchants?
Arsenal great Sol Campbell winds up Spurs fans and reopens old wounds in phone advert
Campbell changes from a white sweater to red and says ‘big moves pay off’ in advert timed to run before this week’s north London derby
Sol Campbell has poked fun at Tottenham Hotspur’s relative lack of trophies in a “tongue-in-cheek” viral new advert about his hugely controversial move to rivals Arsenal.
The Arsenal ‘Invincible’ moved from Spurs on a free transfer under the Bosman ruling in 2001 after his contract had run down. He had graduated through Tottenham’s youth system before winning two Premier League titles, two FA Cups and scoring in the Champions League final for his new club.
In an advert for Google’s Pixel phones, the now 50-year-old Campbell is initially pictured in a white jumper and says: ‘It’s that time of year again….” He then reveals a red sweater while adding: “A time when people start to wonder if the grass might be greener. Whether they should switch sides and change allegiances. Take it from me, big moves pay off.”
This is the problem with university free speech. How do universities guarantee it against this sort of mass protest?
Is that a free speech problem or a public order problem? The RAF were going about their lawful business having obtained the necessary consents and should be allowed to do so unimpeded.
Yep, different things. Free speech - students should be completely free to protest outside the venue while not impeding anyone's access. I don't have the details of this story (no subscription) but if they forced closure of stalls then it seems a lot more than exercising a right to free speech.
It can be a fine line. Imagine a large and noisy group of people getting in your face as you make to enter something. They aren't physically stopping you but it's unpleasant and you think, "no, not worth it, I'll go do something else". So then whatever the event is is severely compromised.
The classic case of this is abortion clinics.
"But they're only praying! What have you got against praying, you bigot!"
At UCL, in the early 90s, on one occasion, someone actually got up on his hind legs and said "But they are only chanting Death To The West! Death To The Jews! - why should we stop that?"
This is the problem with university free speech. How do universities guarantee it against this sort of mass protest?
Is that a free speech problem or a public order problem? The RAF were going about their lawful business having obtained the necessary consents and should be allowed to do so unimpeded.
Surely the protestors were the ones exercising free speech.
What would you feel if a bunch of Netanyahu supporters forced pro-palestinians to close their stall?
Would you be suggesting that was free speech?
The classic philosophical boundaries on free speech are the point where it shuts down the speech of others. That goes back to the ancient Greeks. At least in written form...
Yes, it comes down to “free speech for people I like.”
University authorities usually adopt the line of least resistance.
Exactly.
People have free speech to support the government and institutions, but are frowned upon when they express contrary opinions.
It's a bit like democracy. In that case the test is - If the Other Lot win the election, what happens?
1) Order the removal people round. Leave a note. Democracy 2) Order the army to shoot the Other Lot. Not-democracy.
For free speech - do the people I dislike get to speak?
And in what circumstances. I personally think the church is, on balance, a blight on the country. But I wouldn't support someone's right to "free speech" to stand in the porch of a church and harangue everyone on the way in and out about why they shouldn't believe this nonsense. Outside the church, fine, unless/until they cause an obstruction or similar.
Likewise, I think that this RAF situation is a public order problem. They can have a protest around the corner / outside the building as long as they don't impede people's lawful right to go about their business.
Similarly, I had no problem with animal rights protestors outside my favourite restaurant. I had to put up with fairly-loud protest which others moaned about but, hey, suck it up and eat your legal foie if that's ethically OK by you. On the other hand, when they started threatening staff and damaging property, that's that.
As the old, small "l" libertarian quip put it - "Your freedom to wave your fist stops where my nose begins."
The problem here is the "The hurtfulness of your existence" - to some people the existence of a counter argument if terrifying and painful. See religion. See also the cases where, in universities, the presence of Germaine Greer in a meeting room required safe spaces and counselling for opponents.
And of course, that libertarian quip is actually a grey area. Waving your fist right up to my nose is unacceptable if it feels to me like you might hit me - whatever you claim your intention was. Which is what slides towards what many would see as the overreactions in your later examples. But equally might be "straw that broke the camel's back" territory for others.
Which is why genuine libertarian philosophy has created a vast pile of learned argument on the nature of freedom and it's limits - chiefly with respect to the freedom of others.
Like everything else involving humans - it's complicated.
This is the problem with university free speech. How do universities guarantee it against this sort of mass protest?
Is that a free speech problem or a public order problem? The RAF were going about their lawful business having obtained the necessary consents and should be allowed to do so unimpeded.
Surely the protestors were the ones exercising free speech.
Free speech is the absence of a negative - i.e. it means you are not persecuted for making your point - not that you have the right to do it when and where wherever you like and disrupt others doing the same or going about their lawful business.
It's a time of considerable turmoil and it seems to me that, after such a long time in government, the Conservatives should be focussing on what they truly believe. Sorting themselves out, as @Alanbrooke says.
And what would that be ? You'd get very different answers from (say) TSE, HYUFD, Casino and PtP.
The last decade has fragmented their coalition - and some of those fragments may permanently be lost to them.
Suella was on LBC yesterday doubling down on going full frontal Reform with a view to either a coalition or tacit mutual benefit arrangements. Personally, I would have thought that peels off the left flank to the LDs.
Where do people like Cameron, Osborne or May go on that scenario. A new “Coalition” party would become their natural home.
This is classic 'centrist' establishment thinking.
People want immigration brought under control. End of.
But it's not end of, is it? They also want functioning public services, more housing, people to look after their elderly relatives and so on. So what does immigration control actually look like in those circumstances?
You just don't get it.
You never will.
I get that you do not want to engage with difficult conversations and would prefer everything to be black and white. I also get that black and white is a very compelling political argument. But it does not solve deep-seated economic challenges.
I engage in difficult conversations on here all the time, but you won't brook anything that goes against your world view - which is that you only want immigration to be about economic benefits.
No, I want immigration to be discussed honestly.
A substantial reduction to immigration levels will have an adverse effect on our economy in multiple ways. I don't think we can afford for that to happen given where our economy is currently.
A substantial reduction from a 10 year average or 2 year average as those are very different?
Well, exactly. Immigration numbers are going to come down significantly over the next year. Is that enough? If not, why not and what will give?
Putting your two comments together, should the government be trying to increase immigration to boost the economy or should they be happy that immigration will come down?
A healthy economy delivering sustainable growth and improvements to living standards is what I want. Given our ageing workforce, I do not see how that is delivered without a significant level of immigration. My lifestyle would be largely unaffected by a reduction of immigration to zero. But I think it would have a very quick, adverse effect on millions of others.
It's all a bit chicken and egg, but I think it's fair to say that immigration is adding to our aging population.
It's certainly helping our ageing population.
All I'm saying is that it's dishonest to pretend there are not significant downsides to major reductions in immigration. I would like to see politicians who want to do it anyway recognise this and justify it. They don't and they won't.
So classless, what is it about Arsenal that turns nice people into wind up merchants?
Arsenal great Sol Campbell winds up Spurs fans and reopens old wounds in phone advert
Campbell changes from a white sweater to red and says ‘big moves pay off’ in advert timed to run before this week’s north London derby
Sol Campbell has poked fun at Tottenham Hotspur’s relative lack of trophies in a “tongue-in-cheek” viral new advert about his hugely controversial move to rivals Arsenal.
The Arsenal ‘Invincible’ moved from Spurs on a free transfer under the Bosman ruling in 2001 after his contract had run down. He had graduated through Tottenham’s youth system before winning two Premier League titles, two FA Cups and scoring in the Champions League final for his new club.
In an advert for Google’s Pixel phones, the now 50-year-old Campbell is initially pictured in a white jumper and says: ‘It’s that time of year again….” He then reveals a red sweater while adding: “A time when people start to wonder if the grass might be greener. Whether they should switch sides and change allegiances. Take it from me, big moves pay off.”
This is the problem with university free speech. How do universities guarantee it against this sort of mass protest?
Is that a free speech problem or a public order problem? The RAF were going about their lawful business having obtained the necessary consents and should be allowed to do so unimpeded.
Surely the protestors were the ones exercising free speech.
Free speech is the absence of a negative - i.e. it means you are not persecuted for making your point - not that you have the right to do it when and where wherever you like and disrupt others doing the same or going about their lawful business.
It's a time of considerable turmoil and it seems to me that, after such a long time in government, the Conservatives should be focussing on what they truly believe. Sorting themselves out, as @Alanbrooke says.
And what would that be ? You'd get very different answers from (say) TSE, HYUFD, Casino and PtP.
The last decade has fragmented their coalition - and some of those fragments may permanently be lost to them.
Suella was on LBC yesterday doubling down on going full frontal Reform with a view to either a coalition or tacit mutual benefit arrangements. Personally, I would have thought that peels off the left flank to the LDs.
Where do people like Cameron, Osborne or May go on that scenario. A new “Coalition” party would become their natural home.
This is classic 'centrist' establishment thinking.
People want immigration brought under control. End of.
But it's not end of, is it? They also want functioning public services, more housing, people to look after their elderly relatives and so on. So what does immigration control actually look like in those circumstances?
You just don't get it.
You never will.
I get that you do not want to engage with difficult conversations and would prefer everything to be black and white. I also get that black and white is a very compelling political argument. But it does not solve deep-seated economic challenges.
I engage in difficult conversations on here all the time, but you won't brook anything that goes against your world view - which is that you only want immigration to be about economic benefits.
No, I want immigration to be discussed honestly.
A substantial reduction to immigration levels will have an adverse effect on our economy in multiple ways. I don't think we can afford for that to happen given where our economy is currently.
A substantial reduction from a 10 year average or 2 year average as those are very different?
Well, exactly. Immigration numbers are going to come down significantly over the next year. Is that enough? If not, why not and what will give?
Putting your two comments together, should the government be trying to increase immigration to boost the economy or should they be happy that immigration will come down?
A healthy economy delivering sustainable growth and improvements to living standards is what I want. Given our ageing workforce, I do not see how that is delivered without a significant level of immigration. My lifestyle would be largely unaffected by a reduction of immigration to zero. But I think it would have a very quick, adverse effect on millions of others.
It's all a bit chicken and egg, but I think it's fair to say that immigration is adding to our aging population.
It's certainly helping our ageing population.
All I'm saying is that it's dishonest to pretend there are not significant downsides to major reductions in immigration. I would like to see politicians who want to do it anyway recognise this and justify it. They don't and they won't.
Exactly. If they made the "pure but poor" argument against immigration it would be far more honest.
This is the problem with university free speech. How do universities guarantee it against this sort of mass protest?
Is that a free speech problem or a public order problem? The RAF were going about their lawful business having obtained the necessary consents and should be allowed to do so unimpeded.
Surely the protestors were the ones exercising free speech.
I draw the line where it involves impeding or preventing others from going about their lawful business.
At the very least the protestors are breaching the peace, though other offences could apply. I'd suggest a suitable remedy would be a night or two in a police cell and a conditional discharge by the Magistrate the next court day.
And that would apply to farmers driving their tractors down motorways or through London to deliberate slowdown or halt traffic just as much as it would apply to Just Stop Oil protestors.
IIRC the farmers took very considerable legal advice and cooperated with the police on the nature, size and structure of their protest.
So your comparison with Just Stop Oil isn't valid.
This is the problem with university free speech. How do universities guarantee it against this sort of mass protest?
Is that a free speech problem or a public order problem? The RAF were going about their lawful business having obtained the necessary consents and should be allowed to do so unimpeded.
Surely the protestors were the ones exercising free speech.
Free speech is the absence of a negative - i.e. it means you are not persecuted for making your point - not that you have the right to do it when and where wherever you like and disrupt others doing the same or going about their lawful business.
It's a time of considerable turmoil and it seems to me that, after such a long time in government, the Conservatives should be focussing on what they truly believe. Sorting themselves out, as @Alanbrooke says.
And what would that be ? You'd get very different answers from (say) TSE, HYUFD, Casino and PtP.
The last decade has fragmented their coalition - and some of those fragments may permanently be lost to them.
Suella was on LBC yesterday doubling down on going full frontal Reform with a view to either a coalition or tacit mutual benefit arrangements. Personally, I would have thought that peels off the left flank to the LDs.
Where do people like Cameron, Osborne or May go on that scenario. A new “Coalition” party would become their natural home.
This is classic 'centrist' establishment thinking.
People want immigration brought under control. End of.
But it's not end of, is it? They also want functioning public services, more housing, people to look after their elderly relatives and so on. So what does immigration control actually look like in those circumstances?
You just don't get it.
You never will.
I get that you do not want to engage with difficult conversations and would prefer everything to be black and white. I also get that black and white is a very compelling political argument. But it does not solve deep-seated economic challenges.
I engage in difficult conversations on here all the time, but you won't brook anything that goes against your world view - which is that you only want immigration to be about economic benefits.
No, I want immigration to be discussed honestly.
A substantial reduction to immigration levels will have an adverse effect on our economy in multiple ways. I don't think we can afford for that to happen given where our economy is currently.
A substantial reduction from a 10 year average or 2 year average as those are very different?
Well, exactly. Immigration numbers are going to come down significantly over the next year. Is that enough? If not, why not and what will give?
Putting your two comments together, should the government be trying to increase immigration to boost the economy or should they be happy that immigration will come down?
I wonder how the people who would currently support broadly a 'No Immigration' policy would be impacted by it, if it was actually implemented?
How many would benefit by wages rising to a decent level for all the minimum wage jobs that currently rely on immigrants to fill vacancies? A net positive for working people in the lower-paid end of the job market.
And how many would be squealing at the tax rises needed to pay for social care and health costs, or (alternatively) growth in NHS waiting lists and the inability to see a GP? Or services in general because wages have risen? I expect a lot of the 55+ cohort supporting Reform would be far from happy.
I expect the comfortably off middle classes could manage to find their way to the local takeaway once more instead of using Deliveroo...
Conclusion - Labour should adopt zero immigration as it will benefit their natural support and punish the Reform vote most. They won't though,
If Reform got in, it would kill them stone dead. If elected, they won't do it either.
One of the major reasons why populist parties in power tend to subvert the rule of law, impose tight controls on the media and generally move towards illiberal democracy is that their policies do not work.
This is the problem with university free speech. How do universities guarantee it against this sort of mass protest?
Is that a free speech problem or a public order problem? The RAF were going about their lawful business having obtained the necessary consents and should be allowed to do so unimpeded.
Surely the protestors were the ones exercising free speech.
Free speech is the absence of a negative - i.e. it means you are not persecuted for making your point - not that you have the right to do it when and where wherever you like and disrupt others doing the same or going about their lawful business.
It's a time of considerable turmoil and it seems to me that, after such a long time in government, the Conservatives should be focussing on what they truly believe. Sorting themselves out, as @Alanbrooke says.
And what would that be ? You'd get very different answers from (say) TSE, HYUFD, Casino and PtP.
The last decade has fragmented their coalition - and some of those fragments may permanently be lost to them.
Suella was on LBC yesterday doubling down on going full frontal Reform with a view to either a coalition or tacit mutual benefit arrangements. Personally, I would have thought that peels off the left flank to the LDs.
Where do people like Cameron, Osborne or May go on that scenario. A new “Coalition” party would become their natural home.
This is classic 'centrist' establishment thinking.
People want immigration brought under control. End of.
But it's not end of, is it? They also want functioning public services, more housing, people to look after their elderly relatives and so on. So what does immigration control actually look like in those circumstances?
You just don't get it.
You never will.
I get that you do not want to engage with difficult conversations and would prefer everything to be black and white. I also get that black and white is a very compelling political argument. But it does not solve deep-seated economic challenges.
I engage in difficult conversations on here all the time, but you won't brook anything that goes against your world view - which is that you only want immigration to be about economic benefits.
No, I want immigration to be discussed honestly.
A substantial reduction to immigration levels will have an adverse effect on our economy in multiple ways. I don't think we can afford for that to happen given where our economy is currently.
A substantial reduction from a 10 year average or 2 year average as those are very different?
Well, exactly. Immigration numbers are going to come down significantly over the next year. Is that enough? If not, why not and what will give?
Putting your two comments together, should the government be trying to increase immigration to boost the economy or should they be happy that immigration will come down?
A healthy economy delivering sustainable growth and improvements to living standards is what I want. Given our ageing workforce, I do not see how that is delivered without a significant level of immigration. My lifestyle would be largely unaffected by a reduction of immigration to zero. But I think it would have a very quick, adverse effect on millions of others.
It's all a bit chicken and egg, but I think it's fair to say that immigration is adding to our aging population.
It's certainly helping our ageing population.
All I'm saying is that it's dishonest to pretend there are not significant downsides to major reductions in immigration. I would like to see politicians who want to do it anyway recognise this and justify it. They don't and they won't.
And I want people to acknowledge that there are significant downsides to not having major reductions in immigration.
So classless, what is it about Arsenal that turns nice people into wind up merchants?
Arsenal great Sol Campbell winds up Spurs fans and reopens old wounds in phone advert
Campbell changes from a white sweater to red and says ‘big moves pay off’ in advert timed to run before this week’s north London derby
Sol Campbell has poked fun at Tottenham Hotspur’s relative lack of trophies in a “tongue-in-cheek” viral new advert about his hugely controversial move to rivals Arsenal.
The Arsenal ‘Invincible’ moved from Spurs on a free transfer under the Bosman ruling in 2001 after his contract had run down. He had graduated through Tottenham’s youth system before winning two Premier League titles, two FA Cups and scoring in the Champions League final for his new club.
In an advert for Google’s Pixel phones, the now 50-year-old Campbell is initially pictured in a white jumper and says: ‘It’s that time of year again….” He then reveals a red sweater while adding: “A time when people start to wonder if the grass might be greener. Whether they should switch sides and change allegiances. Take it from me, big moves pay off.”
This is the problem with university free speech. How do universities guarantee it against this sort of mass protest?
Is that a free speech problem or a public order problem? The RAF were going about their lawful business having obtained the necessary consents and should be allowed to do so unimpeded.
Yep, different things. Free speech - students should be completely free to protest outside the venue while not impeding anyone's access. I don't have the details of this story (no subscription) but if they forced closure of stalls then it seems a lot more than exercising a right to free speech.
It can be a fine line. Imagine a large and noisy group of people getting in your face as you make to enter something. They aren't physically stopping you but it's unpleasant and you think, "no, not worth it, I'll go do something else". So then whatever the event is is severely compromised.
The classic case of this is abortion clinics.
"But they're only praying! What have you got against praying, you bigot!"
If you can't pray nicely you can't pray at all.
However, worshipping Kali involves a mop and a bucket to pick up the bits, and worshipping Moloch gets you arrested by the NSPCC.
Establishment centrists and populist insurgents are about equal, in terms of being self-serving and duplicitous, and selling snake oil.
But the former frequently give the impression that they place the interests of foreigners above the interests of their own people.
The default assumption is that Establishment Centrists must be the more pragmatic and moderate option. But, in recent years, they have taken dogmatic and 'extreme' positions against new nuclear power, the need for a strong defence, and put ideological commitments to free movement, hyper social liberalism and human rights over the pragmatic political and social consequences that causes on the ground.
That's why the noises about them being centrist and sensible don't always resonate.
There is definitely confusion about centrism and being moderate or for the status quo. I'm a radical centrist, I think we are on the wrong track and collectively as a nation deluded about our future, but think the solutions will be a mix of those from the left and right, and we should pick'n'mix what works best, for us, at the moment, from the widest range of policy options, whether mostly socialist or mostly capitalist.
Yes, I think centrism is just a framing of the argument to make one's own views seem like the choice of any sensible, reasonable person.
It probably only literally applies in the field of economics, but with a preference for higher spending, where possible, over lower taxes.
Economic (and other) centrism moves around - by definition, I'd say - with the political consensus. So, at present, it's somewhere about where we are, as Con and Lab have both had fairly consistent tax policies and keep winning elections (and absolute majorities of the vote, between them) on them.
On tax, I'm a bit left of centrism - I'd be content to see the tax take overall go up a little bit (and pay a bit more personally) but probably with substantial changes to the system, remove all the cliff edges, look at wealth or, more realistically, property (I'd probably be a loser under that). On other things, I'm right of centre (I don't think entirely state-dominated industries do very well - although I don't mind some state owned players). I'm ambivalent, as noted above, on the renationalisation of railways and against complete renationalisation.
I'm a centrist (economically) as I take some things from the left and some from the right and, from political compass etc, that puts me on balance somewhere in the middle. But I don't hold those views to be a centrist. If the country moved left or right then I'd end up, on the new scale, right or left. On social values, I'm way up the liberal axis, not a centrist at all.
This is the problem with university free speech. How do universities guarantee it against this sort of mass protest?
Is that a free speech problem or a public order problem? The RAF were going about their lawful business having obtained the necessary consents and should be allowed to do so unimpeded.
Surely the protestors were the ones exercising free speech.
Free speech is the absence of a negative - i.e. it means you are not persecuted for making your point - not that you have the right to do it when and where wherever you like and disrupt others doing the same or going about their lawful business.
It's a time of considerable turmoil and it seems to me that, after such a long time in government, the Conservatives should be focussing on what they truly believe. Sorting themselves out, as @Alanbrooke says.
And what would that be ? You'd get very different answers from (say) TSE, HYUFD, Casino and PtP.
The last decade has fragmented their coalition - and some of those fragments may permanently be lost to them.
Suella was on LBC yesterday doubling down on going full frontal Reform with a view to either a coalition or tacit mutual benefit arrangements. Personally, I would have thought that peels off the left flank to the LDs.
Where do people like Cameron, Osborne or May go on that scenario. A new “Coalition” party would become their natural home.
This is classic 'centrist' establishment thinking.
People want immigration brought under control. End of.
But it's not end of, is it? They also want functioning public services, more housing, people to look after their elderly relatives and so on. So what does immigration control actually look like in those circumstances?
You just don't get it.
You never will.
I get that you do not want to engage with difficult conversations and would prefer everything to be black and white. I also get that black and white is a very compelling political argument. But it does not solve deep-seated economic challenges.
I engage in difficult conversations on here all the time, but you won't brook anything that goes against your world view - which is that you only want immigration to be about economic benefits.
No, I want immigration to be discussed honestly.
A substantial reduction to immigration levels will have an adverse effect on our economy in multiple ways. I don't think we can afford for that to happen given where our economy is currently.
A substantial reduction from a 10 year average or 2 year average as those are very different?
Well, exactly. Immigration numbers are going to come down significantly over the next year. Is that enough? If not, why not and what will give?
Putting your two comments together, should the government be trying to increase immigration to boost the economy or should they be happy that immigration will come down?
I wonder how the people who would currently support broadly a 'No Immigration' policy would be impacted by it, if it was actually implemented?
How many would benefit by wages rising to a decent level for all the minimum wage jobs that currently rely on immigrants to fill vacancies? A net positive for working people in the lower-paid end of the job market.
And how many would be squealing at the tax rises needed to pay for social care and health costs, or (alternatively) growth in NHS waiting lists and the inability to see a GP? Or services in general because wages have risen? I expect a lot of the 55+ cohort supporting Reform would be far from happy.
I expect the comfortably off middle classes could manage to find their way to the local takeaway once more instead of using Deliveroo...
Conclusion - Labour should adopt zero immigration as it will benefit their natural support and punish the Reform vote most. They won't though,
If Reform got in, it would kill them stone dead. If elected, they won't do it either.
I think the drop in the 2025 immigration figures is going to shame the last Tory government by comparison. Reform will still shout that they are too high
Getting immigration down to the "tens of thousands" was a pledge made by Cameron and May in the 2010, 2015 and 2017 manifestos. It was categorically NOT in the 2019 mankfesto which dumped that policy.
Boris promised to take back control etc which was done. It was Cameron and May not Boris who pledged to cut immigration to the tens of thousands though, Boris didn't even retain that preexisting pledge.
The chap from confused.com on R4 Today at around 06:25 noting that 20mph limits are making a contribution to reductions in car insurance premiums because they make our roads safer.
We'll get real data from places like Wales in the next year or two.
Though where should already be data in the record, from places like Portsmouth, Cambridge, Nottingham, and possibly Hull.
London and Birmingham may be supplying data in 2-5 years.
Aren't the countervailing trends raising our premiums (electric cars being less repairable and so on) much larger?
Picking this up from earlier.
Yes different factors affect insurance prices, but multivariable analysis and different data sets allow the impacts to be teased out.
The data is that there were major increases (31%) 2 years ago on average, and a fall back (~17%) last year. That is part frequency of claims, and part the cost of repair.
The speed limiter technology that has come in is interesting - we may get premiums related to agreeing to obey speed limits one level more than the 'black box monitoing' done previously.
If the data finds that those dogmatically driving at the speed limit are higher risk should they be charged more? I suspect they are higher risk than those who take a perhaps more flexible scenario dependent approach but obviously less risk than the boy racers at the extreme.
Perhaps rcs has insight?
I doubt whether the UK is comparable with the USA for a whole plethora of reasons.
Yoon continued to invoke right to silence in afternoon questioning as well as morning one. His dinner menu was doenjang-jjigae, (fermented) soybean paste stew. https://x.com/yejinjgim/status/1879479968817955059
This is the problem with university free speech. How do universities guarantee it against this sort of mass protest?
Is that a free speech problem or a public order problem? The RAF were going about their lawful business having obtained the necessary consents and should be allowed to do so unimpeded.
Surely the protestors were the ones exercising free speech.
Free speech is the absence of a negative - i.e. it means you are not persecuted for making your point - not that you have the right to do it when and where wherever you like and disrupt others doing the same or going about their lawful business.
It's a time of considerable turmoil and it seems to me that, after such a long time in government, the Conservatives should be focussing on what they truly believe. Sorting themselves out, as @Alanbrooke says.
And what would that be ? You'd get very different answers from (say) TSE, HYUFD, Casino and PtP.
The last decade has fragmented their coalition - and some of those fragments may permanently be lost to them.
Suella was on LBC yesterday doubling down on going full frontal Reform with a view to either a coalition or tacit mutual benefit arrangements. Personally, I would have thought that peels off the left flank to the LDs.
Where do people like Cameron, Osborne or May go on that scenario. A new “Coalition” party would become their natural home.
This is classic 'centrist' establishment thinking.
People want immigration brought under control. End of.
But it's not end of, is it? They also want functioning public services, more housing, people to look after their elderly relatives and so on. So what does immigration control actually look like in those circumstances?
You just don't get it.
You never will.
I get that you do not want to engage with difficult conversations and would prefer everything to be black and white. I also get that black and white is a very compelling political argument. But it does not solve deep-seated economic challenges.
I engage in difficult conversations on here all the time, but you won't brook anything that goes against your world view - which is that you only want immigration to be about economic benefits.
No, I want immigration to be discussed honestly.
A substantial reduction to immigration levels will have an adverse effect on our economy in multiple ways. I don't think we can afford for that to happen given where our economy is currently.
A substantial reduction from a 10 year average or 2 year average as those are very different?
Well, exactly. Immigration numbers are going to come down significantly over the next year. Is that enough? If not, why not and what will give?
Putting your two comments together, should the government be trying to increase immigration to boost the economy or should they be happy that immigration will come down?
A healthy economy delivering sustainable growth and improvements to living standards is what I want. Given our ageing workforce, I do not see how that is delivered without a significant level of immigration. My lifestyle would be largely unaffected by a reduction of immigration to zero. But I think it would have a very quick, adverse effect on millions of others.
It's all a bit chicken and egg, but I think it's fair to say that immigration is adding to our aging population.
It's certainly helping our ageing population.
All I'm saying is that it's dishonest to pretend there are not significant downsides to major reductions in immigration. I would like to see politicians who want to do it anyway recognise this and justify it. They don't and they won't.
And I want people to acknowledge that there are significant downsides to not having major reductions in immigration.
The main economic effect of immigration is to shift wealth from the young to the old and from workers to property owners.
All other economic effects are likely trivial in comparison.
This is the problem with university free speech. How do universities guarantee it against this sort of mass protest?
Is that a free speech problem or a public order problem? The RAF were going about their lawful business having obtained the necessary consents and should be allowed to do so unimpeded.
Yep, different things. Free speech - students should be completely free to protest outside the venue while not impeding anyone's access. I don't have the details of this story (no subscription) but if they forced closure of stalls then it seems a lot more than exercising a right to free speech.
It can be a fine line. Imagine a large and noisy group of people getting in your face as you make to enter something. They aren't physically stopping you but it's unpleasant and you think, "no, not worth it, I'll go do something else". So then whatever the event is is severely compromised.
It can. Here it would be the University's job to make sure that didn't happen, I think. Here's where you can stand (which should be near enough to have an impact, but not close enough to block, threaten or intimidate) here's where you have to keep free. Not an easy job necessarily, but it has to be done - and peacenik students should back it, because next time it might be a contingent of RAF veterans shutting down a CND* stall
*still a thing?
Think so, but the glory days are long gone. I ought to join because I believe in the cause very strongly. Don't suppose I will though.
Disarmament is mad. Keeping the weapons is MAD. What to do?
This is the problem with university free speech. How do universities guarantee it against this sort of mass protest?
Is that a free speech problem or a public order problem? The RAF were going about their lawful business having obtained the necessary consents and should be allowed to do so unimpeded.
Surely the protestors were the ones exercising free speech.
Free speech is the absence of a negative - i.e. it means you are not persecuted for making your point - not that you have the right to do it when and where wherever you like and disrupt others doing the same or going about their lawful business.
It's a time of considerable turmoil and it seems to me that, after such a long time in government, the Conservatives should be focussing on what they truly believe. Sorting themselves out, as @Alanbrooke says.
And what would that be ? You'd get very different answers from (say) TSE, HYUFD, Casino and PtP.
The last decade has fragmented their coalition - and some of those fragments may permanently be lost to them.
Suella was on LBC yesterday doubling down on going full frontal Reform with a view to either a coalition or tacit mutual benefit arrangements. Personally, I would have thought that peels off the left flank to the LDs.
Where do people like Cameron, Osborne or May go on that scenario. A new “Coalition” party would become their natural home.
This is classic 'centrist' establishment thinking.
People want immigration brought under control. End of.
But it's not end of, is it? They also want functioning public services, more housing, people to look after their elderly relatives and so on. So what does immigration control actually look like in those circumstances?
You just don't get it.
You never will.
I get that you do not want to engage with difficult conversations and would prefer everything to be black and white. I also get that black and white is a very compelling political argument. But it does not solve deep-seated economic challenges.
I engage in difficult conversations on here all the time, but you won't brook anything that goes against your world view - which is that you only want immigration to be about economic benefits.
No, I want immigration to be discussed honestly.
A substantial reduction to immigration levels will have an adverse effect on our economy in multiple ways. I don't think we can afford for that to happen given where our economy is currently.
A substantial reduction from a 10 year average or 2 year average as those are very different?
Well, exactly. Immigration numbers are going to come down significantly over the next year. Is that enough? If not, why not and what will give?
Putting your two comments together, should the government be trying to increase immigration to boost the economy or should they be happy that immigration will come down?
A healthy economy delivering sustainable growth and improvements to living standards is what I want. Given our ageing workforce, I do not see how that is delivered without a significant level of immigration. My lifestyle would be largely unaffected by a reduction of immigration to zero. But I think it would have a very quick, adverse effect on millions of others.
It's all a bit chicken and egg, but I think it's fair to say that immigration is adding to our aging population.
It's certainly helping our ageing population.
All I'm saying is that it's dishonest to pretend there are not significant downsides to major reductions in immigration. I would like to see politicians who want to do it anyway recognise this and justify it. They don't and they won't.
And I want people to acknowledge that there are significant downsides to not having major reductions in immigration.
It has been badly managed, mostly by a party that promised to bring it down to tens of thousands. And the rate of the last two years does have significant downsides however much we build.
It should be around 250-500k per year and housebuilding should be 400-500k per year rather than the 235k run rate or the govts 300k targets.
This is one of biotech's success stories - but it gives an idea of just how hard drug development is. And nine out of ten drugs never make it to approval.
What a journey for Intracellular Therapies Inc ($ITCI) - acquired yesterday at the ripe age of 23 yrs old.
Series A of $2.9M in 2002. Moshe Alafi, called one of the founders of biotech (whose VC firm backed Cetus, Amgen, ABI, others) was the lead of the A-round. Over next decade, the startup raised less than $40M in private capital across at least four rounds - a model of capital efficiency.
As the markets opened in 2013, ITCI reverse merged with a public shell company (mining company Oneida Resources Corp) and began trading late that year.
It already had its gem in hand: in 2013, lumateperone (Caplyta) was in Phase 2 for schizophrenia.
They raised $60M in the PIPE (led by Deerfield), and $120M in a secondary in 2014. This was enough to keep things going for another 8 years. They didn’t raise again until 2022… Wow…
As late stage development costs mounted, on the back of exciting data they raised $460M in 2022... and then again in 2024, $500M…
All-in, ITCI raised $1.2B from investors, private and public. Sold to J&J for nearly $15B...
Getting immigration down to the "tens of thousands" was a pledge made by Cameron and May in the 2010, 2015 and 2017 manifestos. It was categorically NOT in the 2019 mankfesto which dumped that policy.
Boris promised to take back control etc which was done. It was Cameron and May not Boris who pledged to cut immigration to the tens of thousands though, Boris didn't even retain that preexisting pledge.
"under Boris Johnson she was in a government that promised low immigration but actually delivered record levels of immigration"
Boris might not have, but Priti Patel, Home Secretary did commit to "We will reduce immigration overall" so the statement above is not a mistake.
The chap from confused.com on R4 Today at around 06:25 noting that 20mph limits are making a contribution to reductions in car insurance premiums because they make our roads safer.
We'll get real data from places like Wales in the next year or two.
Though where should already be data in the record, from places like Portsmouth, Cambridge, Nottingham, and possibly Hull.
London and Birmingham may be supplying data in 2-5 years.
Aren't the countervailing trends raising our premiums (electric cars being less repairable and so on) much larger?
Picking this up from earlier.
Yes different factors affect insurance prices, but multivariable analysis and different data sets allow the impacts to be teased out.
The data is that there were major increases (31%) 2 years ago on average, and a fall back (~17%) last year. That is part frequency of claims, and part the cost of repair.
The speed limiter technology that has come in is interesting - we may get premiums related to agreeing to obey speed limits one level more than the 'black box monitoing' done previously.
When the UK motor market reports combined loss ratios of 109% in 2022 and 112.7% in 2023, price rises are inevitable. Might drop back a bit in 2025 if 2024 continues at around 93%.
Petrol car insurance prices rose 29% from 22 to 23, 72% for EVs. (Confused.com) Why - repair costs are 30% higher for EVs than an equivalent. On top of these higher claim costs, many UK insurers would say they have a higher claim frequency (other countries may disagree).
Some insurers refuse point blank to insure EVs.
Tesla combined loss ratio was running at 130% in 2023...ouch.
Personally, I'd stay clear of insuring electric cars.
Getting immigration down to the "tens of thousands" was a pledge made by Cameron and May in the 2010, 2015 and 2017 manifestos. It was categorically NOT in the 2019 mankfesto which dumped that policy.
Boris promised to take back control etc which was done. It was Cameron and May not Boris who pledged to cut immigration to the tens of thousands though, Boris didn't even retain that preexisting pledge.
This is the problem with university free speech. How do universities guarantee it against this sort of mass protest?
Is that a free speech problem or a public order problem? The RAF were going about their lawful business having obtained the necessary consents and should be allowed to do so unimpeded.
Surely the protestors were the ones exercising free speech.
I draw the line where it involves impeding or preventing others from going about their lawful business.
At the very least the protestors are breaching the peace, though other offences could apply. I'd suggest a suitable remedy would be a night or two in a police cell and a conditional discharge by the Magistrate the next court day.
And that would apply to farmers driving their tractors down motorways or through London to deliberate slowdown or halt traffic just as much as it would apply to Just Stop Oil protestors.
IIRC the farmers took very considerable legal advice and cooperated with the police on the nature, size and structure of their protest.
So your comparison with Just Stop Oil isn't valid.
Such a comparison surely is valid, with the note that the farmers were likely on the right side of the line.
Many legal and arranged protests cause a "disruption". Otherwise it would be impossible to march through Central London, legally. For example.
That's the issue though. You're advocating only police-sanctioned disruption.
I’m not especially advocating it. Just that the current societal norm for such demonstrations is organisation, not just with the police, but local authorities etc.
In return, a certain amount of disruption is factored into the overall plan.
Yoon continued to invoke right to silence in afternoon questioning as well as morning one. His dinner menu was doenjang-jjigae, (fermented) soybean paste stew. https://x.com/yejinjgim/status/1879479968817955059
Perhaps he should have broken his silence to ask for other options?
Or maybe fermented soybean paste stew is nicer than it sounds!
Yoon continued to invoke right to silence in afternoon questioning as well as morning one. His dinner menu was doenjang-jjigae, (fermented) soybean paste stew. https://x.com/yejinjgim/status/1879479968817955059
Perhaps he should have broken his silence to ask for other options?
Or maybe fermented soybean paste stew is nicer than it sounds!
The fermented soybean paste (doenjang) is the flavouring base; it can contain all kinds of other stuff. Korea (and its predecessor states) has been making doenjang for over two millennia, and it's a very popular dish. Particularly in the winter.
This is the problem with university free speech. How do universities guarantee it against this sort of mass protest?
Is that a free speech problem or a public order problem? The RAF were going about their lawful business having obtained the necessary consents and should be allowed to do so unimpeded.
Surely the protestors were the ones exercising free speech.
Free speech is the absence of a negative - i.e. it means you are not persecuted for making your point - not that you have the right to do it when and where wherever you like and disrupt others doing the same or going about their lawful business.
It's a time of considerable turmoil and it seems to me that, after such a long time in government, the Conservatives should be focussing on what they truly believe. Sorting themselves out, as @Alanbrooke says.
And what would that be ? You'd get very different answers from (say) TSE, HYUFD, Casino and PtP.
The last decade has fragmented their coalition - and some of those fragments may permanently be lost to them.
Suella was on LBC yesterday doubling down on going full frontal Reform with a view to either a coalition or tacit mutual benefit arrangements. Personally, I would have thought that peels off the left flank to the LDs.
Where do people like Cameron, Osborne or May go on that scenario. A new “Coalition” party would become their natural home.
This is classic 'centrist' establishment thinking.
People want immigration brought under control. End of.
But it's not end of, is it? They also want functioning public services, more housing, people to look after their elderly relatives and so on. So what does immigration control actually look like in those circumstances?
You just don't get it.
You never will.
I get that you do not want to engage with difficult conversations and would prefer everything to be black and white. I also get that black and white is a very compelling political argument. But it does not solve deep-seated economic challenges.
I engage in difficult conversations on here all the time, but you won't brook anything that goes against your world view - which is that you only want immigration to be about economic benefits.
No, I want immigration to be discussed honestly.
A substantial reduction to immigration levels will have an adverse effect on our economy in multiple ways. I don't think we can afford for that to happen given where our economy is currently.
A substantial reduction from a 10 year average or 2 year average as those are very different?
Well, exactly. Immigration numbers are going to come down significantly over the next year. Is that enough? If not, why not and what will give?
Putting your two comments together, should the government be trying to increase immigration to boost the economy or should they be happy that immigration will come down?
I wonder how the people who would currently support broadly a 'No Immigration' policy would be impacted by it, if it was actually implemented?
How many would benefit by wages rising to a decent level for all the minimum wage jobs that currently rely on immigrants to fill vacancies? A net positive for working people in the lower-paid end of the job market.
And how many would be squealing at the tax rises needed to pay for social care and health costs, or (alternatively) growth in NHS waiting lists and the inability to see a GP? Or services in general because wages have risen? I expect a lot of the 55+ cohort supporting Reform would be far from happy.
I expect the comfortably off middle classes could manage to find their way to the local takeaway once more instead of using Deliveroo...
Conclusion - Labour should adopt zero immigration as it will benefit their natural support and punish the Reform vote most. They won't though,
If Reform got in, it would kill them stone dead. If elected, they won't do it either.
I think the drop in the 2025 immigration figures is going to shame the last Tory government by comparison. Reform will still shout that they are too high
I suspect any immigration figure will be too high for Reform. That's partly why I was trying to imagine the impact of zero immigration. Curiously it is most against the interests of the people who bankroll Reform, and about half their support base. Which is why I think any commitments would be hastily forgotten if they ever did get to power.
OTOH it fits quite well with a left wing Workers First philosophy, if the left can get past zero immigration being racist (which technically it isn't).
What is the Labour Government's vision for the UK economy? Going for Growth, but how?
It appears to be all over the place and without a consistent approach.
Ben Ansell has published on his substack https://benansell.substack.com/p/grasping-for-growth a very good article which looks at various economic strategies Neoclassical Growth (Osbornism), Neokeynesian Growth (Brownish), Developmentalism (Labour Leftism), Schumpeterian Growth (Cummingism) and Supply-Side Growth (Trussism) and compares them with the current Labour approach.
My view (which is worth very little as I am not an economist, but that might be a benefit) is that there is not a single approach which is correct at all stages of the economic cycle and status of the UK economy. I am favourable towards an institutionalist theory of growth (good and stable legal, government and education system, anti oligopoly) but that is just getting the fundamentals right.
The chap from confused.com on R4 Today at around 06:25 noting that 20mph limits are making a contribution to reductions in car insurance premiums because they make our roads safer.
We'll get real data from places like Wales in the next year or two.
Though where should already be data in the record, from places like Portsmouth, Cambridge, Nottingham, and possibly Hull.
London and Birmingham may be supplying data in 2-5 years.
Aren't the countervailing trends raising our premiums (electric cars being less repairable and so on) much larger?
Picking this up from earlier.
Yes different factors affect insurance prices, but multivariable analysis and different data sets allow the impacts to be teased out.
The data is that there were major increases (31%) 2 years ago on average, and a fall back (~17%) last year. That is part frequency of claims, and part the cost of repair.
The speed limiter technology that has come in is interesting - we may get premiums related to agreeing to obey speed limits one level more than the 'black box monitoing' done previously.
If the data finds that those dogmatically driving at the speed limit are higher risk should they be charged more? I suspect they are higher risk than those who take a perhaps more flexible scenario dependent approach but obviously less risk than the boy racers at the extreme.
Perhaps rcs has insight?
I doubt whether the UK is comparable with the USA for a whole plethora of reasons.
True, a lot of our cars have steering wheels.
Rising cost of repair is a large factor, and it is not just electric cars. A headlight that might have cost a few tenners to replace is £800 of LED trickery on a recent car, for instance. Reversing cameras, blind spot monitors, half an ipad replacing physical buttons are just some of the things driving up repair costs.
Then there is the increased width of modern cars, partly for safety reasons. Look at how thick a car door is now. We read in yesterday's news that Colchester is repainting its car parks for this reason, but it means less clearance when passing, and more low speed dings.
And while 20mph zones mean less collisions, paradoxically lower speeds mean journeys take longer so there is more traffic at any one time which gives more scope for collisions.
The chap from confused.com on R4 Today at around 06:25 noting that 20mph limits are making a contribution to reductions in car insurance premiums because they make our roads safer.
We'll get real data from places like Wales in the next year or two.
Though where should already be data in the record, from places like Portsmouth, Cambridge, Nottingham, and possibly Hull.
London and Birmingham may be supplying data in 2-5 years.
Aren't the countervailing trends raising our premiums (electric cars being less repairable and so on) much larger?
Picking this up from earlier.
Yes different factors affect insurance prices, but multivariable analysis and different data sets allow the impacts to be teased out.
The data is that there were major increases (31%) 2 years ago on average, and a fall back (~17%) last year. That is part frequency of claims, and part the cost of repair.
The speed limiter technology that has come in is interesting - we may get premiums related to agreeing to obey speed limits one level more than the 'black box monitoing' done previously.
If the data finds that those dogmatically driving at the speed limit are higher risk should they be charged more? I suspect they are higher risk than those who take a perhaps more flexible scenario dependent approach but obviously less risk than the boy racers at the extreme.
Perhaps rcs has insight?
I doubt whether the UK is comparable with the USA for a whole plethora of reasons.
True, a lot of our cars have steering wheels.
Rising cost of repair is a large factor, and it is not just electric cars. A headlight that might have cost a few tenners to replace is £800 of LED trickery on a recent car, for instance. Reversing cameras, blind spot monitors, half an ipad replacing physical buttons are just some of the things driving up repair costs.
Then there is the increased width of modern cars, partly for safety reasons. Look at how thick a car door is now. We read in yesterday's news that Colchester is repainting its car parks for this reason, but it means less clearance when passing, and more low speed dings.
And while 20mph zones mean less collisions, paradoxically lower speeds mean journeys take longer so there is more traffic at any one time which gives more scope for collisions.
I don't follow the logic on that last bit - the number of cars, the distance they travel, the number of junctions they negotiate etc etc remains the same.
The evidence from Scotland and Wales so far is that 20mph has a marked effect on precisely those expensive (but not catastrophic) dings. I guess because people have more time to react, avoiding a collision all together.
The chap from confused.com on R4 Today at around 06:25 noting that 20mph limits are making a contribution to reductions in car insurance premiums because they make our roads safer.
We'll get real data from places like Wales in the next year or two.
Though where should already be data in the record, from places like Portsmouth, Cambridge, Nottingham, and possibly Hull.
London and Birmingham may be supplying data in 2-5 years.
Aren't the countervailing trends raising our premiums (electric cars being less repairable and so on) much larger?
Picking this up from earlier.
Yes different factors affect insurance prices, but multivariable analysis and different data sets allow the impacts to be teased out.
The data is that there were major increases (31%) 2 years ago on average, and a fall back (~17%) last year. That is part frequency of claims, and part the cost of repair.
The speed limiter technology that has come in is interesting - we may get premiums related to agreeing to obey speed limits one level more than the 'black box monitoing' done previously.
If the data finds that those dogmatically driving at the speed limit are higher risk should they be charged more? I suspect they are higher risk than those who take a perhaps more flexible scenario dependent approach but obviously less risk than the boy racers at the extreme.
Perhaps rcs has insight?
I doubt whether the UK is comparable with the USA for a whole plethora of reasons.
True, a lot of our cars have steering wheels.
Rising cost of repair is a large factor, and it is not just electric cars. A headlight that might have cost a few tenners to replace is £800 of LED trickery on a recent car, for instance. Reversing cameras, blind spot monitors, half an ipad replacing physical buttons are just some of the things driving up repair costs.
Then there is the increased width of modern cars, partly for safety reasons. Look at how thick a car door is now. We read in yesterday's news that Colchester is repainting its car parks for this reason, but it means less clearance when passing, and more low speed dings.
And while 20mph zones mean less collisions, paradoxically lower speeds mean journeys take longer so there is more traffic at any one time which gives more scope for collisions.
Right to Repair should push the car side of things harder. Even Apple have moved on electronics, in that area.
This is the problem with university free speech. How do universities guarantee it against this sort of mass protest?
Is that a free speech problem or a public order problem? The RAF were going about their lawful business having obtained the necessary consents and should be allowed to do so unimpeded.
Surely the protestors were the ones exercising free speech.
Free speech is the absence of a negative - i.e. it means you are not persecuted for making your point - not that you have the right to do it when and where wherever you like and disrupt others doing the same or going about their lawful business.
It's a time of considerable turmoil and it seems to me that, after such a long time in government, the Conservatives should be focussing on what they truly believe. Sorting themselves out, as @Alanbrooke says.
And what would that be ? You'd get very different answers from (say) TSE, HYUFD, Casino and PtP.
The last decade has fragmented their coalition - and some of those fragments may permanently be lost to them.
Suella was on LBC yesterday doubling down on going full frontal Reform with a view to either a coalition or tacit mutual benefit arrangements. Personally, I would have thought that peels off the left flank to the LDs.
Where do people like Cameron, Osborne or May go on that scenario. A new “Coalition” party would become their natural home.
This is classic 'centrist' establishment thinking.
People want immigration brought under control. End of.
But it's not end of, is it? They also want functioning public services, more housing, people to look after their elderly relatives and so on. So what does immigration control actually look like in those circumstances?
You just don't get it.
You never will.
I get that you do not want to engage with difficult conversations and would prefer everything to be black and white. I also get that black and white is a very compelling political argument. But it does not solve deep-seated economic challenges.
I engage in difficult conversations on here all the time, but you won't brook anything that goes against your world view - which is that you only want immigration to be about economic benefits.
No, I want immigration to be discussed honestly.
A substantial reduction to immigration levels will have an adverse effect on our economy in multiple ways. I don't think we can afford for that to happen given where our economy is currently.
A substantial reduction from a 10 year average or 2 year average as those are very different?
Well, exactly. Immigration numbers are going to come down significantly over the next year. Is that enough? If not, why not and what will give?
Putting your two comments together, should the government be trying to increase immigration to boost the economy or should they be happy that immigration will come down?
I wonder how the people who would currently support broadly a 'No Immigration' policy would be impacted by it, if it was actually implemented?
How many would benefit by wages rising to a decent level for all the minimum wage jobs that currently rely on immigrants to fill vacancies? A net positive for working people in the lower-paid end of the job market.
And how many would be squealing at the tax rises needed to pay for social care and health costs, or (alternatively) growth in NHS waiting lists and the inability to see a GP? Or services in general because wages have risen? I expect a lot of the 55+ cohort supporting Reform would be far from happy.
I expect the comfortably off middle classes could manage to find their way to the local takeaway once more instead of using Deliveroo...
Conclusion - Labour should adopt zero immigration as it will benefit their natural support and punish the Reform vote most. They won't though,
If Reform got in, it would kill them stone dead. If elected, they won't do it either.
I think the drop in the 2025 immigration figures is going to shame the last Tory government by comparison. Reform will still shout that they are too high
I suspect any immigration figure will be too high for Reform. That's partly why I was trying to imagine the impact of zero immigration. Curiously it is most against the interests of the people who bankroll Reform, and about half their support base. Which is why I think any commitments would be hastily forgotten if they ever did get to power.
OTOH it fits quite well with a left wing Workers First philosophy, if the left can get past zero immigration being racist (which technically it isn't).
The only age group where the Tories are still ahead of Reform is the retired and Reform have nearly 4 times as much support among 18-24 year-olds as the Tories.
Remember this - the Whitehall machine is broken. Whatever ideas Labour had have been crushed by the Treasury. Though the “Rachael from Accounts” jibe is outrageously misogynistic, she has been captured and broken by economic orthodoxy. Reform offering up people who basically say “this is stupidity, here’s what we should do” is not the negative you may think.
Which brings us back to Danny Fink's column
Voters think the Government is not working for them
They will vote for people promising to smash it
Unfortunately that's mob mentality. The same people who vote for trashing the system are the ones who try and burn down a hotel housing migrants
Of course in the aftermath they also want the fire brigade, ambulances and hospitals...
This is not quite right. People are not moving to Reform in order to smash stuff (though of course it might). The mass of voters have no interest in revolution. People like a quiet life. They neither know nor care how Whitehall works. Nor should they, it isn't their job. They want social democracy delivered with boring competence, and for many years now that has not been achieved. Reform's promise in fact is to do just that.
Note with care Farage distancing himself from trouble makers. Though he needs to go further.
And this is exactly where Labour had the opportunity and are fluffing it.
People are not stupid. They know things aren’t working the way they want or need them to. Some of this is deeply structural and relates to the way we have been governed at least since the 1980s and in some cases far earlier. Attlee, Thatcher and Blair, who are probably the biggest architects of our current system, did much right but a lot of their ideas are now outdated in the circumstances we find ourselves in, 25 years into the 21st Century.
Unfortunately our political classes continue to maintain that a lot of these structures and models are sacred cows and untouchable. The problem is that by delaying reform the eventual solutions to “fix” the problems will become much more extreme.
The current situation is very much like that in 1945 or 1979, in that the country is in a hole and things need to radically change to improve the situation. Meanwhile the new government continues down the same road as the old government bar some minor tinkering with things, and nothing radical on the agenda.
Sh!t, I just realised that 1945 to 1979 is 34 years, and 1979 to 2025 is 46 years.
Slab seem to have realised that cancelling the Edinburgh supercomputer on arrival in No 10, and then reinstating it elsewhere, doesn't look great to the locals as well as to the UK as a whole. Though Mr Murray may be speaking more for LondonHQ/UKG, being a Cabinet Minister.
'Asked if Edinburgh was then still under consideration for building the supercomputer, Murray added: “Edinburgh is the AI capital of the world and has been since 1964, so I think Edinburgh is well placed.”'
Remember this - the Whitehall machine is broken. Whatever ideas Labour had have been crushed by the Treasury. Though the “Rachael from Accounts” jibe is outrageously misogynistic, she has been captured and broken by economic orthodoxy. Reform offering up people who basically say “this is stupidity, here’s what we should do” is not the negative you may think.
Which brings us back to Danny Fink's column
Voters think the Government is not working for them
They will vote for people promising to smash it
Unfortunately that's mob mentality. The same people who vote for trashing the system are the ones who try and burn down a hotel housing migrants
Of course in the aftermath they also want the fire brigade, ambulances and hospitals...
This is not quite right. People are not moving to Reform in order to smash stuff (though of course it might). The mass of voters have no interest in revolution. People like a quiet life. They neither know nor care how Whitehall works. Nor should they, it isn't their job. They want social democracy delivered with boring competence, and for many years now that has not been achieved. Reform's promise in fact is to do just that.
Note with care Farage distancing himself from trouble makers. Though he needs to go further.
And this is exactly where Labour had the opportunity and are fluffing it.
People are not stupid. They know things aren’t working the way they want or need them to. Some of this is deeply structural and relates to the way we have been governed at least since the 1980s and in some cases far earlier. Attlee, Thatcher and Blair, who are probably the biggest architects of our current system, did much right but a lot of their ideas are now outdated in the circumstances we find ourselves in, 25 years into the 21st Century.
Unfortunately our political classes continue to maintain that a lot of these structures and models are sacred cows and untouchable. The problem is that by delaying reform the eventual solutions to “fix” the problems will become much more extreme.
The current situation is very much like that in 1945 or 1979, in that the country is in a hole and things need to radically change to improve the situation.
Sh!t, I just realised that 1945 to 1979 is 34 years, and 1979 to 2025 is 46 years.
We're closer to the 22nd century than the end of WWII.
Slab seem to have realised that cancelling the Edinburgh supercomputer on arrival in No 10, and then reinstating it elsewhere, doesn't look great to the locals as well as to the UK as a whole. Though Mr Murray may be speaking more for LondonHQ/UKG, being a Cabinet Minister.
'Asked if Edinburgh was then still under consideration for building the supercomputer, Murray added: “Edinburgh is the AI capital of the world and has been since 1964, so I think Edinburgh is well placed.”'
Not to disparage the technical and intellectual capital of Scotland's capital, but ??
The chap from confused.com on R4 Today at around 06:25 noting that 20mph limits are making a contribution to reductions in car insurance premiums because they make our roads safer.
We'll get real data from places like Wales in the next year or two.
Though where should already be data in the record, from places like Portsmouth, Cambridge, Nottingham, and possibly Hull.
London and Birmingham may be supplying data in 2-5 years.
Aren't the countervailing trends raising our premiums (electric cars being less repairable and so on) much larger?
Picking this up from earlier.
Yes different factors affect insurance prices, but multivariable analysis and different data sets allow the impacts to be teased out.
The data is that there were major increases (31%) 2 years ago on average, and a fall back (~17%) last year. That is part frequency of claims, and part the cost of repair.
The speed limiter technology that has come in is interesting - we may get premiums related to agreeing to obey speed limits one level more than the 'black box monitoing' done previously.
If the data finds that those dogmatically driving at the speed limit are higher risk should they be charged more? I suspect they are higher risk than those who take a perhaps more flexible scenario dependent approach but obviously less risk than the boy racers at the extreme.
Perhaps rcs has insight?
I doubt whether the UK is comparable with the USA for a whole plethora of reasons.
True, a lot of our cars have steering wheels.
Rising cost of repair is a large factor, and it is not just electric cars. A headlight that might have cost a few tenners to replace is £800 of LED trickery on a recent car, for instance. Reversing cameras, blind spot monitors, half an ipad replacing physical buttons are just some of the things driving up repair costs.
Then there is the increased width of modern cars, partly for safety reasons. Look at how thick a car door is now. We read in yesterday's news that Colchester is repainting its car parks for this reason, but it means less clearance when passing, and more low speed dings.
And while 20mph zones mean less collisions, paradoxically lower speeds mean journeys take longer so there is more traffic at any one time which gives more scope for collisions.
I don't follow the logic on that last bit - the number of cars, the distance they travel, the number of junctions they negotiate etc etc remains the same.
The evidence from Scotland and Wales so far is that 20mph has a marked effect on precisely those expensive (but not catastrophic) dings. I guess because people have more time to react, avoiding a collision all together.
Think in terms of time, not distance. Slower travel means a journey of 20 minutes now takes, say, half an hour, so you have 50 per cent more time to have a collision. And because this increased journey time affects all vehicles, there are more cars on the road at any given moment to collide with each other and to throw more pollutants into the air.
Now, these collisions are less likely to be fatal and saving lives is a good thing but more dings means more repairs means more insurance claims means higher premiums.
The chap from confused.com on R4 Today at around 06:25 noting that 20mph limits are making a contribution to reductions in car insurance premiums because they make our roads safer.
We'll get real data from places like Wales in the next year or two.
Though where should already be data in the record, from places like Portsmouth, Cambridge, Nottingham, and possibly Hull.
London and Birmingham may be supplying data in 2-5 years.
Aren't the countervailing trends raising our premiums (electric cars being less repairable and so on) much larger?
Picking this up from earlier.
Yes different factors affect insurance prices, but multivariable analysis and different data sets allow the impacts to be teased out.
The data is that there were major increases (31%) 2 years ago on average, and a fall back (~17%) last year. That is part frequency of claims, and part the cost of repair.
The speed limiter technology that has come in is interesting - we may get premiums related to agreeing to obey speed limits one level more than the 'black box monitoing' done previously.
If the data finds that those dogmatically driving at the speed limit are higher risk should they be charged more? I suspect they are higher risk than those who take a perhaps more flexible scenario dependent approach but obviously less risk than the boy racers at the extreme.
Perhaps rcs has insight?
I doubt whether the UK is comparable with the USA for a whole plethora of reasons.
True, a lot of our cars have steering wheels.
Rising cost of repair is a large factor, and it is not just electric cars. A headlight that might have cost a few tenners to replace is £800 of LED trickery on a recent car, for instance. Reversing cameras, blind spot monitors, half an ipad replacing physical buttons are just some of the things driving up repair costs.
Then there is the increased width of modern cars, partly for safety reasons. Look at how thick a car door is now. We read in yesterday's news that Colchester is repainting its car parks for this reason, but it means less clearance when passing, and more low speed dings.
And while 20mph zones mean less collisions, paradoxically lower speeds mean journeys take longer so there is more traffic at any one time which gives more scope for collisions.
Right to Repair should push the car side of things harder. Even Apple have moved on electronics, in that area.
Independent garages are screwed with a lot of new cars, with things like radar sensors for active cruise control being classified as safety-critical systems that can only be installed and calibrated by a main dealer. An accident that a decade ago would have been a few hundred quid to replace a cracked bumper, now costs several grand to fix various electronics in the bumper as well as the plastic bit.
Slab seem to have realised that cancelling the Edinburgh supercomputer on arrival in No 10, and then reinstating it elsewhere, doesn't look great to the locals as well as to the UK as a whole. Though Mr Murray may be speaking more for LondonHQ/UKG, being a Cabinet Minister.
'Asked if Edinburgh was then still under consideration for building the supercomputer, Murray added: “Edinburgh is the AI capital of the world and has been since 1964, so I think Edinburgh is well placed.”'
Not to disparage the technical and intellectual capital of Scotland's capital, but ??
The chap from confused.com on R4 Today at around 06:25 noting that 20mph limits are making a contribution to reductions in car insurance premiums because they make our roads safer.
We'll get real data from places like Wales in the next year or two.
Though where should already be data in the record, from places like Portsmouth, Cambridge, Nottingham, and possibly Hull.
London and Birmingham may be supplying data in 2-5 years.
Aren't the countervailing trends raising our premiums (electric cars being less repairable and so on) much larger?
Picking this up from earlier.
Yes different factors affect insurance prices, but multivariable analysis and different data sets allow the impacts to be teased out.
The data is that there were major increases (31%) 2 years ago on average, and a fall back (~17%) last year. That is part frequency of claims, and part the cost of repair.
The speed limiter technology that has come in is interesting - we may get premiums related to agreeing to obey speed limits one level more than the 'black box monitoing' done previously.
If the data finds that those dogmatically driving at the speed limit are higher risk should they be charged more? I suspect they are higher risk than those who take a perhaps more flexible scenario dependent approach but obviously less risk than the boy racers at the extreme.
Perhaps rcs has insight?
I doubt whether the UK is comparable with the USA for a whole plethora of reasons.
True, a lot of our cars have steering wheels.
Rising cost of repair is a large factor, and it is not just electric cars. A headlight that might have cost a few tenners to replace is £800 of LED trickery on a recent car, for instance. Reversing cameras, blind spot monitors, half an ipad replacing physical buttons are just some of the things driving up repair costs.
Then there is the increased width of modern cars, partly for safety reasons. Look at how thick a car door is now. We read in yesterday's news that Colchester is repainting its car parks for this reason, but it means less clearance when passing, and more low speed dings.
And while 20mph zones mean less collisions, paradoxically lower speeds mean journeys take longer so there is more traffic at any one time which gives more scope for collisions.
Right to Repair should push the car side of things harder. Even Apple have moved on electronics, in that area.
Repair what though? Repairing a reversing camera will be beyond the expertise of most backstreet garages. Repairing a car by *replacing* the camera with one bought off Ebay (out of a scrapped car) can perhaps be made easier.
Comments
So your comparison with Just Stop Oil isn't valid.
When the Tories finally realise that being pro-housing is the key to unlocking economic growth, Brexit politics can be left to the obsessives.....
I was referring to Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems policy on civil nuclear power stations, and what they tried as well with Trident renewal, where they went the full sandals.
It probably only literally applies in the field of economics, but with a preference for higher spending, where possible, over lower taxes.
1) The two main parties are resting on their core votes
2) Reform is about equal to either of them
The various polls reporting leads etc are fun, but largely noise.
We are waiting for the next event, to really change this.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8edr43wg27o
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cr5629zjqq3o
*still a thing?
That should have been a canary down the coal mine for lots of other political stuff, actually.
A substantial reduction to immigration levels will have an adverse effect on our economy in multiple ways. I don't think we can afford for that to happen given where our economy is currently.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/24858178.holyrood-poll-predicts-major-win-snp---fractured-parliament/?ref=ebbn&nid=1457&u=f140ec39d500193051a33e140c12bd95&date=150125
https://www.thenational.scot/news/24858415.john-curtice-delivers-verdict-new-holyrood-2026-election-poll/
(sorry not to comment - am busy finishing something)
Like everything else involving humans - it's complicated.
{A plucked chicken has entered the room}
If you lunge your car at a pedestrian on a Zebra crossing and place them in imminent fear of injury, you could be done for assault as well as probably careless driving.
- Green stuff (including Miliband's magic gas)
- AI stuff
- Less money for pensioners
- Less benefits for nonworkers
- More money for unioned workers
That's a metropolitan centre-right policy portfolio (ish). I can't for the life of me see that commanding a majority at an election, and if Reeves' gamble does not come off things will get worse for Lab. What are the odds on Farage becoming PM again?playpolling tomorrow.Perhaps rcs has insight?
Attempting to reduce this to a simple set of rules is impossible.
Leave said that it would both decrease immigration and make us richer.
Black is white
A healthy economy delivering sustainable growth and improvements to living standards is what I want. Given our ageing workforce, I do not see how that is delivered without a significant level of immigration. My lifestyle would be largely unaffected by a reduction of immigration to zero. But I think it would have a very quick, adverse effect on millions of others.
Any case there won't be a future Tory government. It's Socialism or Barbarism now.
How many would benefit by wages rising to a decent level for all the minimum wage jobs that currently rely on immigrants to fill vacancies? A net positive for working people in the lower-paid end of the job market.
And how many would be squealing at the tax rises needed to pay for social care and health costs, or (alternatively) growth in NHS waiting lists and the inability to see a GP? Or services in general because wages have risen? I expect a lot of the 55+ cohort supporting Reform would be far from happy.
I expect the comfortably off middle classes could manage to find their way to the local takeaway once more instead of using Deliveroo...
Conclusion - Labour should adopt zero immigration as it will benefit their natural support and punish the Reform vote most. They won't though,
If Reform got in, it would kill them stone dead. If elected, they won't do it either.
Arsenal great Sol Campbell winds up Spurs fans and reopens old wounds in phone advert
Campbell changes from a white sweater to red and says ‘big moves pay off’ in advert timed to run before this week’s north London derby
Sol Campbell has poked fun at Tottenham Hotspur’s relative lack of trophies in a “tongue-in-cheek” viral new advert about his hugely controversial move to rivals Arsenal.
The Arsenal ‘Invincible’ moved from Spurs on a free transfer under the Bosman ruling in 2001 after his contract had run down. He had graduated through Tottenham’s youth system before winning two Premier League titles, two FA Cups and scoring in the Champions League final for his new club.
In an advert for Google’s Pixel phones, the now 50-year-old Campbell is initially pictured in a white jumper and says: ‘It’s that time of year again….” He then reveals a red sweater while adding: “A time when people start to wonder if the grass might be greener. Whether they should switch sides and change allegiances. Take it from me, big moves pay off.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2025/01/14/sol-campbell-advert-watch-arsenal-tottenham-abuse-transfer/
I may have misremembered a word or two.
All I'm saying is that it's dishonest to pretend there are not significant downsides to major reductions in immigration. I would like to see politicians who want to do it anyway recognise this and justify it. They don't and they won't.
Get yourself an iPhone.
On tax, I'm a bit left of centrism - I'd be content to see the tax take overall go up a little bit (and pay a bit more personally) but probably with substantial changes to the system, remove all the cliff edges, look at wealth or, more realistically, property (I'd probably be a loser under that). On other things, I'm right of centre (I don't think entirely state-dominated industries do very well - although I don't mind some state owned players). I'm ambivalent, as noted above, on the renationalisation of railways and against complete renationalisation.
I'm a centrist (economically) as I take some things from the left and some from the right and, from political compass etc, that puts me on balance somewhere in the middle. But I don't hold those views to be a centrist. If the country moved left or right then I'd end up, on the new scale, right or left. On social values, I'm way up the liberal axis, not a centrist at all.
Boris never promised low immigration.
Getting immigration down to the "tens of thousands" was a pledge made by Cameron and May in the 2010, 2015 and 2017 manifestos. It was categorically NOT in the 2019 mankfesto which dumped that policy.
Boris promised to take back control etc which was done. It was Cameron and May not Boris who pledged to cut immigration to the tens of thousands though, Boris didn't even retain that preexisting pledge.
Yoon continued to invoke right to silence in afternoon questioning as well as morning one. His dinner menu was doenjang-jjigae, (fermented) soybean paste stew.
https://x.com/yejinjgim/status/1879479968817955059
All other economic effects are likely trivial in comparison.
It should be around 250-500k per year and housebuilding should be 400-500k per year rather than the 235k run rate or the govts 300k targets.
What a journey for Intracellular Therapies Inc ($ITCI) - acquired yesterday at the ripe age of 23 yrs old.
Series A of $2.9M in 2002. Moshe Alafi, called one of the founders of biotech (whose VC firm backed Cetus, Amgen, ABI, others) was the lead of the A-round. Over next decade, the startup raised less than $40M in private capital across at least four rounds - a model of capital efficiency.
As the markets opened in 2013, ITCI reverse merged with a public shell company (mining company Oneida Resources Corp) and began trading late that year.
It already had its gem in hand: in 2013, lumateperone (Caplyta) was in Phase 2 for schizophrenia.
They raised $60M in the PIPE (led by Deerfield), and $120M in a secondary in 2014. This was enough to keep things going for another 8 years. They didn’t raise again until 2022… Wow…
As late stage development costs mounted, on the back of exciting data they raised $460M in 2022... and then again in 2024, $500M…
All-in, ITCI raised $1.2B from investors, private and public. Sold to J&J for nearly $15B...
https://x.com/LifeSciVC/status/1879294536976839147
Boris might not have, but Priti Patel, Home Secretary did commit to "We will reduce immigration overall" so the statement above is not a mistake.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50412772
Petrol car insurance prices rose 29% from 22 to 23, 72% for EVs. (Confused.com) Why - repair costs are 30% higher for EVs than an equivalent. On top of these higher claim costs, many UK insurers would say they have a higher claim frequency (other countries may disagree).
Some insurers refuse point blank to insure EVs.
Tesla combined loss ratio was running at 130% in 2023...ouch.
Personally, I'd stay clear of insuring electric cars.
In return, a certain amount of disruption is factored into the overall plan.
Or maybe fermented soybean paste stew is nicer than it sounds!
Korea (and its predecessor states) has been making doenjang for over two millennia, and it's a very popular dish. Particularly in the winter.
OTOH it fits quite well with a left wing Workers First philosophy, if the left can get past zero immigration being racist (which technically it isn't).
It appears to be all over the place and without a consistent approach.
Ben Ansell has published on his substack https://benansell.substack.com/p/grasping-for-growth a very good article which looks at various economic strategies Neoclassical Growth (Osbornism), Neokeynesian Growth (Brownish), Developmentalism (Labour Leftism), Schumpeterian Growth (Cummingism) and Supply-Side Growth (Trussism) and compares them with the current Labour approach.
My view (which is worth very little as I am not an economist, but that might be a benefit) is that there is not a single approach which is correct at all stages of the economic cycle and status of the UK economy. I am favourable towards an institutionalist theory of growth (good and stable legal, government and education system, anti oligopoly) but that is just getting the fundamentals right.
Then there is the increased width of modern cars, partly for safety reasons. Look at how thick a car door is now. We read in yesterday's news that Colchester is repainting its car parks for this reason, but it means less clearance when passing, and more low speed dings.
Parking spaces 'too narrow for modern vehicles'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gzppd0ejyo
And while 20mph zones mean less collisions, paradoxically lower speeds mean journeys take longer so there is more traffic at any one time which gives more scope for collisions.
The evidence from Scotland and Wales so far is that 20mph has a marked effect on precisely those expensive (but not catastrophic) dings. I guess because people have more time to react, avoiding a collision all together.
I understand a more in common poll is out with conservative 1% ahead of both labour and reform who are tied at 24%
Effectively a three way tie but I do not have the poll
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/51329-first-yougov-voting-intention-since-2024-general-election-shows-a-close-contest-between-labour-and-reform-uk
https://x.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1879460213121790271?t=H-F6qDLJEZg0bIu4IHftLA&s=19
Would be another chaos result, with Labour the largest party but the Lib-Lab coalition only just bigger than Con-Ref.
Sh!t, I just realised that 1945 to 1979 is 34 years, and 1979 to 2025 is 46 years.
Slab seem to have realised that cancelling the Edinburgh supercomputer on arrival in No 10, and then reinstating it elsewhere, doesn't look great to the locals as well as to the UK as a whole. Though Mr Murray may be speaking more for LondonHQ/UKG, being a Cabinet Minister.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/24858840.ian-murray-claims-edinburgh-supercomputer-project-paused-not-axed/?ref=ebbn&nid=1457&u=f140ec39d500193051a33e140c12bd95&date=150125
'Asked if Edinburgh was then still under consideration for building the supercomputer, Murray added: “Edinburgh is the AI capital of the world and has been since 1964, so I think Edinburgh is well placed.”'
Anyway, I'm off. Have a nice day, everyone.
Now, these collisions are less likely to be fatal and saving lives is a good thing but more dings means more repairs means more insurance claims means higher premiums.
https://semianalysis.com/2025/01/15/2025-ai-diffusion-export-controls-microsoft-regulatory-capture-oracle-tears/
( https://www.understandingglasgow.com/glasgow-indicators/lifestyle/alcohol/alcohol-consumption-in-scottish-cities )
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=N&CON=25&LAB=24&LIB=12&Reform=24&Green=8&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=&SCOTLAB=&SCOTLIB=&SCOTReform=&SCOTGreen=&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2024
Though most likely would be a Labour minority government if they could get confidence and supply from the LDs, SNP and Greens