To an extent, ultimately the enlightenment is incomplete whilst irrational belief systems hold such dominance.
I don't think there's a very clear divide between rational and irrational belief systems. Jean Bodin, who advocated death for witches, was the most rational political and economic thinker of his time. Marxists believe that their arguments are highly rational. So do radical feminists.
Not sure we can hope to eliminate irrational belief systems - some things which now seem to us commonplace - e.g. that slavery is wrong - will have seemed very eccentric in the past. What is perhaps more important is to fight belief systems which put all the money on their being right, with death the appropriate punishment for disagreement.
I think that we often say "irrational" when we mean "unpleasant". The belief that slavery is justified is unpleasant, but it's certainly not irrational, from the point of view of the slaveowner.
I don't think there's a very clear divide between rational and irrational belief systems. Jean Bodin, who advocated death for witches, was the most rational political and economic thinker of his time. Marxists believe that their arguments are highly rational. So do radical feminists.
It depends what you mean by "rational".
In making a rational argument one needs to start with a number of assumptions, and then apply the laws of logic to these assumptions to reach your conclusions. Most people can accept people questioning their logic, and consequently logic tends to be relatively well formed, but most people find it harder to accept people questioning their assumptions.
Thus a Marxist may apply perfect logic to their argument, but what you really disagree with are their initial starting assumptions.
In Maths and Physics it is customary to state ones assumptions at the beginning, but people's inherent beliefs and assumptions are so central to their sense of self that they can't help but assume that all right-thinking people will share them. Thus they are less often made explicit.
This is why values and character matter so much more in elections than policies. Policies are all about applying logic to your assumptions, but values and character are about the essence of what those assumptions are. It's why so many people in Britain reflexively do not trust the Tories - they recognise that they have a very different view of the world at a fundamental level - and why otherwise sensible posters to this board can dismiss socialism - a broad and rich political tradition - as being about state control and spending other people's money to excess.
It's perfectly possible to come to the wrong conclusion, but to use impeccable logic in coming to that conclusion.
This should be used every time some one famous dies. And no Sheffield Hallam LD hold is not free money due for Clegg doing pretty poor in constituency polls there.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=37dklS3I7jM&feature=kp
The most recent polling in the seat, if it used ICM's normal methodology, Clegg wins the seat comfortably.
I see some of these trojan horse schools banned Raffles. Wonder what it was about rakish fin du siecle gentleman thieves that they found particularly offensive?
I think it is seen as a form of gambling, I believe some Presbyterians feel the same thing.
I seem to remember it stems from distaste over the casting of lots to divide the garments of Christ at the crucifixion.
Maybe you are correct, but the Roman Catholic church and, hence the CofE, has never been unpleasant about gambling or gamblers. I suspect that the religious antagonism came from the extreme protestant movement which objected to anyone enjoying themselves.
Oh the Protestant reformation has a lot to answer for.
And a lot we owe it for also. The concept of a priesthood of all believers whereby everyone could come to their own beliefs about the Bible was a major step on the way to the Enlightenment. It's not a coincidence that constitutionalism developed in several Protestant European countries.
To an extent, ultimately the enlightenment is incomplete whilst irrational belief systems hold such dominance.
There's nothing irrational about Religious faith.
How is it rational then? Rationality is the quality or state of being reasonable, based on facts or reason
I don't think there's a very clear divide between rational and irrational belief systems. Jean Bodin, who advocated death for witches, was the most rational political and economic thinker of his time. Marxists believe that their arguments are highly rational. So do radical feminists.
Indeed, there was a time when Althusser and structural Marxism were in fashion, when it was endlessly repeated that "scientific Marxism" and "Marxist science" were both tautological phrases.
You often cite the example of Joachim of Fiore, who was a highly rational thinker.
This should be used every time some one famous dies. And no Sheffield Hallam LD hold is not free money due for Clegg doing pretty poor in constituency polls there.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=37dklS3I7jM&feature=kp
The most recent polling in the seat, if it used ICM's normal methodology, Clegg wins the seat comfortably.
We believe that a candidate named, regular methodology poll from ICM would show Cambridge and Sheffield Hallam as clear Lib Dem holds. Tessa Munt is not 20 points adrift in Wells and that Redcar is a likely Labour gain on paper should be a surprise to no-one.
This should be used every time some one famous dies. And no Sheffield Hallam LD hold is not free money due for Clegg doing pretty poor in constituency polls there.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=37dklS3I7jM&feature=kp
The most recent polling in the seat, if it used ICM's normal methodology, Clegg wins the seat comfortably.
I don't think there's a very clear divide between rational and irrational belief systems. Jean Bodin, who advocated death for witches, was the most rational political and economic thinker of his time. Marxists believe that their arguments are highly rational. So do radical feminists.
It depends what you mean by "rational".
In making a rational argument one needs to start with a number of assumptions, and then apply the laws of logic to these assumptions to reach your conclusions. Most people can accept people questioning their logic, and consequently logic tends to be relatively well formed, but most people find it harder to accept people questioning their assumptions.
Thus a Marxist may apply perfect logic to their argument, but what you really disagree with are their initial starting assumptions.
In Maths and Physics it is customary to state ones assumptions at the beginning, but people's inherent beliefs and assumptions are so central to their sense of self that they can't help but assume that all right-thinking people will share them. Thus they are less often made explicit.
This is why values and character matter so much more in elections than policies. Policies are all about applying logic to your assumptions, but values and character are about the essence of what those assumptions are. It's why so many people in Britain reflexively do not trust the Tories - they recognise that they have a very different view of the world at a fundamental level - and why otherwise sensible posters to this board can dismiss socialism - a broad and rich political tradition - as being about state control and spending other people's money to excess.
Yes, all good points (and I take Sean F's too). In addition, as one can't predict what issues will come up over 5 years, it makes sense to have representatives who you believe to share your values and preferred character, since they're more likely to act as you would want when the black swan arrives.
This should be used every time some one famous dies. And no Sheffield Hallam LD hold is not free money due for Clegg doing pretty poor in constituency polls there.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=37dklS3I7jM&feature=kp
The most recent polling in the seat, if it used ICM's normal methodology, Clegg wins the seat comfortably.
We believe that a candidate named, regular methodology poll from ICM would show Cambridge and Sheffield Hallam as clear Lib Dem holds. Tessa Munt is not 20 points adrift in Wells and that Redcar is a likely Labour gain on paper should be a surprise to no-one.
This should be used every time some one famous dies. And no Sheffield Hallam LD hold is not free money due for Clegg doing pretty poor in constituency polls there.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=37dklS3I7jM&feature=kp
The most recent polling in the seat, if it used ICM's normal methodology, Clegg wins the seat comfortably.
We believe that a candidate named, regular methodology poll from ICM would show Cambridge and Sheffield Hallam as clear Lib Dem holds. Tessa Munt is not 20 points adrift in Wells and that Redcar is a likely Labour gain on paper should be a surprise to no-one.
This should be used every time some one famous dies. And no Sheffield Hallam LD hold is not free money due for Clegg doing pretty poor in constituency polls there.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=37dklS3I7jM&feature=kp
The most recent polling in the seat, if it used ICM's normal methodology, Clegg wins the seat comfortably.
We believe that a candidate named, regular methodology poll from ICM would show Cambridge and Sheffield Hallam as clear Lib Dem holds. Tessa Munt is not 20 points adrift in Wells and that Redcar is a likely Labour gain on paper should be a surprise to no-one.
Con could be value, but I'm not currently on. It's a tricky one to call, with probable contradictory tactical voting.
If its Diane James again, then it's probably UKIP, since 2010 LD women voters will have trouble voting tactically against someone like her.
You don't half post some drivel
It's perfectly sensible, since in Newark 2010 LD women voters where the problem for UKIP with a candidate as extreme,out of touch man as Roger Helmer, however Diane James is a more friendly moderate woman so that antiUKIP tactical voting wont exist as much as in Newark.
My parents' church did not allow raffles until the late 1970s and they are still somewhat disapproved of by many in the congregation.
Coming from Wales I can remember 'dry areas' where pubs did not open on a Sunday.
We have "dry areas" still in Warwickhire.
The effing breweries have closed half the village pubs :-(
Would that be because the effing villagers weren't drinking in them?
Probably because the effin PubCos have put up prices beyond the effin villagers ability to pay; which in itself is due to effin governments sticking their effin oar into matters and markets they don't effin understand.
Did David Willetts ever work on pub legislation ? Looks just like his kind of balls-up :-)
He might have done as a very junior SpAD, I wouldn't know. However the man responsible for killing the pub trade in England is no less a person than David Ivor Young, Baron Young of Graffham.
It's been dying on its feet for many years. Can I recommend this as a good book on the subject? Albeit focused on the London Porter market rather than the rat's p1ss you get oop North.
This should be used every time some one famous dies. And no Sheffield Hallam LD hold is not free money due for Clegg doing pretty poor in constituency polls there.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=37dklS3I7jM&feature=kp
The most recent polling in the seat, if it used ICM's normal methodology, Clegg wins the seat comfortably.
We believe that a candidate named, regular methodology poll from ICM would show Cambridge and Sheffield Hallam as clear Lib Dem holds. Tessa Munt is not 20 points adrift in Wells and that Redcar is a likely Labour gain on paper should be a surprise to no-one.
LAB 33% CON 24.3% LD 23.2% UKIP 10.5% GRE 7.9% OTHERS 1%
“HEADLINE” WITH NORMAL ICM ADJUSTMENT METHOD – LDs +5.5%
LAB 29.9% 28.7% LD CON 23.9% UKIP 9.2% GRE 7.3% OTHERS 1%
Clegg still loses even with the DK ICM national method. And that is the second poll that show's him in trouble.
Damian of Survation says quite clearly
We believe that a candidate named, regular methodology poll from ICM would show Cambridge and Sheffield Hallam as clear Lib Dem holds.
That contradicts the statistics he posted for that argument. Even on ICM normal methodology Clegg loses. Who do you believe? His numbers or his words? And its the second poll that shows him in trouble, its not just one.
Con could be value, but I'm not currently on. It's a tricky one to call, with probable contradictory tactical voting.
If its Diane James again, then it's probably UKIP, since 2010 LD women voters will have trouble voting tactically against someone like her.
You don't half post some drivel
It's perfectly sensible, since in Newark 2010 LD women voters where the problem for UKIP with a candidate as extreme,out of touch man as Roger Helmer, however Diane James is a more friendly moderate woman so that antiUKIP tactical voting wont exist as much as in Newark.
the 2010 voters have already had a choice between Diane James and the Lib Dems in the by election . She lost and UKIP have gone backwards in Eastleigh since then .
This should be used every time some one famous dies. And no Sheffield Hallam LD hold is not free money due for Clegg doing pretty poor in constituency polls there.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=37dklS3I7jM&feature=kp
The most recent polling in the seat, if it used ICM's normal methodology, Clegg wins the seat comfortably.
We believe that a candidate named, regular methodology poll from ICM would show Cambridge and Sheffield Hallam as clear Lib Dem holds. Tessa Munt is not 20 points adrift in Wells and that Redcar is a likely Labour gain on paper should be a surprise to no-one.
LAB 33% CON 24.3% LD 23.2% UKIP 10.5% GRE 7.9% OTHERS 1%
“HEADLINE” WITH NORMAL ICM ADJUSTMENT METHOD – LDs +5.5%
LAB 29.9% 28.7% LD CON 23.9% UKIP 9.2% GRE 7.3% OTHERS 1%
Clegg still loses even with the DK ICM national method. And that is the second poll that show's him in trouble.
Damian of Survation says quite clearly
We believe that a candidate named, regular methodology poll from ICM would show Cambridge and Sheffield Hallam as clear Lib Dem holds.
That contradicts the statistics he posted for that argument. Even on ICM normal methodology Clegg loses. Who do you believe? His numbers or his words? And its the second poll that shows him in trouble, its not just one.
No it does not contradict what he says, I'm assuming you can't read.
This should be used every time some one famous dies. And no Sheffield Hallam LD hold is not free money due for Clegg doing pretty poor in constituency polls there.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=37dklS3I7jM&feature=kp
The most recent polling in the seat, if it used ICM's normal methodology, Clegg wins the seat comfortably.
We believe that a candidate named, regular methodology poll from ICM would show Cambridge and Sheffield Hallam as clear Lib Dem holds. Tessa Munt is not 20 points adrift in Wells and that Redcar is a likely Labour gain on paper should be a surprise to no-one.
LAB 33% CON 24.3% LD 23.2% UKIP 10.5% GRE 7.9% OTHERS 1%
“HEADLINE” WITH NORMAL ICM ADJUSTMENT METHOD – LDs +5.5%
LAB 29.9% 28.7% LD CON 23.9% UKIP 9.2% GRE 7.3% OTHERS 1%
Clegg still loses even with the DK ICM national method. And that is the second poll that show's him in trouble.
Damian of Survation says quite clearly
We believe that a candidate named, regular methodology poll from ICM would show Cambridge and Sheffield Hallam as clear Lib Dem holds.
That contradicts the statistics he posted for that argument. Even on ICM normal methodology Clegg loses. Who do you believe? His numbers or his words?
No it does not contradict the statistics he posted . The poll did not have candidate named regular ICM methodology and the 2nd set of figures did not have the first of those . As mentioned , the poll also had a forecast for council elections % and had the Lib Dems 6 % too low .
To an extent, ultimately the enlightenment is incomplete whilst irrational belief systems hold such dominance.
I don't think there's a very clear divide between rational and irrational belief systems. Jean Bodin, who advocated death for witches, was the most rational political and economic thinker of his time. Marxists believe that their arguments are highly rational. So do radical feminists.
Not sure we can hope to eliminate irrational belief systems - some things which now seem to us commonplace - e.g. that slavery is wrong - will have seemed very eccentric in the past. What is perhaps more important is to fight belief systems which put all the money on their being right, with death the appropriate punishment for disagreement.
I think that we often say "irrational" when we mean "unpleasant". The belief that slavery is justified is unpleasant, but it's certainly not irrational, from the point of view of the slaveowner.
Slaveowning is a very interesting economic case study.
It's good for the slave-owners in the near term, but arguably it is a dreadful system medium term because by making low productivity / low-wage (ahem) labour relatively more attractive it discourages capital investment.
Consequently, over time those people with spare capital (i.e. slave owners) end up becoming increasingly less competitive and end up eroding their capital base.
Con could be value, but I'm not currently on. It's a tricky one to call, with probable contradictory tactical voting.
If its Diane James again, then it's probably UKIP, since 2010 LD women voters will have trouble voting tactically against someone like her.
You don't half post some drivel
It's perfectly sensible, since in Newark 2010 LD women voters where the problem for UKIP with a candidate as extreme,out of touch man as Roger Helmer, however Diane James is a more friendly moderate woman so that antiUKIP tactical voting wont exist as much as in Newark.
the 2010 voters have already had a choice between Diane James and the Lib Dems in the by election . She lost and UKIP have gone backwards in Eastleigh since then .
Postal votes, tories splitting the vote and the factor that Diane James was relatively unknown back then will not help the LD in Eastleigh in 2015 since all those will be reversed. Postal votes are less of a factor in general elections, she is a household name in the media while the LD MP there is unknown and the tories will vote tactically for her now they know that she can win, also she is ahead in constituency polls there and she is a charismatic moderate woman who can get the 2010 LD woman votes.
Con could be value, but I'm not currently on. It's a tricky one to call, with probable contradictory tactical voting.
If its Diane James again, then it's probably UKIP, since 2010 LD women voters will have trouble voting tactically against someone like her.
You don't half post some drivel
It's perfectly sensible, since in Newark 2010 LD women voters where the problem for UKIP with a candidate as extreme,out of touch man as Roger Helmer, however Diane James is a more friendly moderate woman so that antiUKIP tactical voting wont exist as much as in Newark.
the 2010 voters have already had a choice between Diane James and the Lib Dems in the by election . She lost and UKIP have gone backwards in Eastleigh since then .
Postal votes, tories splitting the vote and the factor that Diane James was relatively unknown back then will not help the LD in Eastleigh in 2015 since all those will be reversed. Postal votes are less of a factor in general elections, she is a household name in the media while the LD MP there is unknown and the tories will vote tactically for her now they know that she can win, also she is ahead in constituency polls there and she is a charismatic moderate woman who can get the 2010 LD woman votes.
Diane James wasn't that impressive last week, when she kept on talking about 50-60 UKIP seats next year.
Were the Greens really ahead of the Lib Dems in the last Ashcroft poll? I remember them being at 7% but it doesnt seem to have registered that this was ahead of the Lib Dems. Labour should get a good little boost at GE time when most of that 7% realise they dont have a Green candidate to vote for or the Green candidate hasnt got a chance where they live.
He didn't actually "publish" a result for the Greens in his main summary, lumped them in with Others, but they were at 7% in the final published table just before a Don't Know adjustment. I suppose he has now retrospectively published that figure by doing so this week & comparing them with last week.
By the way Mike, last week's Labour lead was 9%, not 10%.
Con could be value, but I'm not currently on. It's a tricky one to call, with probable contradictory tactical voting.
If its Diane James again, then it's probably UKIP, since 2010 LD women voters will have trouble voting tactically against someone like her.
You don't half post some drivel
It's perfectly sensible, since in Newark 2010 LD women voters where the problem for UKIP with a candidate as extreme,out of touch man as Roger Helmer, however Diane James is a more friendly moderate woman so that antiUKIP tactical voting wont exist as much as in Newark.
the 2010 voters have already had a choice between Diane James and the Lib Dems in the by election . She lost and UKIP have gone backwards in Eastleigh since then .
Postal votes, tories splitting the vote and the factor that Diane James was relatively unknown back then will not help the LD in Eastleigh in 2015 since all those will be reversed. Postal votes are less of a factor in general elections, she is a household name in the media while the LD MP there is unknown and the tories will vote tactically for her now they know that she can win, also she is ahead in constituency polls there and she is a charismatic moderate woman who can get the 2010 LD woman votes.
More drivel , I wish I was your bookmaker . The LD MP is not unknown in Eastleigh .
Con could be value, but I'm not currently on. It's a tricky one to call, with probable contradictory tactical voting.
If its Diane James again, then it's probably UKIP, since 2010 LD women voters will have trouble voting tactically against someone like her.
You don't half post some drivel
It's perfectly sensible, since in Newark 2010 LD women voters where the problem for UKIP with a candidate as extreme,out of touch man as Roger Helmer, however Diane James is a more friendly moderate woman so that antiUKIP tactical voting wont exist as much as in Newark.
the 2010 voters have already had a choice between Diane James and the Lib Dems in the by election . She lost and UKIP have gone backwards in Eastleigh since then .
Postal votes, tories splitting the vote and the factor that Diane James was relatively unknown back then will not help the LD in Eastleigh in 2015 since all those will be reversed. Postal votes are less of a factor in general elections, she is a household name in the media while the LD MP there is unknown and the tories will vote tactically for her now they know that she can win, also she is ahead in constituency polls there and she is a charismatic moderate woman who can get the 2010 LD woman votes.
Diane James wasn't that impressive last week, when she kept on talking about 50-60 UKIP seats next year.
And that was before her 30-33% share prediction went south faster than a flock of migrating birds
Con could be value, but I'm not currently on. It's a tricky one to call, with probable contradictory tactical voting.
If its Diane James again, then it's probably UKIP, since 2010 LD women voters will have trouble voting tactically against someone like her.
You don't half post some drivel
It's perfectly sensible, since in Newark 2010 LD women voters where the problem for UKIP with a candidate as extreme,out of touch man as Roger Helmer, however Diane James is a more friendly moderate woman so that antiUKIP tactical voting wont exist as much as in Newark.
the 2010 voters have already had a choice between Diane James and the Lib Dems in the by election . She lost and UKIP have gone backwards in Eastleigh since then .
Postal votes, tories splitting the vote and the factor that Diane James was relatively unknown back then will not help the LD in Eastleigh in 2015 since all those will be reversed. Postal votes are less of a factor in general elections, she is a household name in the media while the LD MP there is unknown and the tories will vote tactically for her now they know that she can win, also she is ahead in constituency polls there and she is a charismatic moderate woman who can get the 2010 LD woman votes.
Diane James wasn't that impressive last week, when she kept on talking about 50-60 UKIP seats next year.
And that was before her 30-33% share prediction went south faster than a flock of migrating birds
It did make me wonder if she was Roger in disguise.
To an extent, ultimately the enlightenment is incomplete whilst irrational belief systems hold such dominance.
I don't think there's a very clear divide between rational and irrational belief systems. Jean Bodin, who advocated death for witches, was the most rational political and economic thinker of his time. Marxists believe that their arguments are highly rational. So do radical feminists.
Not sure we can hope to eliminate irrational belief systems - some things which now seem to us commonplace - e.g. that slavery is wrong - will have seemed very eccentric in the past. What is perhaps more important is to fight belief systems which put all the money on their being right, with death the appropriate punishment for disagreement.
I think that we often say "irrational" when we mean "unpleasant". The belief that slavery is justified is unpleasant, but it's certainly not irrational, from the point of view of the slaveowner.
Slaveowning is a very interesting economic case study.
It's good for the slave-owners in the near term, but arguably it is a dreadful system medium term because by making low productivity / low-wage (ahem) labour relatively more attractive it discourages capital investment.
Consequently, over time those people with spare capital (i.e. slave owners) end up becoming increasingly less competitive and end up eroding their capital base.
Slave-owning was a rational economic system in a pre-industrial age, when technology was minimal and innovation near enough non-existent.
That said, a novel I started writing but have since put on the back-burner deals with slavery in an imagined early 20th century.
The most recent polling in the seat, if it used ICM's normal methodology, Clegg wins the seat comfortably.
How much more evidence and polling do you need before you realize that even the LD want to get rid of Clegg in the election. It wouldn't hurt them to get rid of him, since they cant get rid of him now, they will do it in his constituency. Anyway Labour is smelling blood, they will go for it and the LD factions will refuse to help Clegg retain his seat in order to get rid off him.
How much more evidence and polling do you need before you realize that even the LD want to get rid of Clegg in the election. It wouldn't hurt them to get rid of him, since they cant get rid of him now, they will do it in his constituency. Anyway Labour is smelling blood, they will go for it and the LD factions will refuse to help Clegg retain his seat in order to get rid off him.
Labour went for it in the local elections last month . They smelled blood but it turned out to be their own as they finished 15% behind the Lib Dems .
How much more evidence and polling do you need before you realize that even the LD want to get rid of Clegg in the election. It wouldn't hurt them to get rid of him, since they cant get rid of him now, they will do it in his constituency. Anyway Labour is smelling blood, they will go for it and the LD factions will refuse to help Clegg retain his seat in order to get rid off him.
Considering I know the seat very well and several Lib Dem activists in the seat, I'm assuming nurse hasn't given you your medication today.
To an extent, ultimately the enlightenment is incomplete whilst irrational belief systems hold such dominance.
I don't think there's a very clear divide between rational and irrational belief systems. Jean Bodin, who advocated death for witches, was the most rational political and economic thinker of his time. Marxists believe that their arguments are highly rational. So do radical feminists.
Not sure we can hope to eliminate irrational belief systems - some things which now seem to us commonplace - e.g. that slavery is wrong - will have seemed very eccentric in the past. What is perhaps more important is to fight belief systems which put all the money on their being right, with death the appropriate punishment for disagreement.
I think that we often say "irrational" when we mean "unpleasant". The belief that slavery is justified is unpleasant, but it's certainly not irrational, from the point of view of the slaveowner.
Slaveowning is a very interesting economic case study.
It's good for the slave-owners in the near term, but arguably it is a dreadful system medium term because by making low productivity / low-wage (ahem) labour relatively more attractive it discourages capital investment.
Consequently, over time those people with spare capital (i.e. slave owners) end up becoming increasingly less competitive and end up eroding their capital base.
Slave-owning was a rational economic system in a pre-industrial age, when technology was minimal and innovation near enough non-existent.
That said, a novel I started writing but have since put on the back-burner deals with slavery in an imagined early 20th century.
Not convinced - I think the weaknesses were still there (e.g. why invest in a watermill if you can just use slave labour instead) but accept that in a pre-industrial society the importance of capital was much diminished, so the effect is much more gradual
To an extent, ultimately the enlightenment is incomplete whilst irrational belief systems hold such dominance.
I don't think there's a very clear divide between rational and irrational belief systems. Jean Bodin, who advocated death for witches, was the most rational political and economic thinker of his time. Marxists believe that their arguments are highly rational. So do radical feminists.
Not sure we can hope to eliminate irrational belief systems - some things which now seem to us commonplace - e.g. that slavery is wrong - will have seemed very eccentric in the past. What is perhaps more important is to fight belief systems which put all the money on their being right, with death the appropriate punishment for disagreement.
I think that we often say "irrational" when we mean "unpleasant". The belief that slavery is justified is unpleasant, but it's certainly not irrational, from the point of view of the slaveowner.
Slaveowning is a very interesting economic case study.
It's good for the slave-owners in the near term, but arguably it is a dreadful system medium term because by making low productivity / low-wage (ahem) labour relatively more attractive it discourages capital investment.
Consequently, over time those people with spare capital (i.e. slave owners) end up becoming increasingly less competitive and end up eroding their capital base.
Slave-owning was a rational economic system in a pre-industrial age, when technology was minimal and innovation near enough non-existent.
That said, a novel I started writing but have since put on the back-burner deals with slavery in an imagined early 20th century.
Not convinced - I think the weaknesses were still there (e.g. why invest in a watermill if you can just use slave labour instead) but accept that in a pre-industrial society the importance of capital was much diminished, so the effect is much more gradual
To an extent, ultimately the enlightenment is incomplete whilst irrational belief systems hold such dominance.
I don't think there's a very clear divide between rational and irrational belief systems. Jean Bodin, who advocated death for witches, was the most rational political and economic thinker of his time. Marxists believe that their arguments are highly rational. So do radical feminists.
Not sure we can hope to eliminate irrational belief systems - some things which now seem to us commonplace - e.g. that slavery is wrong - will have seemed very eccentric in the past. What is perhaps more important is to fight belief systems which put all the money on their being right, with death the appropriate punishment for disagreement.
I think that we often say "irrational" when we mean "unpleasant". The belief that slavery is justified is unpleasant, but it's certainly not irrational, from the point of view of the slaveowner.
Slaveowning is a very interesting economic case study.
It's good for the slave-owners in the near term, but arguably it is a dreadful system medium term because by making low productivity / low-wage (ahem) labour relatively more attractive it discourages capital investment.
Consequently, over time those people with spare capital (i.e. slave owners) end up becoming increasingly less competitive and end up eroding their capital base.
I think the Industrial Revolution made slavery mostly obsolete. Free, paid, labour usually suits both the employer and employee better. In earlier times, I could see the logic of it.
How much more evidence and polling do you need before you realize that even the LD want to get rid of Clegg in the election. It wouldn't hurt them to get rid of him, since they cant get rid of him now, they will do it in his constituency. Anyway Labour is smelling blood, they will go for it and the LD factions will refuse to help Clegg retain his seat in order to get rid off him.
Labour went for it in the local elections last month . They smelled blood but it turned out to be their own as they finished 15% behind the Lib Dems .
We are talking about Clegg here, not local councilors, Clegg is monumentally unpopular even in his own party. If he loses no one will shed a tear not even the LD.
Jesus, Theresa May is giving an absolutely awful performance in the HofC
Patronising tone, tripping up over her words, and playing party politics instead of addressing the root of the problem
.. and it shouldnt matter, but she looks awful
She has always been totally hopeless. That she is even being mentioned for leader is a sign of the dearth of talent in the Tory party.
Mind you, she'd be better than Gove.
Gove is top notch, he and Osborne would make a fantastic leadership team, for the Conservative Party and the nation, hopefully without you lot, you want your socialist state control, I hope you go it alone.
To an extent, ultimately the enlightenment is incomplete whilst irrational belief systems hold such dominance.
I don't think there's a very clear divide between rational and irrational belief systems. Jean Bodin, who advocated death for witches, was the most rational political and economic thinker of his time. Marxists believe that their arguments are highly rational. So do radical feminists.
Not sure we can hope to eliminate irrational belief systems - some things which now seem to us commonplace - e.g. that slavery is wrong - will have seemed very eccentric in the past. What is perhaps more important is to fight belief systems which put all the money on their being right, with death the appropriate punishment for disagreement.
I think that we often say "irrational" when we mean "unpleasant". The belief that slavery is justified is unpleasant, but it's certainly not irrational, from the point of view of the slaveowner.
Slaveowning is a very interesting economic case study.
It's good for the slave-owners in the near term, but arguably it is a dreadful system medium term because by making low productivity / low-wage (ahem) labour relatively more attractive it discourages capital investment.
Consequently, over time those people with spare capital (i.e. slave owners) end up becoming increasingly less competitive and end up eroding their capital base.
It is indeed. In fact, you could argue that, from the persepective of the slavers, slaves were capital rather than labour. They would purchase and use slaves as a dairy farmer does cattle. In places like the southern US, most of a plantation owners capital would be in slaves, and they regarded the breeding of human beings as capital accumulation, including pairing of desirable mates to bring about higher value slaves in the next generation. Come abolition, their capital was wiped out over night, which is why they fought so hard to stop it. Still, they were barbaric brutes to treat human beings in such a way, and traitors to their country to boot, so #### 'em.
How much more evidence and polling do you need before you realize that even the LD want to get rid of Clegg in the election. It wouldn't hurt them to get rid of him, since they cant get rid of him now, they will do it in his constituency. Anyway Labour is smelling blood, they will go for it and the LD factions will refuse to help Clegg retain his seat in order to get rid off him.
Labour went for it in the local elections last month . They smelled blood but it turned out to be their own as they finished 15% behind the Lib Dems .
We are talking about Clegg here, not local councilors, Clegg is monumentally unpopular even in his own party. If he loses no one will shed a tear not even the LD.
You clearly know nothing about Sheffield Hallam and even less about Lib Dems in general .
How much more evidence and polling do you need before you realize that even the LD want to get rid of Clegg in the election. It wouldn't hurt them to get rid of him, since they cant get rid of him now, they will do it in his constituency. Anyway Labour is smelling blood, they will go for it and the LD factions will refuse to help Clegg retain his seat in order to get rid off him.
Labour went for it in the local elections last month . They smelled blood but it turned out to be their own as they finished 15% behind the Lib Dems .
We are talking about Clegg here, not local councilors, Clegg is monumentally unpopular even in his own party. If he loses no one will shed a tear not even the LD.
You know a while back, one of the council elections in Fulwood, Labour made a big thing about the election being an opportunity to send Clegg a message, they plastered his face all over their leaflets, and made it all about Clegg.
How much more evidence and polling do you need before you realize that even the LD want to get rid of Clegg in the election. It wouldn't hurt them to get rid of him, since they cant get rid of him now, they will do it in his constituency. Anyway Labour is smelling blood, they will go for it and the LD factions will refuse to help Clegg retain his seat in order to get rid off him.
Considering I know the seat very well and several Lib Dem activists in the seat, I'm assuming nurse hasn't given you your medication today.
I'm not assuming your loyalty to the man clouds your judgement? Bunker mentality can be creeping.
How much more evidence and polling do you need before you realize that even the LD want to get rid of Clegg in the election. It wouldn't hurt them to get rid of him, since they cant get rid of him now, they will do it in his constituency. Anyway Labour is smelling blood, they will go for it and the LD factions will refuse to help Clegg retain his seat in order to get rid off him.
Considering I know the seat very well and several Lib Dem activists in the seat, I'm assuming nurse hasn't given you your medication today.
I'm not assuming your loyalty to the man clouds your judgement? Bunker mentality can be creeping.
How much more evidence and polling do you need before you realize that even the LD want to get rid of Clegg in the election. It wouldn't hurt them to get rid of him, since they cant get rid of him now, they will do it in his constituency. Anyway Labour is smelling blood, they will go for it and the LD factions will refuse to help Clegg retain his seat in order to get rid off him.
Considering I know the seat very well and several Lib Dem activists in the seat, I'm assuming nurse hasn't given you your medication today.
I'm not assuming your loyalty to the man clouds your judgement? Bunker mentality can be creeping.
To an extent, ultimately the enlightenment is incomplete whilst irrational belief systems hold such dominance.
I don't think there's a very clear divide between rational and irrational belief systems. Jean Bodin, who advocated death for witches, was the most rational political and economic thinker of his time. Marxists believe that their arguments are highly rational. So do radical feminists.
Not sure we can hope to eliminate irrational belief systems - some things which now seem to us commonplace - e.g. that slavery is wrong - will have seemed very eccentric in the past. What is perhaps more important is to fight belief systems which put all the money on their being right, with death the appropriate punishment for disagreement.
The most prevaent belief system in this country that still believes such things is conservative Islam. What speaking out have you done about that Nick? Would you condemn actions like the assassination of Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf? Have you supported men like Gove who are fighting the good fight against the belief system that approves of such things?
Eagles alas there is mounting evidence that the Egyptians didn't use slave labour.
You mean the ten commandments film was wrong?
Just a tad it's based on the Bible after all
One of my all time favourite films references The Ten Commandments
"Tell a person that you're the Metatron and they stare at you blankly. Mention something out of a Charlton Heston movie and suddenly everybody is a theology scholar."
How much more evidence and polling do you need before you realize that even the LD want to get rid of Clegg in the election. It wouldn't hurt them to get rid of him, since they cant get rid of him now, they will do it in his constituency. Anyway Labour is smelling blood, they will go for it and the LD factions will refuse to help Clegg retain his seat in order to get rid off him.
Considering I know the seat very well and several Lib Dem activists in the seat, I'm assuming nurse hasn't given you your medication today.
I'm not assuming your loyalty to the man clouds your judgement? Bunker mentality can be creeping.
How much more evidence and polling do you need before you realize that even the LD want to get rid of Clegg in the election. It wouldn't hurt them to get rid of him, since they cant get rid of him now, they will do it in his constituency. Anyway Labour is smelling blood, they will go for it and the LD factions will refuse to help Clegg retain his seat in order to get rid off him.
Considering I know the seat very well and several Lib Dem activists in the seat, I'm assuming nurse hasn't given you your medication today.
I'm not assuming your loyalty to the man clouds your judgement? Bunker mentality can be creeping.
'Scots Referendum: Jitters In Rival Camps' - Nobody can be sure which way the vote will go and there are understandable nerves on both sides, writes Sky's Adam Boulton
I think that we often say "irrational" when we mean "unpleasant". The belief that slavery is justified is unpleasant, but it's certainly not irrational, from the point of view of the slaveowner.
Slaveowning is a very interesting economic case study.
It's good for the slave-owners in the near term, but arguably it is a dreadful system medium term because by making low productivity / low-wage (ahem) labour relatively more attractive it discourages capital investment.
Consequently, over time those people with spare capital (i.e. slave owners) end up becoming increasingly less competitive and end up eroding their capital base.
Slave-owning was a rational economic system in a pre-industrial age, when technology was minimal and innovation near enough non-existent.
That said, a novel I started writing but have since put on the back-burner deals with slavery in an imagined early 20th century.
Not convinced - I think the weaknesses were still there (e.g. why invest in a watermill if you can just use slave labour instead) but accept that in a pre-industrial society the importance of capital was much diminished, so the effect is much more gradual
Well you'll just have to buy it when it's published then (which may be some time).
However, it's worth remembering that it did survive in (parts of) the US into the second half of the 19th century and would have survived several decades at least longer had the South not pulled their own temple down on top of them.
One reason why it would have survived longer is because in the case of the Southern antebellum US, Marx was dead wrong: the economic system was built on top of the political (or, if you prefer, social), one. The South was absolutely wedded to the notion of slavery not simply as an economic model but as a system integral to their identity. Indeed, it's notable that in the 1840s and 1850s, the white leaders moved their arguments from it being a 'necessary evil' - which was becoming undermined following emancipation in the British colonies and elsewhere - and promoting it as a 'positive good' for both black and white alike.
That such an argument was, to put it mildly, a bit iffy is beside the point: they wanted to make it in spite of the logic and in spite of the economic benefits of the free market because they were absolutely committed to their peculiar institution and, in via the Jim Crow laws, remained so through to the 1960s at least.
How much more evidence and polling do you need before you realize that even the LD want to get rid of Clegg in the election. It wouldn't hurt them to get rid of him, since they cant get rid of him now, they will do it in his constituency. Anyway Labour is smelling blood, they will go for it and the LD factions will refuse to help Clegg retain his seat in order to get rid off him.
Considering I know the seat very well and several Lib Dem activists in the seat, I'm assuming nurse hasn't given you your medication today.
I'm not assuming your loyalty to the man clouds your judgement? Bunker mentality can be creeping.
How much more evidence and polling do you need before you realize that even the LD want to get rid of Clegg in the election. It wouldn't hurt them to get rid of him, since they cant get rid of him now, they will do it in his constituency. Anyway Labour is smelling blood, they will go for it and the LD factions will refuse to help Clegg retain his seat in order to get rid off him.
Considering I know the seat very well and several Lib Dem activists in the seat, I'm assuming nurse hasn't given you your medication today.
I'm not assuming your loyalty to the man clouds your judgement? Bunker mentality can be creeping.
How much more evidence and polling do you need before you realize that even the LD want to get rid of Clegg in the election. It wouldn't hurt them to get rid of him, since they cant get rid of him now, they will do it in his constituency. Anyway Labour is smelling blood, they will go for it and the LD factions will refuse to help Clegg retain his seat in order to get rid off him.
Considering I know the seat very well and several Lib Dem activists in the seat, I'm assuming nurse hasn't given you your medication today.
I'm not assuming your loyalty to the man clouds your judgement? Bunker mentality can be creeping.
Oh my. You really are quite stupid aren't you.
From a fan of slave labour?
It was a joke.
Well, so supporting Nick Clegg.
I'm not supporting Nick Clegg, in eleven months time I shall be voting Tory in Sheffield Hallam.
The Lib Dem activist base in the seat is strong, they have a good targeting and records of supporters in the seat.
I grew up in the seat, and spent the first 18/19 years of my life in the seat, and my parents have lived here for over 30 years, and I moved back last year.
I'm going out on a limb and say I know the seat better than you.
One reason why it would have survived longer is because in the case of the Southern antebellum US, Marx was dead wrong: the economic system was built on top of the political (or, if you prefer, social), one. The South was absolutely wedded to the notion of slavery not simply as an economic model but as a system integral to their identity. Indeed, it's notable that in the 1840s and 1850s, the white leaders moved their arguments from it being a 'necessary evil' - which was becoming undermined following emancipation in the British colonies and elsewhere - and promoting it as a 'positive good' for both black and white alike..
That is an argument FOR the Marxist view. The economic system of slavery came first, and then the political and social ideology later emerged to justify it.
As for the Ashcroft poll its too early, there will be not much movement in the polls except perhaps a gradual UKIP fall as the media will switch into off mode until the conference season, politicians and punters can relax during the summer. If there are no scandals or resignations of course.
Well you'll just have to buy it when it's published then (which may be some time).
However, it's worth remembering that it did survive in (parts of) the US into the second half of the 19th century and would have survived several decades at least longer had the South not pulled their own temple down on top of them.
One reason why it would have survived longer is because in the case of the Southern antebellum US, Marx was dead wrong: the economic system was built on top of the political (or, if you prefer, social), one. The South was absolutely wedded to the notion of slavery not simply as an economic model but as a system integral to their identity. Indeed, it's notable that in the 1840s and 1850s, the white leaders moved their arguments from it being a 'necessary evil' - which was becoming undermined following emancipation in the British colonies and elsewhere - and promoting it as a 'positive good' for both black and white alike.
That such an argument was, to put it mildly, a bit iffy is beside the point: they wanted to make it in spite of the logic and in spite of the economic benefits of the free market because they were absolutely committed to their peculiar institution and, in via the Jim Crow laws, remained so through to the 1960s at least.
It's the South which is really driving my thinking: they were originally far richer than the Yankees, but didn't industrialise nearly as quickly (despite an abundance of the necessary resource e.g. in Virginia): and it was the relative industrialisation and wealth of the North than enable them to triumph in the Civil War. It was the fact that they were falling behind in the economic war that led to it becoming such an important part of their cultural identity both before and after the actual fighting.
- "... Mr Cameron has been declining, since he is rightly wary of allowing the independence debate be painted as Heroic Scottish Nationalist vs Sneering English Tory."
Mr Cameron could stop sneering. But he chooses not to.
- "... Mr Cameron has been declining, since he is rightly wary of allowing the independence debate be painted as Heroic Scottish Nationalist vs Sneering English Tory."
Mr Cameron could stop sneering. But he chooses not to.
Mr Salmond could stop talking total bullshit, but he chooses not to.
One reason why it would have survived longer is because in the case of the Southern antebellum US, Marx was dead wrong: the economic system was built on top of the political (or, if you prefer, social), one. The South was absolutely wedded to the notion of slavery not simply as an economic model but as a system integral to their identity. Indeed, it's notable that in the 1840s and 1850s, the white leaders moved their arguments from it being a 'necessary evil' - which was becoming undermined following emancipation in the British colonies and elsewhere - and promoting it as a 'positive good' for both black and white alike..
That is an argument FOR the Marxist view. The economic system of slavery came first, and then the political and social ideology later emerged to justify it.
It's probably both. You're right that the economic system came first and then the politics were built on top. However, by the mid-19th century, that should have been ripe for replacement, yet the southern industrialists - who should under Marxist theory have been in the vanguard of a bourgeois revolution - were just as signed up to it as the plantation-owning aristocracy or the poor whites. At that point, the two flipped and it was the economic that became built on the politico-social.
It's probably both. You're right that the economic system came first and then the politics were built on top. However, by the mid-19th century, that should have been ripe for replacement, yet the southern industrialists - who should under Marxist theory have been in the vanguard of a bourgeois revolution - were just as signed up to it as the plantation-owning aristocracy or the poor whites. At that point, the two flipped and it was the economic that became built on the politico-social.
The Marxists would argue that the Southern relations of production became fetters on the already developed productive forces. They had to be burst asunder. They were burst asunder.
Because the fine only applies if you dispute the case, I guess it'll just mean people don't argue. These seem to me quite controversial:
Offences such as television licence evasion, selling of alcohol to a drunk person or being drunk and disorderly in a public place - known as “level three” offences - will rise from £1,000 to £4,000.
How is "drunk" defined, and how exactly is a pub keeper to determine it in a crowded room?
Comments
How much did you have UKIP <10% at 4/6 with me? And LD to beat UKIP at the same price?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/27/nick-clegg-constituents-sheffield-hallam-lib-dems
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2561696/Revealed-Labours-plot-unseat-Clegg-Party-drawn-plans-decapitate-Lib-Dems-forcing-deputy-PM-General-Election.html
http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/05/26/leaked-private-polling-shows-clegg-losing-sheffield-hallam-and-finishing-third-behind-the-tories/
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/2834
I don't give Clegg many chances of winning his seat, too many voters hate his guts.
Rationality is the quality or state of being reasonable, based on facts or reason
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational
But here's the one you missed
We believe that a candidate named, regular methodology poll from ICM would show Cambridge and Sheffield Hallam as clear Lib Dem holds. Tessa Munt is not 20 points adrift in Wells and that Redcar is a likely Labour gain on paper should be a surprise to no-one.
http://survation.com/so-how-would-changing-leader-work-out-for-the-lib-dems-will-nick-clegg-lose-sheffield-hallam/
for your peace of mind, something like this may suit.
http://www.brewbitz.com/BrewBuddy-Bitter-40-Pint-Beer-Starter-Package-with-Youngs-Bitter__p-11.aspx?gclid=CjkKEQjwttWcBRCuhYjhouveusIBEiQAwjy8IMWBNCCpetwQn-HIte0fRlmJLiVpzPDukE9OdrP_FUnw_wcB
If there's tactical voting against UKIP, who do you back?
7/2 from 16s
Sheffield Hallam- Nick Clegg MP (LD)
“HEADLINE”
LAB 33% CON 24.3% LD 23.2% UKIP 10.5% GRE 7.9% OTHERS 1%
“HEADLINE” WITH NORMAL ICM ADJUSTMENT METHOD – LDs +5.5%
LAB 29.9% 28.7% LD CON 23.9% UKIP 9.2% GRE 7.3% OTHERS 1%
Clegg still loses even with the DK ICM national method.
And that is the second poll that show's him in trouble.
We believe that a candidate named, regular methodology poll from ICM would show Cambridge and Sheffield Hallam as clear Lib Dem holds.
What's the polling on "Eric Pickles PM" like?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Lion-Brewery-Victoria-Hutchings/dp/0954127595/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top/278-4666190-2854534
Even on ICM normal methodology Clegg loses.
Who do you believe?
His numbers or his words?
And its the second poll that shows him in trouble, its not just one.
A true political heavyweight?
Messages smessages in your inbox
It's good for the slave-owners in the near term, but arguably it is a dreadful system medium term because by making low productivity / low-wage (ahem) labour relatively more attractive it discourages capital investment.
Consequently, over time those people with spare capital (i.e. slave owners) end up becoming increasingly less competitive and end up eroding their capital base.
Postal votes are less of a factor in general elections, she is a household name in the media while the LD MP there is unknown and the tories will vote tactically for her now they know that she can win, also she is ahead in constituency polls there and she is a charismatic moderate woman who can get the 2010 LD woman votes.
By the way Mike, last week's Labour lead was 9%, not 10%.
I smashed into Paddy's recent 6-4 Lib Dems and 11-4 SNP, as well as his 4-1 on the SNP.
Nice to see Labour the realistic outsider here, Paddy had then second favourites !
No wonder Matt Hancock was rolling his eyes.
Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey
LD 11/10 (from 1/2)
SNP 13/8 (from 4/1)
Lab 7/2 (n/c)
Con 66/1
UKIP 100/1
That said, a novel I started writing but have since put on the back-burner deals with slavery in an imagined early 20th century.
Where else, but Liverpool...
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/david-cameron-international-festival-business-7235969
It wouldn't hurt them to get rid of him, since they cant get rid of him now, they will do it in his constituency.
Anyway Labour is smelling blood, they will go for it and the LD factions will refuse to help Clegg retain his seat in order to get rid off him.
Simply not plausible I'm afraid.
Next!
http://tinyurl.com/po9p3cg
If he loses no one will shed a tear not even the LD.
Guess what happened next.
The Lib Dems won comfortably.
Bunker mentality can be creeping.
"Tell a person that you're the Metatron and they stare at you blankly. Mention something out of a Charlton Heston movie and suddenly everybody is a theology scholar."
- Nobody can be sure which way the vote will go and there are understandable nerves on both sides, writes Sky's Adam Boulton
http://news.sky.com/story/1278785/scots-referendum-jitters-in-rival-camps
However, it's worth remembering that it did survive in (parts of) the US into the second half of the 19th century and would have survived several decades at least longer had the South not pulled their own temple down on top of them.
One reason why it would have survived longer is because in the case of the Southern antebellum US, Marx was dead wrong: the economic system was built on top of the political (or, if you prefer, social), one. The South was absolutely wedded to the notion of slavery not simply as an economic model but as a system integral to their identity. Indeed, it's notable that in the 1840s and 1850s, the white leaders moved their arguments from it being a 'necessary evil' - which was becoming undermined following emancipation in the British colonies and elsewhere - and promoting it as a 'positive good' for both black and white alike.
That such an argument was, to put it mildly, a bit iffy is beside the point: they wanted to make it in spite of the logic and in spite of the economic benefits of the free market because they were absolutely committed to their peculiar institution and, in via the Jim Crow laws, remained so through to the 1960s at least.
The Lib Dem activist base in the seat is strong, they have a good targeting and records of supporters in the seat.
I grew up in the seat, and spent the first 18/19 years of my life in the seat, and my parents have lived here for over 30 years, and I moved back last year.
I'm going out on a limb and say I know the seat better than you.
If there are no scandals or resignations of course.
Dundee East
SNP 2/5 (PP)
Lab 11/4 (Lad)
UKIP 100/1
Con 100/1
LD 200/1
Dundee West
Lab 1/5 (Lad)
SNP 7/2 (PP)
UKIP 100/1
Con 100/1
LD 100/1
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jameskirkup/100275603/scottish-independence-gordon-browns-hand-grenade-will-raise-morale-in-the-nationalist-camp/
Mr Cameron could stop sneering. But he chooses not to.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/06/meet-gordon-brown-comedian/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10887161/Maximum-motorway-speeding-fine-set-to-rocket-to-10000.html
Offences such as television licence evasion, selling of alcohol to a drunk person or being drunk and disorderly in a public place - known as “level three” offences - will rise from £1,000 to £4,000.
How is "drunk" defined, and how exactly is a pub keeper to determine it in a crowded room?