Entirely off topic, but definitely the sort of thing PBers would know the answer to:
How can I honestly reference/quote/ideally picture, for PR purposes, references of mine and my company's in a recent Times newspaper editorial - given the paywall? Screenshots? Photos of the relevant bits of the newspaper article? Not at all?
You can take limited quotes from the piece that as long as they are properly attributed. Screenshots, reprints, photos, transcriptions etc of the piece without permission would almost certainly be copyright infringement. Be very careful!
Entirely off topic, but definitely the sort of thing PBers would know the answer to:
How can I honestly reference/quote/ideally picture, for PR purposes, references of mine and my company's in a recent Times newspaper editorial - given the paywall? Screenshots? Photos of the relevant bits of the newspaper article? Not at all?
Quotes are fine, under a "fair use" policy - don't know the rules (you should check) but I would have thought a couple of sentences, appropriately referenced, would be ok.
You can also get reprints of the article for a bigger mailshot (you have to pay for that) but it may not be relevant given it sounds like a small part of a story
Schools mainly benefit parents. Why should someone else pay for that?
The NHS mainly benefits ill people. Why should someone else pay for that?
Etc etc.
The main reason students are singled out is that at the point they have to sign up to the student finance system they are under 18, so cannot vote. Hence the government can screw them over as much as they want. It's a reason why I'm in favour of votes at 16.
Schools mainly benefit parents. Why should someone else pay for that?
The NHS mainly benefits ill people. Why should someone else pay for that?
Etc etc.
The main reason students are singled out is that at the point they have to sign up to the student finance system they are under 18, so cannot vote. Hence the government can screw them over as much as they want. It's a reason why I'm in favour of votes at 16.
Pretty sure that isn't the case?
I didn't sign up for student finance until I was over 18 and in the long vac between school and Uni, IIRC?
Just as a small example of this, my wife is a corporate solicitor. She has just completed a £28m deal where, perfectly legally, her firm of solicitors managed to minimise the stamp duty bill on behalf their international client to just over £2,000.
By contrast, I've just bought our main residential home and paid a stamp duty of £28,400. That's more than tenfold more.
That pissed me off.
It might not have escaped everyone's attention that I am a right-wing Tory. When she told me this, even I was dropping like "tax is for the little guy" and moaning about "big corporations demanding much but paying little".
I might suggest that if people of my political persuasion are also saying things like that, as well as those on the Left, then we probably have a problem.
You really aren't the only one (and I say this as an accountant which does try to limit clients tax, but doesn't and will not do anything questionable of course).
Low but fair taxes should be the aim, and reform should target that. All of us on PAYE and earning an honest wage are used to taxes in the region of say 20-40% (an di'm being very broad here), and that should apply to everyone (apart from the lowest paid).
By the same token, I don't think it's fair that graduates going forwards earning just £42k+ should be paying (effectively) 50%+ marginal tax rate on their incomes with student loans.
Because they are.
But it's fairer than people which don't go to university paying for people which do....
One of those things where there's no easy decisions.
University is too expensive. There's no good reason why most of theoretical courses like maths can't be done online with occasional tutor help and then the exams needing paying for.
Of course those expensive university staff aren't going to pay themselves.
Also, student loans don't all go on tuition fees. they effectively pay for living for three years, including housing food etc etc.
Again, I don't see why someone not getting that benefit should pay for those which do.
Next time you see the doctor, be sure to remind him/her how their degree hasn't helped you at all.
I seem to recall a speech about that by the teacher in Matilda.
Schools mainly benefit parents. Why should someone else pay for that?
The NHS mainly benefits ill people. Why should someone else pay for that?
Etc etc.
The main reason students are singled out is that at the point they have to sign up to the student finance system they are under 18, so cannot vote. Hence the government can screw them over as much as they want. It's a reason why I'm in favour of votes at 16.
I think that's a weak argument. Firstly, a lot are 18 when they sign up, and second, the rest are 18 shortly after.
Entirely off topic, but definitely the sort of thing PBers would know the answer to:
How can I honestly reference/quote/ideally picture, for PR purposes, references of mine and my company's in a recent Times newspaper editorial - given the paywall? Screenshots? Photos of the relevant bits of the newspaper article? Not at all?
You can take limited quotes from the piece that as long as they are properly attributed. Screenshots, reprints, photos, transcriptions etc of the piece without permission would almost certainly be copyright infringement. Be very careful!
Thanks Joff, also @Charles and @Ishmael_Z - my feeling was that it the rules were quite stringent, but then saw several competitors also mentioned post photos of the article on social media! I'll look into it more deeply.
Entirely off topic, but definitely the sort of thing PBers would know the answer to:
How can I honestly reference/quote/ideally picture, for PR purposes, references of mine and my company's in a recent Times newspaper editorial - given the paywall? Screenshots? Photos of the relevant bits of the newspaper article? Not at all?
You can take limited quotes from the piece that as long as they are properly attributed. Screenshots, reprints, photos, transcriptions etc of the piece without permission would almost certainly be copyright infringement. Be very careful!
Thanks Joff, also @Charles and @Ishmael_Z - my feeling was that it the rules were quite stringent, but then saw several of competitors also mentioned post photos of the article on social media! I'll look into it more deeply.
The competition may well be doing it: few people seem to know or care these days, especially on social media. But they are opening themselves up to potential trouble.
Schools mainly benefit parents. Why should someone else pay for that?
The NHS mainly benefits ill people. Why should someone else pay for that?
Etc etc.
The main reason students are singled out is that at the point they have to sign up to the student finance system they are under 18, so cannot vote. Hence the government can screw them over as much as they want. It's a reason why I'm in favour of votes at 16.
I think that's a weak argument. Firstly, a lot are 18 when they sign up, and second, the rest are 18 shortly after.
Wrong - if you want to go to Oxbridge the application deadline for university is 15 October in Year 13. Hardly any of the students will be over 18 at that point.
Entirely off topic, but definitely the sort of thing PBers would know the answer to:
How can I honestly reference/quote/ideally picture, for PR purposes, references of mine and my company's in a recent Times newspaper editorial - given the paywall? Screenshots? Photos of the relevant bits of the newspaper article? Not at all?
Quotes are fine, under a "fair use" policy - don't know the rules (you should check) but I would have thought a couple of sentences, appropriately referenced, would be ok.
You can also get reprints of the article for a bigger mailshot (you have to pay for that) but it may not be relevant given it sounds like a small part of a story
Schools mainly benefit parents. Why should someone else pay for that?
The NHS mainly benefits ill people. Why should someone else pay for that?
Etc etc.
The main reason students are singled out is that at the point they have to sign up to the student finance system they are under 18, so cannot vote. Hence the government can screw them over as much as they want. It's a reason why I'm in favour of votes at 16.
I think that's a weak argument. Firstly, a lot are 18 when they sign up, and second, the rest are 18 shortly after.
Wrong - if you want to go to Oxbridge the application deadline for university is 15 October in Year 13. Hardly any of the students will be over 18 at that point.
But they will be voters when they start paying it back. It is a very short sighted policy.
The RSA’s version of the basic income looks like it just about makes the sums add up. But that’s because it sets it at a level of £3,692 (in 2012-13 prices, excluding housing and disability support). That’s not very much at all – in fact, it’s about a quarter of the national living wage. And even then, there’s a lot of devil in the detail.
Last year, I went to an event on this topic at the Resolution Foundation. Its experts crunched the numbers and found that, under a UBI scheme that pays people the same as they would get under Universal Credit (ie about the RSA level), and throws in universal child tax credit (rather than means-tested, as under the current system), taxes would have to rise. By a lot.
In fact, you would have to abolish the Personal Allowance – the £11,000 tax-free that everyone gets on their earnings. Instead, from the first pound you earned to the £43,001st, you’d pay a combined rate of income tax and National Insurance of around 35-40 per cent, after which the higher rate of tax would kick in as normal.
In other words, to get that £3,692 from the Government, you’d pay thousands of pounds more.
This would mean (and stop me if you don’t follow the logic) that large numbers of people would be paying a much larger amount of tax. In fact, it would represent a transfer of £120 billion of extra taxation into the welfare state – the equivalent of the entire budget of the NHS in England.
It would certainly improve equality, we'd all be equally poor... assuming that everyone decided to sit back and accept this rather than emigrating.
This is the fundamental problem with so many revenue raising ideas - people assume that behaviour won't change and that clobbering the rich won't result in them heading off to more favourable tax regimes, reducing tax revenue instead.
Schools mainly benefit parents. Why should someone else pay for that?
The NHS mainly benefits ill people. Why should someone else pay for that?
Etc etc.
The main reason students are singled out is that at the point they have to sign up to the student finance system they are under 18, so cannot vote. Hence the government can screw them over as much as they want. It's a reason why I'm in favour of votes at 16.
I think that's a weak argument. Firstly, a lot are 18 when they sign up, and second, the rest are 18 shortly after.
Wrong - if you want to go to Oxbridge the application deadline for university is 15 October in Year 13. Hardly any of the students will be over 18 at that point.
That deadline is separate from the student loan deadline, which is what you referred to earlier. Still a weak argument given they will all be eligible to vote when at university.
Schools mainly benefit parents. Why should someone else pay for that?
The NHS mainly benefits ill people. Why should someone else pay for that?
Etc etc.
The main reason students are singled out is that at the point they have to sign up to the student finance system they are under 18, so cannot vote. Hence the government can screw them over as much as they want. It's a reason why I'm in favour of votes at 16.
I think that's a weak argument. Firstly, a lot are 18 when they sign up, and second, the rest are 18 shortly after.
Wrong - if you want to go to Oxbridge the application deadline for university is 15 October in Year 13. Hardly any of the students will be over 18 at that point.
But they will be voters when they start paying it back. It is a very short sighted policy.
Not trying to be argumentative at all, but I'm pretty sure student finance applications were separate from UCAS applications in my day. Has that changed?
Schools mainly benefit parents. Why should someone else pay for that?
The NHS mainly benefits ill people. Why should someone else pay for that?
Etc etc.
The main reason students are singled out is that at the point they have to sign up to the student finance system they are under 18, so cannot vote. Hence the government can screw them over as much as they want. It's a reason why I'm in favour of votes at 16.
I think that's a weak argument. Firstly, a lot are 18 when they sign up, and second, the rest are 18 shortly after.
Wrong - if you want to go to Oxbridge the application deadline for university is 15 October in Year 13. Hardly any of the students will be over 18 at that point.
But they will be voters when they start paying it back. It is a very short sighted policy.
Yes, but by the time they are paying it back it's too late to change anything.
Entirely off topic, but definitely the sort of thing PBers would know the answer to:
How can I honestly reference/quote/ideally picture, for PR purposes, references of mine and my company's in a recent Times newspaper editorial - given the paywall? Screenshots? Photos of the relevant bits of the newspaper article? Not at all?
Quotes are fine, under a "fair use" policy - don't know the rules (you should check) but I would have thought a couple of sentences, appropriately referenced, would be ok.
You can also get reprints of the article for a bigger mailshot (you have to pay for that) but it may not be relevant given it sounds like a small part of a story
If you ask them they will say "pay us"... you may end up having to do that anyway.., but it depends on @Mortimer proposed use.
FWIW, with eBooks on Kindle, you can cut and paste up to 10% of the books in the form of highlighted notes. I would think that if you were simply cutting and pasting a small sample of the original publication, and properly reference it, you should have no trouble. But I would simply email them for permission. I would be astounded if it were not given.
The main reason students are singled out is that at the point they have to sign up to the student finance system they are under 18, so cannot vote. Hence the government can screw them over as much as they want. It's a reason why I'm in favour of votes at 16.
Indeed.
£9k tuition fees on RPI+3% terms was a classic case of current-voters screwing over not-yet-voters.
The tories are so blase about it they don't even announce these things any more. Freezing the plan2 threshold wasn't even announced to parliament, it was put on p126 of the autumn statement.
The main reason students are singled out is that at the point they have to sign up to the student finance system they are under 18, so cannot vote. Hence the government can screw them over as much as they want. It's a reason why I'm in favour of votes at 16.
Indeed.
£9k Tuition fees on RPI+3% terms was a classic case of current-voters screwing over not-yet-voters.
The tories are so blase about it they don't even announce these things any more. Freezing the plan2 threshold wasn't even announced to parliament, it was put on p126 of the autumn statement.
Not as cut and dried as that though, is it?
For example, the vast majority of voters will not have had the chance to go to University.
I'm on the fence about student fees. In an ideal world I'd abolish them and deconstruct the modern poly -> Uni schemes, but that in itself would be current voters stifling the aspiration of future voters more, no?
Schools mainly benefit parents. Why should someone else pay for that?
The NHS mainly benefits ill people. Why should someone else pay for that?
Etc etc.
The main reason students are singled out is that at the point they have to sign up to the student finance system they are under 18, so cannot vote. Hence the government can screw them over as much as they want. It's a reason why I'm in favour of votes at 16.
I think that's a weak argument. Firstly, a lot are 18 when they sign up, and second, the rest are 18 shortly after.
Wrong - if you want to go to Oxbridge the application deadline for university is 15 October in Year 13. Hardly any of the students will be over 18 at that point.
But they will be voters when they start paying it back. It is a very short sighted policy.
Not trying to be argumentative at all, but I'm pretty sure student finance applications were separate from UCAS applications in my day. Has that changed?
In my day it was grant applications! The taxpayer paid me to go to University as well as paying all the fees. I don't think we will see that again. But yes, the finance arrangements with SAAS (and no doubt the English equivalent) are separate from the UCAS system.
Schools mainly benefit parents. Why should someone else pay for that?
The NHS mainly benefits ill people. Why should someone else pay for that?
Etc etc.
The main reason students are singled out is that at the point they have to sign up to the student finance system they are under 18, so cannot vote. Hence the government can screw them over as much as they want. It's a reason why I'm in favour of votes at 16.
I think that's a weak argument. Firstly, a lot are 18 when they sign up, and second, the rest are 18 shortly after.
Wrong - if you want to go to Oxbridge the application deadline for university is 15 October in Year 13. Hardly any of the students will be over 18 at that point.
But they will be voters when they start paying it back. It is a very short sighted policy.
Yes, but by the time they are paying it back it's too late to change anything.
Not the government. The very poor result the Tories had amongst the young may well have been a reflection of that.
Entirely off topic, but definitely the sort of thing PBers would know the answer to:
How can I honestly reference/quote/ideally picture, for PR purposes, references of mine and my company's in a recent Times newspaper editorial - given the paywall? Screenshots? Photos of the relevant bits of the newspaper article? Not at all?
Quotes are fine, under a "fair use" policy - don't know the rules (you should check) but I would have thought a couple of sentences, appropriately referenced, would be ok.
You can also get reprints of the article for a bigger mailshot (you have to pay for that) but it may not be relevant given it sounds like a small part of a story
Entirely off topic, but definitely the sort of thing PBers would know the answer to:
How can I honestly reference/quote/ideally picture, for PR purposes, references of mine and my company's in a recent Times newspaper editorial - given the paywall? Screenshots? Photos of the relevant bits of the newspaper article? Not at all?
In the past Mike has received legal letters from lawyers representing The Times when one poster was repeatedly copying several articles a day, nearly in full, they take their copyright very seriously.
After speaking to them, what is ok, is a screenshot of portion of that piece, or copying the text of a portion of an article with attribution/link.
Entirely off topic, but definitely the sort of thing PBers would know the answer to:
How can I honestly reference/quote/ideally picture, for PR purposes, references of mine and my company's in a recent Times newspaper editorial - given the paywall? Screenshots? Photos of the relevant bits of the newspaper article? Not at all?
In the past Mike has received legal letters from lawyers representing The Times when one poster was repeatedly copying several articles a day, nearly in full, they take their copyright very seriously.
After speaking to them, what is ok, is a screenshot of portion of that piece, or copying the text of a portion of an article with attribution/link.
Sounds pretty fair to me.
I've gone off the idea of using it for PR now - to be honest it was such a brief mention that I'm not sure what use I can get from it beyond the somewhat egotistical 'look we were in the Times'.
Technology will replace the best teachers of the future with intelligent machines, according to a leading university vice chancellor.
Sir Anthony Seldon, vice chancellor of the University of Buckingham and former master of Wellington College, predicts the change will happen within the next 10 years and will completely transform the education system.
Technology will replace the best teachers of the future with intelligent machines, according to a leading university vice chancellor.
Sir Anthony Seldon, vice chancellor of the University of Buckingham and former master of Wellington College, predicts the change will happen within the next 10 years and will completely transform the education system.
.... Eventually, they'll start doing the serious thinking required for the post-Brexit 21st century, reinventing at least one of the main parties as the New Labour cabal did in the 1990s, and Osborne and Cameron did a decade later, with help from intellectual outriders providing radical new ideas. But we might have to wait some time.
Rewriting history there just a bit, Mr Navabi. The Cameron-Osborne operation was just a matter of smoke and mirrors.
What they did really was to set up the NHS, the education service, the police, local government, university education and no doubt a lot more besides, so that it could all be taken over by the private sector (often American or Chinese) and make a fat profit for their shareholders at public expense, rather than provide a free or cheap service for users.
Mrs May is busy taking us out of the EU so that we can go even faster along this track.
Mrs May is a thoroughgoing Conservative, and you ought to be 100% behind her. I am not, of course.
Yes he has different opinions so deserves to lose everything.
Look how virtuous I am.
Nobody deserves to have their house flattened by a hurricane, even in a world where hurricanes in general are becoming more powerful because of climate change. Even if they have expressed doubts about climate change.
It's like saying that it would be funny if someone who believes that crime has gone down gets stabbed.
"Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size."
Entirely off topic, but definitely the sort of thing PBers would know the answer to:
How can I honestly reference/quote/ideally picture, for PR purposes, references of mine and my company's in a recent Times newspaper editorial - given the paywall? Screenshots? Photos of the relevant bits of the newspaper article? Not at all?
Quotes are fine, under a "fair use" policy - don't know the rules (you should check) but I would have thought a couple of sentences, appropriately referenced, would be ok.
You can also get reprints of the article for a bigger mailshot (you have to pay for that) but it may not be relevant given it sounds like a small part of a story
Yep - UK fair dealing is much narrower in scope than US fair use. I don't think there'd be a problem with a small quote or two, properly attributed, but beyond that things could get tricky - if you are caught, of course!
.... Eventually, they'll start doing the serious thinking required for the post-Brexit 21st century, reinventing at least one of the main parties as the New Labour cabal did in the 1990s, and Osborne and Cameron did a decade later, with help from intellectual outriders providing radical new ideas. But we might have to wait some time.
Rewriting history there just a bit, Mr Navabi. The Cameron-Osborne operation was just a matter of smoke and mirrors.
What they did really was to set up the NHS, the education service, the police, local government, university education and no doubt a lot more besides, so that it could all be taken over by the private sector (often American or Chinese) and make a fat profit for their shareholders at public expense, rather than provide a free or cheap service for users.
Mrs May is busy taking us out of the EU so that we can go even faster along this track.
Mrs May is a thoroughgoing Conservative, and you ought to be 100% behind her. I am not, of course.
What they did really was to set up the NHS, the education service, the police, local government, university education and no doubt a lot more besides, so that it could all be taken over by the private sector (often American or Chinese) and make a fat profit for their shareholders at public expense, rather than provide a free or cheap service for users.
Really? I hadn't noticed that. I'm sure that when I last visited my GP I didn't have to pay, and my local council must have screwed up because I'm sure they haven't sent me a bill for refuse collection or maintaining the roads I drive on.
Mind you, you have a point with respect to university education. Vince Cable did an excellent job on increasing tuition fees, and of course the triumph of his career was privatising the Royal Mail, which even Mandelson hadn't been able to do.
The main reason students are singled out is that at the point they have to sign up to the student finance system they are under 18, so cannot vote. Hence the government can screw them over as much as they want. It's a reason why I'm in favour of votes at 16.
Indeed.
£9k Tuition fees on RPI+3% terms was a classic case of current-voters screwing over not-yet-voters.
The tories are so blase about it they don't even announce these things any more. Freezing the plan2 threshold wasn't even announced to parliament, it was put on p126 of the autumn statement.
Not as cut and dried as that though, is it?
For example, the vast majority of voters will not have had the chance to go to University.
I'm on the fence about student fees. In an ideal world I'd abolish them and deconstruct the modern poly -> Uni schemes, but that in itself would be current voters stifling the aspiration of future voters more, no?
True but its a classic case of screwing a set of potential voters in such a way that they are likely to never become Tory voters.
Heck if you look at the current economy and the other big issues that younger people face its likely that unless they solve student loans and find a solution to current house prices the Tory party will die a death over the next 15 years....
It's a quote from the site that you referenced, did you read it? How about trying to get at the facts rather than trying to score silly points.
“Hurricane Irma, following so closely after Tropical Storm Harvey and other extreme weather emergencies, has prompted questions about the role of climate change." said Dann Mitchell, NERC Research Fellow at the University of Bristol’s Cabot Institute. "The question of whether climate change 'caused' any particular weather event is the wrong one; instead, we must probe how climate change alters extreme weather. Aside from the warming atmosphere, rising sea level and surface ocean warming have likely contributed to the impact of both Irma and Harvey." http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/irma-climate-change-what-cause-hurricane-global-warming-caribbean-florida-a7933721.html
That question was effectively answered by the NOAA Hurricane expert 3 or 4 days ago when he said there was no evidence to support it
.... Eventually, they'll start doing the serious thinking required for the post-Brexit 21st century, reinventing at least one of the main parties as the New Labour cabal did in the 1990s, and Osborne and Cameron did a decade later, with help from intellectual outriders providing radical new ideas. But we might have to wait some time.
Rewriting history there just a bit, Mr Navabi. The Cameron-Osborne operation was just a matter of smoke and mirrors.
What they did really was to set up the NHS, the education service, the police, local government, university education and no doubt a lot more besides, so that it could all be taken over by the private sector (often American or Chinese) and make a fat profit for their shareholders at public expense, rather than provide a free or cheap service for users.
Mrs May is busy taking us out of the EU so that we can go even faster along this track.
Mrs May is a thoroughgoing Conservative, and you ought to be 100% behind her. I am not, of course.
Wasn't the NHS privatised more under Labour?
Some people cannot see much difference between Labour and Conservative, Mr D. No doubt you are right. And most certainly the Labour leadership is just as keen as the Tories to take us our of any restraint on the part of the EU - for different reasons, of course, but the result is the same, and the disastrous impact on the economy.
The easiest way to fund a universal basic income would be a tax on every robot who replaced a human worker
Only if it can be identified as a robot. Most will be software that drives vehicles, flys planes, operates drones, analyses illness, monitors health, provides food etc etc
.... Eventually, they'll start doing the serious thinking required for the post-Brexit 21st century, reinventing at least one of the main parties as the New Labour cabal did in the 1990s, and Osborne and Cameron did a decade later, with help from intellectual outriders providing radical new ideas. But we might have to wait some time.
Rewriting history there just a bit, Mr Navabi. The Cameron-Osborne operation was just a matter of smoke and mirrors.
What they did really was to set up the NHS, the education service, the police, local government, university education and no doubt a lot more besides, so that it could all be taken over by the private sector (often American or Chinese) and make a fat profit for their shareholders at public expense, rather than provide a free or cheap service for users.
Mrs May is busy taking us out of the EU so that we can go even faster along this track.
Mrs May is a thoroughgoing Conservative, and you ought to be 100% behind her. I am not, of course.
Wasn't the NHS privatised more under Labour?
Some people cannot see much difference between Labour and Conservative, Mr D. No doubt you are right. And most certainly the Labour leadership is just as keen as the Tories to take us our of any restraint on the part of the EU - for different reasons, of course, but the result is the same, and the disastrous impact on the economy.
Labour = Tory. We must all vote against both.
Corbyn of course is anti academies, anti foundation hospitals, anti tuition fees, anti outsourcing in local government and wants to renationalise the railways, water, electricity and gas industries
The easiest way to fund a universal basic income would be a tax on every robot who replaced a human worker
Only if it can be identified as a robot. Most will be software that drives vehicles, flys planes, operates drones, analyses illness, monitors health, provides food etc etc
Then tax software or machinery which replaces human workers too
.... Eventually, they'll start doing the serious thinking required for the post-Brexit 21st century, reinventing at least one of the main parties as the New Labour cabal did in the 1990s, and Osborne and Cameron did a decade later, with help from intellectual outriders providing radical new ideas. But we might have to wait some time.
Rewriting history there just a bit, Mr Navabi. The Cameron-Osborne operation was just a matter of smoke and mirrors.
What they did really was to set up the NHS, the education service, the police, local government, university education and no doubt a lot more besides, so that it could all be taken over by the private sector (often American or Chinese) and make a fat profit for their shareholders at public expense, rather than provide a free or cheap service for users.
Mrs May is busy taking us out of the EU so that we can go even faster along this track.
Mrs May is a thoroughgoing Conservative, and you ought to be 100% behind her. I am not, of course.
Wasn't the NHS privatised more under Labour?
Some people cannot see much difference between Labour and Conservative, Mr D. No doubt you are right. And most certainly the Labour leadership is just as keen as the Tories to take us our of any restraint on the part of the EU - for different reasons, of course, but the result is the same, and the disastrous impact on the economy.
Labour = Tory. We must all vote against both.
Corbyn of course is anti academies, anti foundation hospitals, anti tuition fees, anti outsourcing in local government and wants to renationalise the railways, water, electricity and gas industries
It doesn`t make much difference to people on the ground if these industries are controlled from afar by Socialist robots or by heartless capitalist Americans. We need to take back control. I think that was somebody`s slogan..... Was it yours?
The easiest way to fund a universal basic income would be a tax on every robot who replaced a human worker or machine
Who'd pay for that tax? The consumer.
The company, it would be a form of corporation tax charged on capital, the lower the workforce and the higher the software and machinery and robots in the company then the higher the tax
The easiest way to fund a universal basic income would be a tax on every robot who replaced a human worker
Only if it can be identified as a robot. Most will be software that drives vehicles, flys planes, operates drones, analyses illness, monitors health, provides food etc etc
Plus how does it scale? One computer might be able to replace an entire call centre - does that cost the same as a robot that replaces just one person? Is it a per jobs replaced by robot payment - who does the calculation?
The easiest way to fund a universal basic income would be a tax on every robot who replaced a human worker or machine
Who'd pay for that tax? The consumer.
The company, it would be a form of corporation tax charged on capital, the lower the workforce and the higher the software and machinery and robots in the company then the higher the tax
...who would increase prices to counter the impact of the tax. It's just another business expense that needs to be covered one way or another.
.... Eventually, they'll start doing the serious thinking required for the post-Brexit 21st century, reinventing at least one of the main parties as the New Labour cabal did in the 1990s, and Osborne and Cameron did a decade later, with help from intellectual outriders providing radical new ideas. But we might have to wait some time.
Rewriting history there just a bit, Mr Navabi. The Cameron-Osborne operation was just a matter of smoke and mirrors.
What they did really was to set up the NHS, the education service, the police, local government, university education and no doubt a lot more besides, so that it could all be taken over by the private sector (often American or Chinese) and make a fat profit for their shareholders at public expense, rather than provide a free or cheap service for users.
Mrs May is busy taking us out of the EU so that we can go even faster along this track.
Mrs May is a thoroughgoing Conservative, and you ought to be 100% behind her. I am not, of course.
Wasn't the NHS privatised more under Labour?
Some people cannot see much difference between Labour and Conservative, Mr D. No doubt you are right. And most certainly the Labour leadership is just as keen as the Tories to take us our of any restraint on the part of the EU - for different reasons, of course, but the result is the same, and the disastrous impact on the economy.
Labour = Tory. We must all vote against both.
Corbyn of course is anti academies, anti foundation hospitals, anti tuition fees, anti outsourcing in local government and wants to renationalise the railways, water, electricity and gas industries
It doesn`t make much difference to people on the ground if these industries are controlled from afar by Socialist robots or by heartless capitalist Americans. We need to take back control. I think that was somebody`s slogan..... Was it yours?
No as I voted Remain and also Tory.
You either have large state power under Corbyn socialism or unfettered corporate power under libertarianism, I am neither a libertarian nor a socialist
The easiest way to fund a universal basic income would be a tax on every robot who replaced a human worker or machine
Who'd pay for that tax? The consumer.
The company, it would be a form of corporation tax charged on capital, the lower the workforce and the higher the software and machinery and robots in the company then the higher the tax
...who would increase prices to counter the impact of the tax. It's just another business expense that needs to be covered one way or another.
So the consumer then just moves to buy the products of another company whose prices are cheaper as they pay less tax as they have a higher human workforce. Simples!
Technology will replace the best teachers of the future with intelligent machines, according to a leading university vice chancellor.
Sir Anthony Seldon, vice chancellor of the University of Buckingham and former master of Wellington College, predicts the change will happen within the next 10 years and will completely transform the education system.
41% want a hard Brexit 24% want a soft Brexit 21% no Brexit 13% don't know
Surprised that 41% want a hard Brexit - higher than I would have expected
Wales did vote Leave let us not forget
Yes - by 53 to 47 per cent not 65 to 21 percent. Suggests quite a big confirmation of a shift towards accepting Brexit,
Did the poll define what soft and hard Brexit meant in practice? Soft for some may mean hard for others?
I very much doubt the pollster went into the detail of hard and soft Brexits
However, if this is true there does seem to be an acceptance we are leaving and most just want the Government to get on with it.
In the morning, and on the assumption the Government wins the vote tonight, labour will have put themselves on the wrong side of the argument by playing politics.
The easiest way to fund a universal basic income would be a tax on every robot who replaced a human worker or machine
Who'd pay for that tax? The consumer.
The company, it would be a form of corporation tax charged on capital, the lower the workforce and the higher the software and machinery and robots in the company then the higher the tax
...who would increase prices to counter the impact of the tax. It's just another business expense that needs to be covered one way or another.
So the consumer then just moves to buy the products of another company whose prices are cheaper as they pay less tax as they have a higher human workforce. Simples!
Presumably the company moving to automation is doing it for cost saving purposes not simply a hatred of human beings? You need to factor that into the equation...
Banning robots is probably a simpler solution than trying to tax them.
Technology will replace the best teachers of the future with intelligent machines, according to a leading university vice chancellor.
Sir Anthony Seldon, vice chancellor of the University of Buckingham and former master of Wellington College, predicts the change will happen within the next 10 years and will completely transform the education system.
41% want a hard Brexit 24% want a soft Brexit 21% no Brexit 13% don't know
Surprised that 41% want a hard Brexit - higher than I would have expected
Wales did vote Leave let us not forget
Yes I am aware of that but the figure still seems high.
It would be interesting to know what labour supporters think of Corbyn's betrayal and volte face on the EU
Corbyn has still said he does not want permanent single market membership which apparently means 'staying in the EU's according to him so if Corbyn does not even understand what the single market means I don't know how his supporters are supposed to http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41229806
Technology will replace the best teachers of the future with intelligent machines, according to a leading university vice chancellor.
Sir Anthony Seldon, vice chancellor of the University of Buckingham and former master of Wellington College, predicts the change will happen within the next 10 years and will completely transform the education system.
"The human race, to which so many of my readers belong, has been playing at children's games from the beginning, and will probably do it till the end, which is a nuisance for the few people who grow up. And one of the games to which it is most attached is called "Keep to-morrow dark," and which is also named (by the rustics in Shropshire, I have no doubt) "Cheat the Prophet." The players listen very carefully and respectfully to all that the clever men have to say about what is to happen in the next generation. The players then wait until all the clever men are dead, and bury them nicely. They then go and do something else. That is all. For a race of simple tastes, however, it is great fun."
G K Chesterton
It is amazing how easy it is to get people to agree in principle that the future is unknowable, and how difficult it is to get across that there are no exceptions to the rule.
Technology will replace the best teachers of the future with intelligent machines, according to a leading university vice chancellor.
Sir Anthony Seldon, vice chancellor of the University of Buckingham and former master of Wellington College, predicts the change will happen within the next 10 years and will completely transform the education system.
Whilst Seldon is an academic, I see little i his CV that says he understands anything about the technology behind AI. He does have a book to sell, though ...
But in a way he's right. Technology is (and will continue) to change education. But it'll be access to information, not AI, that does it. And the most vital skill children will have to be taught is filtering the wheat from the chaff, the gems from the fools' gold.
The easiest way to fund a universal basic income would be a tax on every robot who replaced a human worker or machine
Who'd pay for that tax? The consumer.
The company, it would be a form of corporation tax charged on capital, the lower the workforce and the higher the software and machinery and robots in the company then the higher the tax
...who would increase prices to counter the impact of the tax. It's just another business expense that needs to be covered one way or another.
So the consumer then just moves to buy the products of another company whose prices are cheaper as they pay less tax as they have a higher human workforce. Simples!
Presumably the company moving to automation is doing it for cost saving purposes not simply a hatred of human beings? You need to factor that into the equation...
Banning robots is probably a simpler solution than trying to tax them.
Most probably which is why a tax on machinery and robotics would be so important to ensure that replacing human workers by machinery does not always lead to lower costs and to fund a universal basic income to deal with cases where it still does.
Banning robots would just prevent the positive advances in healthcare provision, IT, road safety etc they can provide
Technology will replace the best teachers of the future with intelligent machines, according to a leading university vice chancellor.
Sir Anthony Seldon, vice chancellor of the University of Buckingham and former master of Wellington College, predicts the change will happen within the next 10 years and will completely transform the education system.
41% want a hard Brexit 24% want a soft Brexit 21% no Brexit 13% don't know
Surprised that 41% want a hard Brexit - higher than I would have expected
Wales did vote Leave let us not forget
Yes I am aware of that but the figure still seems high.
It would be interesting to know what labour supporters think of Corbyn's betrayal and volte face on the EU
The Messiah has betrayed nobody.
Works in mysterious ways maybe
To be fair I do not think he has much knoedge of the workings of the single market and customs union. He has had a lifetime of being anti business but the one thing I think he is trying to do is cause max disruption in his quest for power, he is a politician after all
The easiest way to fund a universal basic income would be a tax on every robot who replaced a human worker or machine
Who'd pay for that tax? The consumer.
The company, it would be a form of corporation tax charged on capital, the lower the workforce and the higher the software and machinery and robots in the company then the higher the tax
...who would increase prices to counter the impact of the tax. It's just another business expense that needs to be covered one way or another.
So the consumer then just moves to buy the products of another company whose prices are cheaper as they pay less tax as they have a higher human workforce. Simples!
Presumably the company moving to automation is doing it for cost saving purposes not simply a hatred of human beings? You need to factor that into the equation...
Banning robots is probably a simpler solution than trying to tax them.
Most probably which is why a tax on machinery and robotics would be so important to ensure that replacing human workers by machinery does not always lead to lower costs and to fund a universal basic income to deal with cases where it still does.
Banning robots would just prevent the positive advances in healthcare provision, IT, road safety etc they can provide
But your tax is still going to hit the positive advances you've just highlighted, doubtless making them unaffordable for most.
If you've got a proposal to review I'd love to see it, otherwise "tax the robots" is just a variety of magic money tree, alongside "tax the rich" and "crackdown on tax avoidance".
41% want a hard Brexit 24% want a soft Brexit 21% no Brexit 13% don't know
Surprised that 41% want a hard Brexit - higher than I would have expected
Wales did vote Leave let us not forget
Yes I am aware of that but the figure still seems high.
It would be interesting to know what labour supporters think of Corbyn's betrayal and volte face on the EU
The Messiah has betrayed nobody.
Works in mysterious ways maybe
To be fair I do not think he has much knoedge of the workings of the single market and customs union. He has had a lifetime of being anti business but the one thing I think he is trying to do is cause max disruption in his quest for power, he is a politician after all
Leavers will hear we will leave the EU. Remainers will hear we want to stay in the Single Market. Vanishingly few people will realise the 2 are incompatible. Thus the Labour Party stays together. He wants his cake and to eat it too. Don't know where he came up with the idea
The dangers of this sort of over-air auto-update is concerning.
It isn't just the danger, it is the sheer extortionate meanness of selling people expensive cars and then asking for another $9000 to make them work properly.
41% want a hard Brexit 24% want a soft Brexit 21% no Brexit 13% don't know
Surprised that 41% want a hard Brexit - higher than I would have expected
Wales did vote Leave let us not forget
Yes I am aware of that but the figure still seems high.
It would be interesting to know what labour supporters think of Corbyn's betrayal and volte face on the EU
The Messiah has betrayed nobody.
Works in mysterious ways maybe
To be fair I do not think he has much knoedge of the workings of the single market and customs union. He has had a lifetime of being anti business but the one thing I think he is trying to do is cause max disruption in his quest for power, he is a politician after all
Leavers will hear we will leave the EU. Remainers will hear we want to stay in the Single Market. Vanishingly few people will realise the 2 are incompatible. Thus the Labour Party stays together. He wants his cake and to eat it too. Don't know where he came up with the idea
Trouble is Labour are going to end up pleasing no one
Technology will replace the best teachers of the future with intelligent machines, according to a leading university vice chancellor.
Sir Anthony Seldon, vice chancellor of the University of Buckingham and former master of Wellington College, predicts the change will happen within the next 10 years and will completely transform the education system.
Whilst Seldon is an academic, I see little i his CV that says he understands anything about the technology behind AI. He does have a book to sell, though ...
But in a way he's right. Technology is (and will continue) to change education. But it'll be access to information, not AI, that does it. And the most vital skill children will have to be taught is filtering the wheat from the chaff, the gems from the fools' gold.
I think it shows that he doesn't understand what a University actually sells - and its not an education as university teaches you how to research for yourself and how to make your own mins up.
What a university actually offers is the prestige of the institute and the grade of degree they award you at the end. It's also the final tick before the first graduate job at which point all that matters is usually the prestige of the university - heck we all look down at former poly's unless its the appropriate specialist course...
Norway election night (for anyone that may be interested!!)
Evening all hope you're all doing well.
Ok so ahead of NZ/Germany in two weekends time tonight is the opener in the autumn election season.
Voting will close at 8pm UK time and the opinion polls are tight - counting will be done at polling stations as in most countries (the poll clerks at a station in Trondheim had laptops, makes the UK look a bit old school!)
My gut feel is that Erna Solberg's centre-right government will have a narrow win, but it will be close and which parties cross the 4% threshold to win seats is also key.
The easiest way to fund a universal basic income would be a tax on every robot who replaced a human worker or machine
Who'd pay for that tax? The consumer.
The company, it would be a form of corporation tax charged on capital, the lower the workforce and the higher the software and machinery and robots in the company then the higher the tax
...who would increase prices to counter the impact of the tax. It's just another business expense that needs to be covered one way or another.
So the consumer then just moves to buy the products of another company whose prices are cheaper as they pay less tax as they have a higher human workforce. Simples!
Presumably the company moving to automation is doing it for cost saving purposes not simply a hatred of human beings? You need to factor that into the equation...
Banning robots is probably a simpler solution than trying to tax them.
Most probably which is why a tax on machinery and robotics would be so important to ensure that replacing human workers by machinery does not always lead to lower costs and to fund a universal basic income to deal with cases where it still does.
Banning robots would just prevent the positive advances in healthcare provision, IT, road safety etc they can provide
But your tax is still going to hit the positive advances you've just highlighted, doubtless making them unaffordable for most.
If you've got a proposal to review I'd love to see it, otherwise "tax the robots" is just a variety of magic money tree, alongside "tax the rich" and "crackdown on tax avoidance".
If the cost of getting them all in full is hardly any workforce and mass unemployment and an unaffordable welfare bill that is not a price worth paying.
At least a machines tax will stop short of an outright ban while reducing the replacement of the workforce and funding a universal basic income if needed.
So no I am afraid 'tax the robots' is not a variety of the 'magic money tree' as if companies are increasing their profits by replacing human labour with machines some of that extra profit will be used to pay the robotics tax.
My gut feel is that Erna Solberg's centre-right government will have a narrow win, but it will be close and which parties cross the 4% threshold to win seats is also key.
Thanks!
It's quite surprising that not even political anoraks have paid any attention to the Norwegian election given the amount of attention the Norway option gets in Brexit discussions.
Would car manufacturers have to pay a tax based on the number of people who used to look after horses?
Taxing robots or software is daft. You tax the profits they make.
No as most of those who used to look after horses could find new jobs driving taxis, lorries etc. If new jobs arise out of automation to replace all those lost then fine, no problem and no need for a new tax
The extra profits they make still come from robots or software
41% want a hard Brexit 24% want a soft Brexit 21% no Brexit 13% don't know
Surprised that 41% want a hard Brexit - higher than I would have expected
Wales did vote Leave let us not forget
Yes I am aware of that but the figure still seems high.
It would be interesting to know what labour supporters think of Corbyn's betrayal and volte face on the EU
The Messiah has betrayed nobody.
Works in mysterious ways maybe
To be fair I do not think he has much knoedge of the workings of the single market and customs union. He has had a lifetime of being anti business but the one thing I think he is trying to do is cause max disruption in his quest for power, he is a politician after all
Leavers will hear we will leave the EU. Remainers will hear we want to stay in the Single Market. Vanishingly few people will realise the 2 are incompatible. Thus the Labour Party stays together. He wants his cake and to eat it too. Don't know where he came up with the idea
Trouble is Labour are going to end up pleasing no one
Makes not a blind bit of difference whether Labour votes for or against tonight. The Bill will pass. This is about making the space to say "We told you so."
Besides, Labour is rapidly becoming the party which garners the votes of Brexit agnostics. The true believers (who feel so strongly on Brexit as to chamge their voting intention) will vote Tory or LibDem.
My gut feel is that Erna Solberg's centre-right government will have a narrow win, but it will be close and which parties cross the 4% threshold to win seats is also key.
Thanks!
It's quite surprising that not even political anoraks have paid any attention to the Norwegian election given the amount of attention the Norway option gets in Brexit discussions.
My gut feel is that Erna Solberg's centre-right government will have a narrow win, but it will be close and which parties cross the 4% threshold to win seats is also key.
Thanks!
It's quite surprising that not even political anoraks have paid any attention to the Norwegian election given the amount of attention the Norway option gets in Brexit discussions.
Norway is already out of the EU, so unless it either votes to join the EU (which it has never been a member of) or leaves the EEA removing the Norway option altogether its election will not make any difference to Brexit
My gut feel is that Erna Solberg's centre-right government will have a narrow win, but it will be close and which parties cross the 4% threshold to win seats is also key.
Thanks!
It's quite surprising that not even political anoraks have paid any attention to the Norwegian election given the amount of attention the Norway option gets in Brexit discussions.
Mrs May needs a Norway debate.
I came across "Quitling" in a Remainer rant the other day. I think it means people like me who voted Remain but now accept that we are leaving, like the treacherous snakes we are.
The easiest way to fund a universal basic income would be a tax on every robot who replaced a human worker or machine
Who'd pay for that tax? The consumer.
The company, it would be a form of corporation tax charged on capital, the lower the workforce and the higher the software and machinery and robots in the company then the higher the tax
...who would increase prices to counter the impact of the tax. It's just another business expense that needs to be covered one way or another.
So the consumer then just moves to buy the products of another company whose prices are cheaper as they pay less tax as they have a higher human workforce. Simples!
Presumably the company moving to automation is doing it for cost saving purposes not simply a hatred of human beings? You need to factor that into the equation...
Banning robots is probably a simpler solution than trying to tax them.
Most probably which is why a tax on machinery and robotics would be so important to ensure that replacing human workers by machinery does not always lead to lower costs and to fund a universal basic income to deal with cases where it still does.
Banning robots would just prevent the positive advances in healthcare provision, IT, road safety etc they can provide
But your tax is still going to hit the positive advances you've just highlighted, doubtless making them unaffordable for most.
If you've got a proposal to review I'd love to see it, otherwise "tax the robots" is just a variety of magic money tree, alongside "tax the rich" and "crackdown on tax avoidance".
If the cost of getting them all in full is hardly any workforce and mass unemployment and an unaffordable welfare bill that is not a price worth paying.
At least a machines tax will stop short of an outright ban while reducing the replacement of the workforce and funding a universal basic income if needed.
So no I am afraid 'tax the robots' is not a variety of the 'magic money tree' as if companies are increasing their profits by replacing human labour with machines some of that extra profit will be used to pay the robotics tax.
It really is barring a workable proposal being put forward rather than vague platitudes. Is there going to be an international agreement on this tax, or do we run the risk of seeing everything moved offshore to more robot friendly tax jurisdictions? There are a million questions that need to be answered, when you answer them it might be something more than magic money tree.
41% want a hard Brexit 24% want a soft Brexit 21% no Brexit 13% don't know
Surprised that 41% want a hard Brexit - higher than I would have expected
Wales did vote Leave let us not forget
Yes I am aware of that but the figure still seems high.
It would be interesting to know what labour supporters think of Corbyn's betrayal and volte face on the EU
The Messiah has betrayed nobody.
Works in mysterious ways maybe
To be fair I do not think he has much knoedge of the workings of the single market and customs union. He has had a lifetime of being anti business but the one thing I think he is trying to do is cause max disruption in his quest for power, he is a politician after all
Leavers will hear we will leave the EU. Remainers will hear we want to stay in the Single Market. Vanishingly few people will realise the 2 are incompatible. Thus the Labour Party stays together. He wants his cake and to eat it too. Don't know where he came up with the idea
Trouble is Labour are going to end up pleasing no one
Makes not a blind bit of difference whether Labour votes for or against tonight. The Bill will pass. This is about making the space to say "We told you so."
Besides, Labour is rapidly becoming the party which garners the votes of Brexit agnostics. The true believers (who feel so strongly on Brexit as to chamge their voting intention) will vote Tory or LibDem.
Not true last time, a lot of London and middle class Remainers voted Labour hoping to stay permanently in the single market and stop May's hard Brexit and a number of northern and midlands working class Labour Leavers voted Labour because Corbyn promised to take the UK out of the single market and end free movement.
Next time he is going to have to disappoint one of those groups.
If it is the former Cable's LDs will hope to capitalise, if it is the latter the Tories will hope to do so, especially if led by Boris
My gut feel is that Erna Solberg's centre-right government will have a narrow win, but it will be close and which parties cross the 4% threshold to win seats is also key.
Thanks!
It's quite surprising that not even political anoraks have paid any attention to the Norwegian election given the amount of attention the Norway option gets in Brexit discussions.
Mrs May needs a Norway debate.
I came across "Quitling" in a Remainer rant the other day. I think it means people like me who voted Remain but now accept that we are leaving, like the treacherous snakes we are.
I'm a Quitling too then I guess, although my view is the sooner we Leave, the sooner we rejoin.
The dangers of this sort of over-air auto-update is concerning.
It isn't just the danger, it is the sheer extortionate meanness of selling people expensive cars and then asking for another $9000 to make them work properly.
Well, yes. If someone's silly enough to buy a Tesla, then they deserve everything they get, good and bad. (sorry, RCS!)
It's more the ability for them to alter the functionality of a car I have purchased over the air - as an example, what happens if they chose to decrease the range of my car for some reason? Cars (and it is not just Tesla) are increasingly going for the service rather than ownership model.
Then there are the all too obvious issues of hacking the cars, as has happened with Teslas.
My gut feel is that Erna Solberg's centre-right government will have a narrow win, but it will be close and which parties cross the 4% threshold to win seats is also key.
Thanks!
It's quite surprising that not even political anoraks have paid any attention to the Norwegian election given the amount of attention the Norway option gets in Brexit discussions.
My gut feel is that Erna Solberg's centre-right government will have a narrow win, but it will be close and which parties cross the 4% threshold to win seats is also key.
Thanks!
It's quite surprising that not even political anoraks have paid any attention to the Norwegian election given the amount of attention the Norway option gets in Brexit discussions.
Norway is already out of the EU, so unless it either votes to join the EU (which it has never been a member of) or leaves the EEA removing the Norway option altogether its election will not make any difference to Brexit
It has a veto on us taking the Norway option so we should perhaps be more respectful.
The easiest way to fund a universal basic income would be a tax on every robot who replaced a human worker or machine
Who'd pay for that tax? The consumer.
The company, it would be a form of corporation tax charged on capital, the lower the workforce and the higher the software and machinery and robots in the company then the higher the tax
...who would increase prices to counter the impact of the tax. It's just another business expense that needs to be covered one way or another.
So the consumer then just moves to buy the products of another company whose prices are cheaper as they pay less tax as they have a higher human workforce. Simples!
Presumably the company moving to automation is doing it for cost saving purposes not simply a hatred of human beings? You need to factor that into the equation...
Banning robots is probably a simpler solution than trying to tax them.
Most probably which is why a tax on machinery and robotics would be so important to ensure that replacing human workers by machinery does not always lead to lower costs and to fund a universal basic income to deal with cases where it still does.
Banning robots would just prevent the positive advances in healthcare provision, IT, road safety etc they can provide
But your tax is still going to hit the positive advances you've just highlighted, doubtless making them unaffordable for most.
If you've got a proposal to review I'd love to see it, otherwise "tax the robots" is just a variety of magic money tree, alongside "tax the rich" and "crackdown on tax avoidance".
If the cost of getting them all tax.
It really is barring a workable proposal being put forward rather than vague platitudes. Is there going to be an international agreement on this tax, or do we run the risk of seeing everything moved offshore to more robot friendly tax jurisdictions? There are a million questions that need to be answered, when you answer them it might be something more than magic money tree.
Any government which refuses to impose a robots tax and provide a universal basic income and sees mass unemployment and minimal welfare as a result if automation really does lead to largescale replacement of the workforce will either be voted out of office or toppled following a revolution so that issue is unlikely to arise
41% want a hard Brexit 24% want a soft Brexit 21% no Brexit 13% don't know
Surprised that 41% want a hard Brexit - higher than I would have expected
Wales did vote Leave let us not forget
Yes I am aware of that but the figure still seems high.
It would be interesting to know what labour supporters think of Corbyn's betrayal and volte face on the EU
The Messiah has betrayed nobody.
Works in mysterious ways maybe
To be fair I do not think he has much knoedge of the workings of the single market and customs union. He has had a lifetime of being anti business but the one thing I think he is trying to do is cause max disruption in his quest for power, he is a politician after all
Leavers will hear we will leave the EU. Remainers will hear we want to stay in the Single Market. Vanishingly few people will realise the 2 are incompatible. Thus the Labour Party stays together. He wants his cake and to eat it too. Don't know where he came up with the idea
Trouble is Labour are going to end up pleasing no one
Makes not a blind bit of difference whether Labour votes for or against tonight. The Bill will pass. This is about making the space to say "We told you so."
Besides, Labour is rapidly becoming the party which garners the votes of Brexit agnostics. The true believers (who feel so strongly on Brexit as to chamge their voting intention) will vote Tory or LibDem.
Not true last time, a lot of London and middle class Remainers voted Labour hoping to stay permanently in the single market and stop May's hard Brexit and a number of northern and midlands working class Labour Leavers voted Labour because Corbyn promised to take the UK out of the single market and end free movement.
Next time he is going to have to disappoint one of those groups.
If it is the former Cable's LDs will hope to capitalise, if it is the latter the Tories will hope to do so, especially if led by Boris
This may well turn out to be true. We will see. My own view is that many are heartily pig-sick of seeing and hearing about Brexit, and that once we leave in 18 months the most common response will be "Thank God that is over!"
41% want a hard Brexit 24% want a soft Brexit 21% no Brexit 13% don't know
Surprised that 41% want a hard Brexit - higher than I would have expected
Wales did vote Leave let us not forget
Yes I am aware of that but the figure still seems high.
It would be interesting to know what labour supporters think of Corbyn's betrayal and volte face on the EU
The Messiah has betrayed nobody.
Works in mysterious ways maybe
To be fair I do not think he has much knoedge of the workings of the single market and customs union. He has had a lifetime of being anti business but the one thing I think he is trying to do is cause max disruption in his quest for power, he is a politician after all
Leavers will hear we will leave the EU. Remainers will hear we want to stay in the Single Market. Vanishingly few people will realise the 2 are incompatible. Thus the Labour Party stays together. He wants his cake and to eat it too. Don't know where he came up with the idea
Trouble is Labour are going to end up pleasing no one
Makes not a blind bit of difference whether Labour votes for or against tonight. The Bill will pass. This is about making the space to say "We told you so."
Besides, Labour is rapidly becoming the party which garners the votes of Brexit agnostics. The true believers (who feel so strongly on Brexit as to chamge their voting intention) will vote Tory or LibDem.
Very true .I like that Brexit agnostics describes the many not the few , maybe.
My gut feel is that Erna Solberg's centre-right government will have a narrow win, but it will be close and which parties cross the 4% threshold to win seats is also key.
Thanks!
It's quite surprising that not even political anoraks have paid any attention to the Norwegian election given the amount of attention the Norway option gets in Brexit discussions.
Norway is already out of the EU, so unless it either votes to join the EU (which it has never been a member of) or leaves the EEA removing the Norway option altogether its election will not make any difference to Brexit
It has a veto on us taking the Norway option so we should perhaps be more respectful.
We were in EFTA with Norway and Switzerland long before we joined the EU, indeed we did not join the latter until almost two decades after its predecessor the EEC was founded.
Any government which refuses to impose a robots tax and provide a universal basic income and sees mass unemployment and minimal welfare as a result if automation really does lead to largescale replacement of the workforce will either be voted out of office or toppled following a revolution so that issue is unlikely to arise
Your maths still isn't adding up. Besides is this really a future we want to live in? Surviving on scraps paid for by taxing economic titans? You can kiss goodbye to economic mobility...
Any government which refuses to impose a robots tax and provide a universal basic income and sees mass unemployment and minimal welfare as a result if automation really does lead to largescale replacement of the workforce will either be voted out of office or toppled following a revolution so that issue is unlikely to arise
Your maths still isn't adding up. Besides is this really a future we want to live in? Surviving on scraps paid for by taxing economic titans? You can kiss goodbye to economic mobility...
Well if you want to ban robots altogether fine, push that but it will probably be either that or a robots tax and universal basic income.
Economic mobility would not collapse completely in the latter course just there would be probably be fewer, perhaps even only a minority of jobs which were full time and permanent with most jobs becoming part time and short-term contract based and the gaps without work filled by the basic income.
My gut feel is that Erna Solberg's centre-right government will have a narrow win, but it will be close and which parties cross the 4% threshold to win seats is also key.
Thanks!
It's quite surprising that not even political anoraks have paid any attention to the Norwegian election given the amount of attention the Norway option gets in Brexit discussions.
Mrs May needs a Norway debate.
I came across "Quitling" in a Remainer rant the other day. I think it means people like me who voted Remain but now accept that we are leaving, like the treacherous snakes we are.
I'm a Quitling too then I guess, although my view is the sooner we Leave, the sooner we rejoin.
41% want a hard Brexit 24% want a soft Brexit 21% no Brexit 13% don't know
Surprised that 41% want a hard Brexit - higher than I would have expected
Wales did vote Leave let us not forget
Yes I am aware of that but the figure still seems high.
It would be interesting to know what labour supporters think of Corbyn's betrayal and volte face on the EU
The Messiah has betrayed nobody.
Works in mysterious ways maybe
To be fair I do not think he has much knoedge of the workings of the single market and customs union. He has had a lifetime of being anti business but the one thing I think he is trying to do is cause max disruption in his quest for power, he is a politician after all
Leavers will hear we will leave the EU. Remainers will hear we want to stay in the Single Market. Vanishingly few people will realise the 2 are incompatible. Thus the Labour Party stays together. He wants his cake and to eat it too. Don't know where he came up with the idea
Trouble is Labour are going to end up pleasing no one
Makes not a blind bit of difference whether Labour votes for or against tonight. The Bill will pass. This is about making the space to say "We told you so."
Besides, Labour is rapidly becoming the party which garners the votes of Brexit agnostics. The true believers (who feel so strongly on Brexit as to chamge their voting intention) will vote Tory or LibDem.
Not true last time, a lot of London and middle class Remainers voted Labour hoping to stay permanently in the single market and stop May's hard Brexit and a number of northern and midlands working class Labour Leavers voted Labour because Corbyn promised to take the UK out of the single market and end free movement.
Next time he is going to have to disappoint one of those groups.
If it is the former Cable's LDs will hope to capitalise, if it is the latter the Tories will hope to do so, especially if led by Boris
This may well turn out to be true. We will see. My own view is that many are heartily pig-sick of seeing and hearing about Brexit, and that once we leave in 18 months the most common response will be "Thank God that is over!"
Comments
UBI?
Ungallant Bearded Infidels? Ugly Baby Infection?
The NHS mainly benefits ill people. Why should someone else pay for that?
Etc etc.
The main reason students are singled out is that at the point they have to sign up to the student finance system they are under 18, so cannot vote. Hence the government can screw them over as much as they want. It's a reason why I'm in favour of votes at 16.
I didn't sign up for student finance until I was over 18 and in the long vac between school and Uni, IIRC?
https://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p09_fair_use
If you ask them they will say "pay us"... you may end up having to do that anyway.., but it depends on @Mortimer proposed use.
Last year, I went to an event on this topic at the Resolution Foundation. Its experts crunched the numbers and found that, under a UBI scheme that pays people the same as they would get under Universal Credit (ie about the RSA level), and throws in universal child tax credit (rather than means-tested, as under the current system), taxes would have to rise. By a lot.
In fact, you would have to abolish the Personal Allowance – the £11,000 tax-free that everyone gets on their earnings. Instead, from the first pound you earned to the £43,001st, you’d pay a combined rate of income tax and National Insurance of around 35-40 per cent, after which the higher rate of tax would kick in as normal.
In other words, to get that £3,692 from the Government, you’d pay thousands of pounds more.
This would mean (and stop me if you don’t follow the logic) that large numbers of people would be paying a much larger amount of tax. In fact, it would represent a transfer of £120 billion of extra taxation into the welfare state – the equivalent of the entire budget of the NHS in England.
https://fee.org/articles/a-universal-basic-income-would-mean-massive-tax-hikes/
It would certainly improve equality, we'd all be equally poor... assuming that everyone decided to sit back and accept this rather than emigrating.
This is the fundamental problem with so many revenue raising ideas - people assume that behaviour won't change and that clobbering the rich won't result in them heading off to more favourable tax regimes, reducing tax revenue instead.
£9k tuition fees on RPI+3% terms was a classic case of current-voters screwing over not-yet-voters.
The tories are so blase about it they don't even announce these things any more. Freezing the plan2 threshold wasn't even announced to parliament, it was put on p126 of the autumn statement.
https://twitter.com/InstituteGC/status/907281780658655232
For example, the vast majority of voters will not have had the chance to go to University.
I'm on the fence about student fees. In an ideal world I'd abolish them and deconstruct the modern poly -> Uni schemes, but that in itself would be current voters stifling the aspiration of future voters more, no?
But yes, the finance arrangements with SAAS (and no doubt the English equivalent) are separate from the UCAS system.
https://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p27_work_of_others
After speaking to them, what is ok, is a screenshot of portion of that piece, or copying the text of a portion of an article with attribution/link.
To see oursels as ithers see us!
I can't be bothered to look for a gag about 45 minutes or copying stuff off the internet. If you could just fuck off, Tone, that would be excellent.
I've gone off the idea of using it for PR now - to be honest it was such a brief mention that I'm not sure what use I can get from it beyond the somewhat egotistical 'look we were in the Times'.
Talking about tuition fees...
Technology will replace the best teachers of the future with intelligent machines, according to a leading university vice chancellor.
Sir Anthony Seldon, vice chancellor of the University of Buckingham and former master of Wellington College, predicts the change will happen within the next 10 years and will completely transform the education system.
http://news.sky.com/story/ai-machines-will-replace-teachers-claims-wellington-college-head-11029135
What they did really was to set up the NHS, the education service, the police, local government, university education and no doubt a lot more besides, so that it could all be taken over by the private sector (often American or Chinese) and make a fat profit for their shareholders at public expense, rather than provide a free or cheap service for users.
Mrs May is busy taking us out of the EU so that we can go even faster along this track.
Mrs May is a thoroughgoing Conservative, and you ought to be 100% behind her. I am not, of course.
Mind you, you have a point with respect to university education. Vince Cable did an excellent job on increasing tuition fees, and of course the triumph of his career was privatising the Royal Mail, which even Mandelson hadn't been able to do.
Heck if you look at the current economy and the other big issues that younger people face its likely that unless they solve student loans and find a solution to current house prices the Tory party will die a death over the next 15 years....
Labour = Tory. We must all vote against both.
You either have large state power under Corbyn socialism or unfettered corporate power under libertarianism, I am neither a libertarian nor a socialist
41% want a hard Brexit
24% want a soft Brexit
21% no Brexit
13% don't know
Surprised that 41% want a hard Brexit - higher than I would have expected
Did the poll define what soft and hard Brexit meant in practice? Soft for some may mean hard for others?
It would be interesting to know what labour supporters think of Corbyn's betrayal and volte face on the EU
However, if this is true there does seem to be an acceptance we are leaving and most just want the Government to get on with it.
In the morning, and on the assumption the Government wins the vote tonight, labour will have put themselves on the wrong side of the argument by playing politics.
Banning robots is probably a simpler solution than trying to tax them.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41229806
G K Chesterton
It is amazing how easy it is to get people to agree in principle that the future is unknowable, and how difficult it is to get across that there are no exceptions to the rule.
Works in mysterious ways maybe
But in a way he's right. Technology is (and will continue) to change education. But it'll be access to information, not AI, that does it. And the most vital skill children will have to be taught is filtering the wheat from the chaff, the gems from the fools' gold.
Banning robots would just prevent the positive advances in healthcare provision, IT, road safety etc they can provide
Good evening, everyone.
( @Cyclefree; a very interesting header article, many thanks.)
Here is a story that, whilst it seems good at first, is worrying:
"Tesla remotely extends the range of some cars to help with Irma"
https://arstechnica.co.uk/cars/2017/09/tesla-remotely-extends-the-range-of-some-cars-to-help-with-irma/
The dangers of this sort of over-air auto-update is concerning.
If you've got a proposal to review I'd love to see it, otherwise "tax the robots" is just a variety of magic money tree, alongside "tax the rich" and "crackdown on tax avoidance".
He wants his cake and to eat it too. Don't know where he came up with the idea
What a university actually offers is the prestige of the institute and the grade of degree they award you at the end. It's also the final tick before the first graduate job at which point all that matters is usually the prestige of the university - heck we all look down at former poly's unless its the appropriate specialist course...
Taxing robots or software is daft. You tax the profits they make.
Evening all hope you're all doing well.
Ok so ahead of NZ/Germany in two weekends time tonight is the opener in the autumn election season.
Voting will close at 8pm UK time and the opinion polls are tight - counting will be done at polling stations as in most countries (the poll clerks at a station in Trondheim had laptops, makes the UK look a bit old school!)
Links:
TV livestream: https://www.nrk.no/valg2017/
Official results (click Sprak at top right to change language): https://www.valgresultat.no/?type=st&year=2017
Liveblog: https://www.thelocal.no/20170911/join-the-local-for-live-coverage-of-the-norwegian-general-election
Background/polls: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_parliamentary_election,_2017
My gut feel is that Erna Solberg's centre-right government will have a narrow win, but it will be close and which parties cross the 4% threshold to win seats is also key.
Thanks!
DC
Or is 'I'm a parody of virtue'
At least a machines tax will stop short of an outright ban while reducing the replacement of the workforce and funding a universal basic income if needed.
So no I am afraid 'tax the robots' is not a variety of the 'magic money tree' as if companies are increasing their profits by replacing human labour with machines some of that extra profit will be used to pay the robotics tax.
The extra profits they make still come from robots or software
Besides, Labour is rapidly becoming the party which garners the votes of Brexit agnostics. The true believers (who feel so strongly on Brexit as to chamge their voting intention) will vote Tory or LibDem.
Next time he is going to have to disappoint one of those groups.
If it is the former Cable's LDs will hope to capitalise, if it is the latter the Tories will hope to do so, especially if led by Boris
It's more the ability for them to alter the functionality of a car I have purchased over the air - as an example, what happens if they chose to decrease the range of my car for some reason? Cars (and it is not just Tesla) are increasingly going for the service rather than ownership model.
Then there are the all too obvious issues of hacking the cars, as has happened with Teslas.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2017/07/28/chinese-group-hacks-tesla-second-year-row/518430001/
The Internet of Tat<./strike>Things should be kept as far away from things like cars as possible.
For now Labour is riding both horses.
Iceland for one has already said it would welcome us back to EFTA
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/07/15/iceland-opens-door-uk-join-efta/
Economic mobility would not collapse completely in the latter course just there would be probably be fewer, perhaps even only a minority of jobs which were full time and permanent with most jobs becoming part time and short-term contract based and the gaps without work filled by the basic income.
One model for taxing the bots is betfair's premium charge.
Progressive taxation of individual bot owners.