Fascinating stuff. The point about the Greens and the AfD is very important in my view. Here in the UK we are obsessed by the rise of the far-right to such an extent that we tend not to see the bigger picture, which is that in most countries in the old EU, at least, the far right is utterly rejected by most people. Figures like Wilders and Le Pen, and parties like the AfD and the Sweden Democrats, get huge amounts of attention, even though they are likely never to get close to power. Meanwhile, parties like the Greens - which could find themselves in government - quietly get on with building their electoral bases. It's almost as if the Brits want to believe that the Nazis are alive and well and about to take charge again on the other side of the Channel.
Down in Spain - as in Portugal - it is actually the left which is in the ascendant. The latest opinion polling has PSOE and Podemos combined on close to 50% of the vote, which is 10 points higher than PP and Cs combined. That is a major change over the course of this year. The Catalan separatists, meanwhile, are falling out among themselves. Interesting times.
It's hard to say who's "far right" these days. Golden Dawn and Jobbik, obviously, but do parties like Law & Justice, Lega, Danish Peoples' Party, FPO, Slovak Social Democrats, all of whom are in government, or supportive of the government, count as far right?
As Goodwin keeps reminding us, we must deferentiate between Far Right fascists and Populist.
It's rare for overtly fascist parties to gain Parliamentary representation. Whether a party is branded as far right seems to depend on the prevailing political culture. Currently, the Sweden Democrats are treated as far right, whereas in other European countries they'd be considered fairly mainstream conservatives.
I think remainers and Labour should try and get Jenkyns on the TV as much as possible.
Tbf there's an embarrassment of riches in that particular market: Bridgen, Mogg, IDS, Jenkin, Grayling, Bone, Davies, Dorries, Fysh, Jackson, Kawczynski, Thomson etc, etc, etc, etc.
All guaranteed to turn off centrists, mild Remainers and undecided switherers.
I've found it helpful to refresh my zeal by going for a brisk swim in A. Adonis's timeline, followed by a stiff shot of AC Grayling (a little strong for some tastes, in which case, subsitute A. Campbell or F. Islam). Of course, you don't have to travel that far; a little @Roger goes a long way.
I do agree that Leave Ultras have the edge in sheer bonkersdom though.
I think remainers and Labour should try and get Jenkyns on the TV as much as possible.
Tbf there's an embarrassment of riches in that particular market: Bridgen, Mogg, IDS, Jenkin, Grayling, Bone, Davies, Dorries, Fysh, Jackson, Kawczynski, Thomson etc, etc, etc, etc.
All guaranteed to turn off centrists, mild Remainers and undecided switherers.
I've found it helpful to refresh my zeal by going for a brisk swim in A. Adonis's timeline, followed by a stiff shot of AC Grayling (a little strong for some tastes, in which case, subsitute A. Campbell or F. Islam). Of course, you don't have to travel that far; a little @Roger goes a long way.
I do agree that Leave Ultras have the edge in sheer bonkersdom though.
Matthew Parris seems to chew the carpet at times, as well.
Unfortunately the rules Hartford comes up with are impossible to achieve in a political arena, so really the thrust of the article should be that it would be useful if it were possible to run Brexit like a large mega construction project, but politics precludes this - not quite so snappy.
One day economists, like software engineers, will have to go through the painful process of realising they are not a branch of physics or production engineering.
My old boss, the lovely Charles Hoare, reflected on this problem when he claimed he had wasted over 20 years of his life on formal methods and Z - now I teach sociolotechnical design and ethnomethodology to my requirements engineering students because large human-centred systems aren't like buildings, production lines etc and political systems least of all.
Yes complex systems are just that 'systems' but that doesn't mean they are predictable, rational or operate in a deterministic fashion. The Sydney opera house worked because Arne Jacobsen was a great architect and there was good quality project control but at no point did Arne say 'you know what, I think it should be square, with corinthian columns"
Good post. Knowledge is acquired during the process of creation. Specifying a software system formally is at least as hard as implementing it and just as error prone and then you have to translate from the model to the implementation. A physical system is expensive to modify so formal design and specification is necessary - but it is wise to assume errors will be made and corrections will be required.
I have the impression that the Sydney Opera House was a monumental pig in a poke, with miscalculations and bad personal relations from all sides, requiring major redesign in order to stand up, and not meeting the client brief, a budget overrun of Gordon Brown magnitude, and a flounce of historic proportions from the architect.
In the 2000s it would have been a Zaha Hadid project, surely?
What did Arne Jacobsen have to do with it? Isn't his most famous design a chair :-D ? (Plus some rather good smallish commissions, and Copenhagen's version of the Sydney OH, which was less successful.)
I do agree that Leave Ultras have the edge in sheer bonkersdom though.
But they were always bonkers. The extraordinary thing is how Brexit has tipped so many previously sane Remainers over the edge.
Corbyn and May seem very close on Brexit now, interestingly though. Perhaps I am missing the divergence in their plans, Corbyn's essentially looks like May's transition period of a customs territory being made permanent.
I do agree that Leave Ultras have the edge in sheer bonkersdom though.
But they were always bonkers. The extraordinary thing is how Brexit has tipped so many previously sane Remainers over the edge.
Corbyn and May seem very close on Brexit now, interestingly though. Perhaps I am missing the divergence in their plans, Corbyn's essentially looks like May's transition period of a customs territory being made permanent.
Both respect the vote and ensure minimal economic damage. If Corbyn was a statesman and not playing for narrow political advantage he'd back May on this one, hopefully members of his party will.
Political labels are interesting. Corbyn, as a Trot, is as far left as you can go without losing all sense of reality. Too Marxist even for Stalin. To Trots. the Communist party were state capitalists. The more extreme you are, the more extreme everyone else appears.
Probably similar for Brexit. The more media-luvvie and metropolitan you are, the more the very thought of leaving the EU is a horror perpetrated by Fascist swine.
Fascinating stuff. The point about the Greens and the AfD is very important in my view. Here in the UK we are obsessed by the rise of the far-right to such an extent that we tend not to see the bigger picture, which is that in most countries in the old EU, at least, the far right is utterly rejected by most people. Figures like Wilders and Le Pen, and parties like the AfD and the Sweden Democrats, get huge amounts of attention, even though they are likely never to get close to power. Meanwhile, parties like the Greens - which could find themselves in government - quietly get on with building their electoral bases. It's almost as if the Brits want to believe that the Nazis are alive and well and about to take charge again on the other side of the Channel.
Down in Spain - as in Portugal - it is actually the left which is in the ascendant. The latest opinion polling has PSOE and Podemos combined on close to 50% of the vote, which is 10 points higher than PP and Cs combined. That is a major change over the course of this year. The Catalan separatists, meanwhile, are falling out among themselves. Interesting times.
I found your post on spanish polls really interesting. I thought earlier this year the PSOE was heading down the same route as the socialists in France, but that summer revival is impressive. It shows there can be life in some of the old dogs.
PSOE has regained a lot of support just by being in government. The party is relevant again and so many who had flirted with Podemos and some who had gone over to Cs are basically coming home. PSOE has also been massively helped by the existential crisis that PP now finds itself in - and Cs track to the right.
I think if we ever did get PR in the UK, Spain is the country we would most resemble in terms of party breakdown: a left, a centre left, a centre right and a right party, with nationalists making up most of the rest.
Put it this way there’s more chance of me campaigning for Mark Reckless than there is of me campaigning for Andrea Jenkyns.
She's a tool. Bridgen is a tool. Jackson is a tool.
But there are gradations of tools. Lumping all Brexiteers, or the ERG, all into one pile is not doing anybody any favours.
Mogg is actually a very articulate operator. Certainly not my cup of tea politically, but I bet he persuades a lot of people because he's a) articulate and on top of his brief, and b) very willing to speak in a polite way to any camera thrust in his face.
Boris and Gove certainly aren't loons. Boris, in my view, is a great ideas man but also a greatly conflicted politician (I'm still not sure he's sure about Brexit).
Davis is an enigma. I've never been able to work him out.
IDS is odd. He can appear very right wing on some issues and surprisingly in-touch with the poor on others. But I'd say, on balance, it's unfair to call him a loon.
Jenkin - persuasive, polite, principled... appears to have a dark side but certainly not a tool in the Jenkyns mode.
On the other side we have Adonis, who until Brexit was well-respected on all sides but has turned into a mirror-loon. Intransigent and prickly and quick to block anyone who disagrees with him.
I actually liked the Brexit referendum because it tipped politicians up out of their comfort zones. But two years on it appears to have brought the worst out of some people.
I do agree that Leave Ultras have the edge in sheer bonkersdom though.
But they were always bonkers. The extraordinary thing is how Brexit has tipped so many previously sane Remainers over the edge.
I’d say emotional rather than bonkers. Very few are actually bonkers.
The issue brings out strong feelings of identity and destiny, on both sides, that overwhelm rational thought and argument at times.
Because it is one of the few issues in modern times that actually matters to a vast swathe of people - especially those who do not normally get involved in politics.
I think remainers and Labour should try and get Jenkyns on the TV as much as possible.
The worst thing I’ve ever done in my life is to help Andrea Jenkyns win Morley and Outwood in 2015.
In my defence
1) She didn’t appear like a loon then she was positively Cameroon.
2) It was to help my betting position
3) I so wanted to do a ‘Balls deep in trouble’ headline on election night.
Fair play to Ed Balls though, he's built himself an impressive media profile and comes across pretty likeable nowadays His Trump America documentary was a decent watch.
Losing in 2015 was probably the greatest thing to happen in his career.
On another note, having suffered 15 minutes of Question Time last night and then watched an old episode from the 80s, I really hope whoever takes over from Dimbleby can somehow bring the programme back to what it used to be. I don't hold out much hope though.
In case any (or indeed all) of you thought I was all p*** and wind, there is a big article in today’s Times about the matter I am currently working on.
Unfortunately the rules Hartford comes up with are impossible to achieve in a political arena, so really the thrust of the article should be that it would be useful if it were possible to run Brexit like a large mega construction project, but politics precludes this - not quite so snappy.
One day economists, like software engineers, will have to go through the painful process of realising they are not a branch of physics or production engineering. snip..
Good post. Knowledge is acquired during the process of creation. Specifying a software system formally is at least as hard as implementing it and just as error prone and then you have to translate from the model to the implementation. A physical system is expensive to modify so formal design and specification is necessary - but it is wise to assume errors will be made and corrections will be required.
I have the impression that the Sydney Opera House was a monumental pig in a poke, with miscalculations and bad personal relations from all sides, requiring major redesign in order to stand up, and not meeting the client brief, a budget overrun of Gordon Brown magnitude, and a flounce of historic proportions from the architect.
In the 2000s it would have been a Zaha Hadid project, surely?
What did Arne Jacobsen have to do with it? Isn't his most famous design a chair :-D ? (Plus some rather good smallish commissions, and Copenhagen's version of the Sydney OH, which was less successful.)
(Did you mean Utzon, or is my memory failing?)
Yeah it was Jørn Utzon, my memory at fault - I spend my life being schooled by Danes in the names of designers and they all get mixed up :-) - chair design was an add on for Jacobsen - I think designing St Catz Oxford from foundations to fork and spoons was a pretty big commission - he also did a very nice car repair garage up the road from me that is still in use and still looks v cool.
In the UK, at least, there is no such thing as "free speech": speech is regulated and some speech is indeed criminal.
As for the general "snowflakes can't take argumentation" thing, a few points:
1) Many people, especially online, do not have discussions in good faith. If "leftist" see someone spout right wing talking points and don't engage, blame the hordes of right wing trolls who make it impossible to tell sincere discussion apart from trolling.
2) As has been mentioned, this is not a left wing only issue. Try and get a thoughtful discussion about racial equality, gender equality or Brexit and many on the right refuse to have conversations, and instead just go straight to denials.
3) Do we really need to hear everyone's viewpoint equally? Holocaust denial, "race realism" or 9/11 "truthers" come to mind.
4) The idea that students hate "free speech" or universities are "intolerant" is increasingly annoying. Universities host speakers all the time, and indeed pay some speakers for the privilege. Students, therefore, are funding speakers. If some customers (students) dislike where their money is going when they are presented with the product (a speaker), surely they have a right to protest this? Indeed, because of the elitism and cronyism in the upper echelons of academia and politics, many speakers come from a background and perspective many students have no interest in and / or need no further platform.
5) This is the big one. Free speech is all well and good, but what some speakers are demanding is access to a stage. I can say whatever nonsense I like; doesn't mean anyone has to listen or care. The difference is when the BBC, or a university or a radio station give someone a platform to say stuff that comes with responsibility. You need to justify why so and so gets to speak while whats his name doesn't. Take auntie Beeb and climate change denial. It is obviously unnecessary, unjustified and downright irresponsible to give climate change deniers an equal platform when covering climate change news. It is good the Beeb have finally taken this on board; but people cry censorship. Many institutions lean rightward (yes, even universities), and therefore what the institution considers acceptable can easily be out of step massively with faculty and students.
The day the Daily Mail gets shut down by the government because of the bile it spews, then I'll accept free speech censorship may have gone too far. People saying "now wait a minute, why do these people in power who keep getting things wrong still get to swan around and have everyone listen to them like they're important or geniuses, when other people can never get heard, maybe people should question the priorities of this system" is not censorship.
I think remainers and Labour should try and get Jenkyns on the TV as much as possible.
The worst thing I’ve ever done in my life is to help Andrea Jenkyns win Morley and Outwood in 2015.
In my defence
1) She didn’t appear like a loon then she was positively Cameroon.
2) It was to help my betting position
3) I so wanted to do a ‘Balls deep in trouble’ headline on election night.
Fair play to Ed Balls though, he's built himself an impressive media profile and comes across pretty likeable nowadays His Trump America documentary was a decent watch.
Losing in 2015 was probably the greatest thing to happen in his career.
On another note, having suffered 15 minutes of Question Time last night and then watched an old episode from the 80s, I really hope whoever takes over from Dimbleby can somehow bring the programme back to what it used to be. I don't hold out much hope though.
Put it this way there’s more chance of me campaigning for Mark Reckless than there is of me campaigning for Andrea Jenkyns.
She's a tool. Bridgen is a tool. Jackson is a tool.
But there are gradations of tools. Lumping all Brexiteers, or the ERG, all into one pile is not doing anybody any favours.
Mogg is actually a very articulate operator. Certainly not my cup of tea politically, but I bet he persuades a lot of people because he's a) articulate and on top of his brief, and b) very willing to speak in a polite way to any camera thrust in his face.
Boris and Gove certainly aren't loons. Boris, in my view, is a great ideas man but also a greatly conflicted politician (I'm still not sure he's sure about Brexit).
Davis is an enigma. I've never been able to work him out.
IDS is odd. He can appear very right wing on some issues and surprisingly in-touch with the poor on others. But I'd say, on balance, it's unfair to call him a loon.
Jenkin - persuasive, polite, principled... appears to have a dark side but certainly not a tool in the Jenkyns mode.
On the ot I actually liked the Brexit referendum because it tipped politicians up out of their comfort zones. But two years on it appears to have brought the worst out of some people.
Put it this way there’s more chance of me campaigning for Mark Reckless than there is of me campaigning for Andrea Jenkyns.
She's a tool. Bridgen is a
Mogg is actually a very articulate operator. Certainly not my cup of tea politic
Boris and Gove certainly aren't loons. Boris, in my view, is a great ideas man but also a greatly conflicted politician (I'm still not sure he's sure about Brexit).
Davis is an enigma. I've never been able to work him out.
IDS is odd. He can appear very right wing on some issues and surprisingly in-touch with the poor on others. But I'd say, on balance, it's unfair to call him a loon.
Jenkin - persuasive, polite, principled... appears to have a dark side but certainly not a tool in the Jenkyns mode.
On the other side we have Adonis, who until Brexit was well-respected on all sides but has turned into a mirror-loon. Intransigent and prickly and quick to block anyone who disagrees with him.
I actually liked the Brexit referendum because it tipped politicians up out of their comfort zones. But two years on it appears to have brought the worst out of some people.
Eh, I think they're all loons.
Then again I think that campaigning for Cameron so that he can deliver his referendum and then whining endlessly when you don't like the result makes you a loon too.
The most important question in elections is ‘who do I vote for to kick out the government’. If there isn’t a clear answer to that question you have to wonder how democratic your system is. With 5 years of coalition, Germany has muddied that question.
That question as applied to the EU is one of the reasons I nearly voted Leave. Realising it would be a certain way of getting rid of Cameron was one of the reasons I didn’t.
I trust you are enjoying half term. I can't believe Staffs have left it so bloody late this year.
On your substantive point, I was never enthused by Cameron. I eventually concluded that for what were even at best marginal political gains, Leaving wasn't worth the massive economic upheaval.
I have seen nothing to make me think I made the wrong judgement. Equally, I have seen nothing that justifies repeated attempts to overturn the result.
Fascinating stuff. The point about the Greens and the AfD is very important in my view. Here in the UK we are obsessed by the rise of the far-right to such an extent that we tend not to see the bigger picture, which is that in most countries in the old EU, at least, the far right is utterly rejected by most people. Figures like Wilders and Le Pen, and parties like the AfD and the Sweden Democrats, get huge amounts of attention, even though they are likely never to get close to power. Meanwhile, parties like the Greens - which could find themselves in government - quietly get on with building their electoral bases. It's almost as if the Brits want to believe that the Nazis are alive and well and about to take charge again on the other side of the Channel.
Down in Spain - as in Portugal - it is actually the left which is in the ascendant. The latest opinion polling has PSOE and Podemos combined on close to 50% of the vote, which is 10 points higher than PP and Cs combined. That is a major change over the course of this year. The Catalan separatists, meanwhile, are falling out among themselves. Interesting times.
I found your post on spanish polls really interesting. I thought earlier this year the PSOE was heading down the same route as the socialists in France, but that summer revival is impressive. It shows there can be life in some of the old dogs.
PSOE has regained a lot of support just by being in government. The party is relevant again and so many who had flirted with Podemos and some who had gone over to Cs are basically coming home. PSOE has also been massively helped by the existential crisis that PP now finds itself in - and Cs track to the right.
I think if we ever did get PR in the UK, Spain is the country we would most resemble in terms of party breakdown: a left, a centre left, a centre right and a right party, with nationalists making up most of the rest.
The difference between En Marche and Citizens is En Marche are seen as liberal centre left and therefore still squeeze the French Socialist Party while Citizens are seen as liberal centre right and therefore are less of a threat to the PSOE
I think remainers and Labour should try and get Jenkyns on the TV as much as possible.
The worst thing I’ve ever done in my life is to help Andrea Jenkyns win Morley and Outwood in 2015.
In my defence
1) She didn’t appear like a loon then she was positively Cameroon.
2) It was to help my betting position
3) I so wanted to do a ‘Balls deep in trouble’ headline on election night.
Fair play to Ed Balls though, he's built himself an impressive media profile and comes across pretty likeable nowadays His Trump America documentary was a decent watch.
Losing in 2015 was probably the greatest thing to happen in his career.
On another note, having suffered 15 minutes of Question Time last night and then watched an old episode from the 80s, I really hope whoever takes over from Dimbleby can somehow bring the programme back to what it used to be. I don't hold out much hope though.
In the UK, at least, there is no such thing as "free speech": speech is regulated and some speech is indeed criminal.
ly? Holocaust denial, "race realism" or 9/11 "truthers" come to mind.
4) The idea that students hate "free speech" or universities are "intolerant" is increasingly annoying. Universities host speakers all the time, and indeed pay some speakers for the privilege. Students, therefore, are funding speakers. If some customers (students) dislike where their money is going when they are presented with the product (a speaker), surely they have a right to protest this? Indeed, because of the elitism and cronyism in the upper echelons of academia and politics, many speakers come from a background and perspective many students have no interest in and / or need no further platform.
5) This is the big one. Free speech is all well and good, but what some speakers are demanding is access to a stage. I can say whatever nonsense I like; doesn't mean anyone has to listen or care. The difference is when the BBC, or a university or a radio station give someone a platform to say stuff that comes with responsibility. You need to justify why so and so gets to speak while whats his name doesn't. Take auntie Beeb and climate change denial. It is obviously unnecessary, unjustified and downright irresponsible to give climate change deniers an equal platform when covering climate change news. It is good the Beeb have finally taken this on board; but people cry censorship. Many institutions lean rightward (yes, even universities), and therefore what the institution considers acceptable can easily be out of step massively with faculty and students.
The day the Daily Mail gets shut down by the government because of the bile it spews, then I'll accept free speech censorship may have gone too far. People saying "now wait a minute, why do these people in power who keep getting things wrong still get to swan around and have everyone listen to them like they're important or geniuses, when other people can never get heard, maybe people should question the priorities of this system" is not censorship.
Nobody is entitled to a platform. But, if a student society wishes to give a platform to a speaker, they should not be prevented from doing so. There is nothing new in this. When I was a student, Conservative politicians were routinely disrupted by left wing activists.
Unfortunately the rules Hartford comes up with are impossible to achieve in a political arena, so really the thrust of the article should be that it would be useful if it were possible to run Brexit like a large mega construction project, but politics precludes this - not quite so snappy.
One day economists, like software engineers, will have to go through the painful process of realising they are not a branch of physics or production engineering. "
Good post. Knowledge is acquired during the process of creation. Specifying a software system formally is at least as hard as implementing it and just as error prone and then you have to translate from the model to the implementation. A physical system is expensive to modify so formal design and specification is necessary - but it is wise to assume errors will be made and corrections will be required.
I have the impression that the Sydney Opera House was a monumental pig in a poke, with miscalculations and bad personal relations from all sides, requiring major redesign in order to stand up, and not meeting the client brief, a budget overrun of Gordon Brown magnitude, and a flounce of historic proportions from the architect.
In the 2000s it would have been a Zaha Hadid project, surely?
What did Arne Jacobsen have to do with it? Isn't his most famous design a chair :-D ? (Plus some rather good smallish commissions, and Copenhagen's version of the Sydney OH, which was less successful.)
(Did you mean Utzon, or is my memory failing?)
The SOH is rather iconic from the outside, but not up to much on the inside, which is where an Opera would be. I went to a show there about 15 years ago, a good show, but not a great venue inside. The acoustics are famously poor:
I think remainers and Labour should try and get Jenkyns on the TV as much as possible.
The worst thing I’ve ever done in my life is to help Andrea Jenkyns win Morley and Outwood in 2015.
In my defence
1) She didn’t appear like a loon then she was positively Cameroon.
2) It was to help my betting position
3) I so wanted to do a ‘Balls deep in trouble’ headline on election night.
Fair play to Ed Balls though, he's built himself an impressive media profile and comes across pretty likeable nowadays His Trump America documentary was a decent watch.
Losing in 2015 was probably the greatest thing to happen in his career.
On another note, having suffered 15 minutes of Question Time last night and then watched an old episode from the 80s, I really hope whoever takes over from Dimbleby can somehow bring the programme back to what it used to be. I don't hold out much hope though.
Andrew Neil would be ideal
Whoever hosts it, Question Time is finished as a serious forum because very few front line politicians will appear these days. It is competing with too many other formats and outlets. Politicians these days are less interested in engagement and changing-minds - their main goal is to shore up their bases.
Nice Article. As a brit living in Berlin I can confirm much of what here is written. A couple of things have been over exggerated, such as the east/west problem (Duisburg in the west has very similar problems to Dresden in the east). Angela Merkel has not fallen from grace, but there is a strong sense that she is in her last few years as chancellor and in 2 and a half years the election campaign will be steered by another Spitzenkandidat.
But what moved me to log in an comment, is something that Alanbrooke has only indirectly mentioned regarding the SPD. The SPD is really caught between a rock and a hard place. At a national level they have been been in govenment 9 out of the last 13 years. In government with Merkel who is on the left of her party. After the election last year, the SPD really did not want to form another Große Koalition, but had they not, there would have had to be another election resulting in an almost certain bigger AfD vote share with out soving the problem how to form a government.
Coalitions are accepted in Germany but eventually voters start to think a vote for the SPD is a half vote for CDU/CSU. Like the LibDems between 2010 and 2015 the SPD is not given enough credit for preventing the CDU/CSU from implementing right-wing policies, and for implementing many social policies. In the mean time the Green Party is becoming even more credible while remaing clearly to the left, whereas now the SPD are seen as a centre party. In the Bavarian election the drop in SPD vote was similar to the increase in the Green Vote, and the Non-CSU direct candidates are now all Green (and all in Munich).
From a purely strategic point of view the SPD should leve the GroKo as soon as possible, while promising not to bring down Merkels government. This will allow them to openly criticise the CDU/CSU policies. But that will never happen as their worry is that the sensible german electorate will not tolerate the SPD abandoning the concept of a strong government.
Very sensible article (ie I agree with it) I the Telegraph today by Ryan Bourne. Basically May should never have claimed the end of austerity. It framed the argument on Labour’s terms and the Tories will never be able to out promise them. If more spending is thought necessary it should have been characterised as a pro growth policy post Brexit.
But the underlying reality is we have seriously raised debt levels and huge demographic pressures so no government has money to burn. It’s dishonest to even suggest otherwise.
In the UK, at least, there is no such thing as "free speech": speech is regulated and some speech is indeed criminal.
As for the general "snowflakes can't take argumentation" thing, a few points:
1) Many people, especially online, do not have discussions in good faith. If "leftist" see someone spout right wing talking points and don't engage, blame the hordes of right wing trolls who make it impossible to tell sincere discussion apart from trolling.
2) As has been mentioned, this is not a left wing only issue. Try and get a thoughtful discussion about racial equality, gender equality or Brexit and many on the right refuse to have conversations, and instead just go straight to denials.
3) Do we really need to hear everyone's viewpoint equally? Holocaust denial, "race realism" or 9/11 "truthers" come to mind.
4) The idea that students hate "free speech" or universities are "intolerant" is increasingly annoying. Universities host speakers all the time, and indeed pay some speakers for the privilege. Students, therefore, are funding speakers. If some customers (students) dislike where their money is going when they are presented with the product (a speaker), surely they have a right to protest this? Indeed, because of the elitism and cronyism in the upper echelons of academia and politics, many speakers come from a background and perspective many students have no interest in and / or need no further platform.
5) This is the big one. Free speech is all well and good, but what some speakers are demanding is access to a stage. I can say whatever nonsense I like; doesn't mean anyone has to listen or care. The difference is when the BBC, or a university or a radio station give someone a platform to say stuff that comes with responsibility. You need to justify why so and so gets to speak while whats his name doesn't. Take auntie Beeb and climate change denial. It is obviously unnecessary, unjustified and downright irresponsible to give climate change deniers an equal platform when covering climate change news. It is good the Beeb have finally taken this on board; but people cry censorship. Many institutions lean rightward (yes, even universities), and therefore what the institution considers acceptable can easily be out of step massively with faculty and students.
The day the Daily Mail gets shut down by the government because of the bile it spews, then I'll accept free speech censorship may have gone too far. People saying "now wait a minute, why do these people in power who keep getting things wrong still get to swan around and have everyone listen to them like they're important or geniuses, when other people can never get heard, maybe people should question the priorities of this system" is not censorship.
I think remainers and Labour should try and get Jenkyns on the TV as much as possible.
The worst thing I’ve ever done in my life is to help Andrea Jenkyns win Morley and Outwood in 2015.
In my defence
1) She didn’t appear like a loon then she was positively Cameroon.
2) It was to help my betting position
3) I so wanted to do a ‘Balls deep in trouble’ headline on election night.
Fair play to Ed Balls though, he's built himself an impressive media profile and comes across pretty likeable nowadays His Trump America documentary was a decent watch.
Losing in 2015 was probably the greatest thing to happen in his career.
On another note, having suffered 15 minutes of Question Time last night and then watched an old episode from the 80s, I really hope whoever takes over from Dimbleby can somehow bring the programme back to what it used to be. I don't hold out much hope though.
Andrew Neil would be ideal
Whoever hosts it, Question Time is finished as a serious forum because very few front line politicians will appear these days. It is competing with too many other formats and outlets. Politicians these days are less interested in engagement and changing-minds - their main goal is to shore up their bases.
I think its also an issue with the lack of talent within politics at the moment. Think of the quality of politicians from the 70s and 80s in terms of generating debate and ideas, Benn, Tebbit, Healey, Owen etc. They were all QT regulars.
A week or two ago I posted some tweets from Jews manhandled out of an 'open' Labour meeting. There have been deep concerns about what's happened since Corbyn became leader.
From a purely strategic point of view the SPD should leve the GroKo as soon as possible, while promising not to bring down Merkels government. This will allow them to openly criticise the CDU/CSU policies. But that will never happen as their worry is that the sensible german electorate will not tolerate the SPD abandoning the concept of a strong government.
Which is what the LibDems should have done after about two years of the Coalition.
I think remainers and Labour should try and get Jenkyns on the TV as much as possible.
The worst thing I’ve ever done in my life is to help Andrea Jenkyns win Morley and Outwood in 2015.
In my defence
1) She didn’t appear like a loon then she was positively Cameroon.
2) It was to help my betting position
3) I so wanted to do a ‘Balls deep in trouble’ headline on election night.
Fair play to Ed Balls though, he's built himself an impressive media profile and comes across pretty likeable nowadays His Trump America documentary was a decent watch.
Losing in 2015 was probably the greatest thing to happen in his career.
On another note, having suffered 15 minutes of Question Time last night and then watched an old episode from the 80s, I really hope whoever takes over from Dimbleby can somehow bring the programme back to what it used to be. I don't hold out much hope though.
Andrew Neil would be ideal
Whoever hosts it, Question Time is finished as a serious forum because very few front line politicians will appear these days. It is competing with too many other formats and outlets. Politicians these days are less interested in engagement and changing-minds - their main goal is to shore up their bases.
I think its also an issue with the lack of talent within politics at the moment. Think of the quality of politicians from the 70s and 80s in terms of generating debate and ideas, Benn, Tebbit, Healey, Owen etc. They were all QT regulars.
There are still a few about Cox and Mogg, Cable, Field etc
A week or two ago I posted some tweets from Jews manhandled out of an 'open' Labour meeting. There have been deep concerns about what's happened since Corbyn became leader.
I'm not sure it is beyond belief.
I know. I should no longer be surprised, but I keep finding I am.
Well done Ed Miliband, Beckett and all the rest of them who allowed all this to start.
I think remainers and Labour should try and get Jenkyns on the TV as much as possible.
The worst thing I’ve ever done in my life is to help Andrea Jenkyns win Morley and Outwood in 2015.
In my defence
1) She didn’t appear like a loon then she was positively Cameroon.
2) It was to help my betting position
3) I so wanted to do a ‘Balls deep in trouble’ headline on election night.
Fair play to Ed Balls though, he's built himself an impressive media profile and comes across pretty likeable nowadays His Trump America documentary was a decent watch.
Losing in 2015 was probably the greatest thing to happen in his career.
On another note, having suffered 15 minutes of Question Time last night and then watched an old episode from the 80s, I really hope whoever takes over from Dimbleby can somehow bring the programme back to what it used to be. I don't hold out much hope though.
Andrew Neil would be ideal
Whoever hosts it, Question Time is finished as a serious forum because very few front line politicians will appear these days. It is competing with too many other formats and outlets. Politicians these days are less interested in engagement and changing-minds - their main goal is to shore up their bases.
If that was the case May would be going for No Deal without question as Leavers make up most current Tory voters if not her MPs rather than aiming for a Deal with the EU which most of the country wants even if it requires significant concessions
I think remainers and Labour should try and get Jenkyns on the TV as much as possible.
The worst thing I’ve ever done in my life is to help Andrea Jenkyns win Morley and Outwood in 2015.
In my defence
1) She didn’t appear like a loon then she was positively Cameroon.
2) It was to help my betting position
3) I so wanted to do a ‘Balls deep in trouble’ headline on election night.
Fair play to Ed Balls though, he's built himself an impressive media profile and comes across pretty likeable nowadays His Trump America documentary was a decent watch.
Losing in 2015 was probably the greatest thing to happen in his career.
On another note, having suffered 15 minutes of Question Time last night and then watched an old episode from the 80s, I really hope whoever takes over from Dimbleby can somehow bring the programme back to what it used to be. I don't hold out much hope though.
Andrew Neil would be ideal
Whoever hosts it, Question Time is finished as a serious forum because very few front line politicians will appear these days. It is competing with too many other formats and outlets. Politicians these days are less interested in engagement and changing-minds - their main goal is to shore up their bases.
I think its also an issue with the lack of talent within politics at the moment. Think of the quality of politicians from the 70s and 80s in terms of generating debate and ideas, Benn, Tebbit, Healey, Owen etc. They were all QT regulars.
There are still a few about Cox and Mogg, Cable, Field etc
I think remainers and Labour should try and get Jenkyns on the TV as much as possible.
The worst thing I’ve ever done in my life is to help Andrea Jenkyns win Morley and Outwood in 2015.
In my defence
1) She didn’t appear like a loon then she was positively Cameroon.
2) It was to help my betting position
3) I so wanted to do a ‘Balls deep in trouble’ headline on election night.
Fair play to Ed Balls though, he's built himself an impressive media profile and comes across pretty likeable nowadays His Trump America documentary was a decent watch.
Losing in 2015 was probably the greatest thing to happen in his career.
On another note, having suffered 15 minutes of Question Time last night and then watched an old episode from the 80s, I really hope whoever takes over from Dimbleby can somehow bring the programme back to what it used to be. I don't hold out much hope though.
Andrew Neil would be ideal
Whoever hosts it, Question Time is finished as a serious forum because very few front line politicians will appear these days. It is competing with too many other formats and outlets. Politicians these days are less interested in engagement and changing-minds - their main goal is to shore up their bases.
I think its also an issue with the lack of talent within politics at the moment. Think of the quality of politicians from the 70s and 80s in terms of generating debate and ideas, Benn, Tebbit, Healey, Owen etc. They were all QT regulars.
There are still a few about Cox and Mogg, Cable, Field etc
I think remainers and Labour should try and get Jenkyns on the TV as much as possible.
The worst thing I’ve ever done in my life is to help Andrea Jenkyns win Morley and Outwood in 2015.
In my defence
1) She didn’t appear like a loon then she was positively Cameroon.
2) It was to help my betting position
3) I so wanted to do a ‘Balls deep in trouble’ headline on election night.
Fair play to Ed Balls though, he's built himself an impressive media profile and comes across pretty likeable nowadays His Trump America documentary was a decent watch.
Losing in 2015 was probably the greatest thing to happen in his career.
On another note, having suffered 15 minutes of Question Time last night and then watched an old episode from the 80s, I really hope whoever takes over from Dimbleby can somehow bring the programme back to what it used to be. I don't hold out much hope though.
Andrew Neil would be ideal
Whoever hosts it, Question Time is finished as a serious forum because very few front line politicians will appear these days. It is competing with too many other formats and outlets. Politicians these days are less interested in engagement and changing-minds - their main goal is to shore up their bases.
I think its also an issue with the lack of talent within politics at the moment. Think of the quality of politicians from the 70s and 80s in terms of generating debate and ideas, Benn, Tebbit, Healey, Owen etc. They were all QT regulars.
There are still a few about Cox and Mogg, Cable, Field etc
Fascinating stuff. The point about the Greens and the AfD is very important in my view. Here in the UK we are obsessed by the rise of the far-right to such Channel.
Down in Spain - as in Portugal - it is actually the left which is in the ascendant. The latest opinion polling has PSOE and Podemos combined on close to 50% of the vote, which is 10 points higher than PP and Cs combined. That is a major change over the course of this year. The Catalan separatists, meanwhile, are falling out among themselves. Interesting times.
I found your post on spanish polls really interesting. I thought earlier this year the PSOE was heading down the same route as the socialists in France, but that summer revival is impressive. It shows there can be life in some of the old dogs.
PSOE has regained a lot of support just by being in government. The party is relevant again and so many who had flirted with Podemos and some who had gone over to Cs are basically coming home. PSOE has also been massively helped by the existential crisis that PP now finds itself in - and Cs track to the right.
I think if we ever did get PR in the UK, Spain is the country we would most resemble in terms of party breakdown: a left, a centre left, a centre right and a right party, with nationalists making up most of the rest.
The difference between En Marche and Citizens is En Marche are seen as liberal centre left and therefore still squeeze the French Socialist Party while Citizens are seen as liberal centre right and therefore are less of a threat to the PSOE
Cs started off in Catalonia as an anti-nationalist, anti-corruption, centre-left, non-Socialist party and kept that position until relatively recently. It's really only in the last couple of years that it has tacked right. though it still sits with the LibDems in the Liberal bloc in the European Parliament. Initially that did not cause any problems, but ever since it voted with PP against the creation of the PSOE government it has lost votes to the left but gained some from the right. PP is finding itself squeezed by Cs and by Vox, the small but very vocal far right party. It's possible that Spain may buck Europe's Pasokification trend by seeing the established right-wing party collapse (PP), rather than the established left-wing one (PSOE).
Very sensible article (ie I agree with it) I the Telegraph today by Ryan Bourne. Basically May should never have claimed the end of austerity. It framed the argument on Labour’s terms and the Tories will never be able to out promise them. If more spending is thought necessary it should have been characterised as a pro growth policy post Brexit.
But the underlying reality is we have seriously raised debt levels and huge demographic pressures so no government has money to burn. It’s dishonest to even suggest otherwise.
Harold Macmillan happily ran an economy with about 2x the debt to GDP ratio that we have had in the late 2000s/2010s.
'Demographic limits' are baloney. Almost alone among developed countries, the UK has privatised the 'earnings-related' element of old age pensions. Paying out the state pension costs not vastly more than the cost of the tax relief on high-income private pensions. The latter is £50-55 billion per year.
Very sensible article (ie I agree with it) I the Telegraph today by Ryan Bourne. Basically May should never have claimed the end of austerity. It framed the argument on Labour’s terms and the Tories will never be able to out promise them. If more spending is thought necessary it should have been characterised as a pro growth policy post Brexit.
But the underlying reality is we have seriously raised debt levels and huge demographic pressures so no government has money to burn. It’s dishonest to even suggest otherwise.
Harold Macmillan happily ran an economy with about 2x the debt to GDP ratio that we have had in the late 2000s/2010s.
'Demographic limits' are baloney. Almost alone among developed countries, the UK has privatised the 'earnings-related' element of old age pensions. Paying out the state pension costs not vastly more than the cost of the tax relief on high-income private pensions. The latter is £50-55 billion per year.
There was much lower private (individual and corporate) debt in the 1950s though.
Very sensible article (ie I agree with it) I the Telegraph today by Ryan Bourne. Basically May should never have claimed the end of austerity. It framed the argument on Labour’s terms and the Tories will never be able to out promise them. If more spending is thought necessary it should have been characterised as a pro growth policy post Brexit.
But the underlying reality is we have seriously raised debt levels and huge demographic pressures so no government has money to burn. It’s dishonest to even suggest otherwise.
Harold Macmillan happily ran an economy with about 2x the debt to GDP ratio that we have had in the late 2000s/2010s.
'Demographic limits' are baloney. Almost alone among developed countries, the UK has privatised the 'earnings-related' element of old age pensions. Paying out the state pension costs not vastly more than the cost of the tax relief on high-income private pensions. The latter is £50-55 billion per year.
There was much lower private (individual and corporate) debt in the 1950s though.
And there was a rather pressing reason for incurring it in the first place.
Colin Appleby: "I’ve been told “it’s a pity all of your lot weren’t gassed”."
This is in the Labour party. It is beyond belief.
As TSE said, "What is it about Jews that drives some people mad?"
There are a minority of people who are mad in a wide variety of ways. Given the rapid and massive increase in Labour's membership it isn't surprising that some of them became members.
What is surprising, and infuriating, is that Labour haven't managed to throw these people out.
I think remainers and Labour should try and get Jenkyns on the TV as much as possible.
The worst thing I’ve ever done in my life is to help Andrea Jenkyns win Morley and Outwood in 2015.
In my defence
1) She didn’t appear like a loon then she was positively Cameroon.
2) It was to help my betting position
3) I so wanted to do a ‘Balls deep in trouble’ headline on election night.
Fair play to Ed Balls though, he's built himself an impressive media profile and comes across pretty likeable nowadays His Trump America documentary was a decent watch.
Losing in 2015 was probably the greatest thing to happen in his career.
On another note, having suffered 15 minutes of Question Time last night and then watched an old episode from the 80s, I really hope whoever takes over from Dimbleby can somehow bring the programme back to what it used to be. I don't hold out much hope though.
Andrew Neil would be ideal
Whoever hosts it, Question Time is finished as a serious forum because very few front line politicians will appear these days. It is competing with too many other formats and outlets. Politicians these days are less interested in engagement and changing-minds - their main goal is to shore up their bases.
I think its also an issue with the lack of talent within politics at the moment. Think of the quality of politicians from the 70s and 80s in terms of generating debate and ideas, Benn, Tebbit, Healey, Owen etc. They were all QT regulars.
There are still a few about Cox and Mogg, Cable, Field etc
I think remainers and Labour should try and get Jenkyns on the TV as much as possible.
The worst thing I’ve ever done in my life is to help Andrea Jenkyns win Morley and Outwood in 2015.
In my defence
1) She didn’t appear like a loon then she was positively Cameroon.
2) It was to help my betting position
3) I so wanted to do a ‘Balls deep in trouble’ headline on election night.
Fair play to Ed Balls though, he's built himself an impressive media profile and comes across pretty likeable nowadays His Trump America documentary was a decent watch.
Losing in 2015 was probably the greatest thing to happen in his career.
On another note, having suffered 15 minutes of Question Time last night and then watched an old episode from the 80s, I really hope whoever takes over from Dimbleby can somehow bring the programme back to what it used to be. I don't hold out much hope though.
Andrew Neil would be ideal
Whoever hosts it, Question Time is finished as a serious forum because very few front line politicians will appear these days. It is competing with too many other formats and outlets. Politicians these days are less interested in engagement and changing-minds - their main goal is to shore up their bases.
If that was the case May would be going for No Deal without question as Leavers make up most current Tory voters if not her MPs rather than aiming for a Deal with the EU which most of the country wants even if it requires significant concessions
Electorally, the Tories need to keep the base on side for 2022, not 2019 (providing they can keep the DUP on board and not massively piss off too many backbenchers). No Deal, and the trouble it would cause, is unlikely to be forgiven by an electorate if it was thought to be the government's aim, whatever they might think of the concept now.
Colin Appleby: "I’ve been told “it’s a pity all of your lot weren’t gassed”."
This is in the Labour party. It is beyond belief.
As TSE said, "What is it about Jews that drives some people mad?"
There are a minority of people who are mad in a wide variety of ways. Given the rapid and massive increase in Labour's membership it isn't surprising that some of them became members.
What is surprising, and infuriating, is that Labour haven't managed to throw these people out.
Why should they throw out people who hold the same views as the party leader?
Fascinating stuff. The point about the Greens and the AfD is very important in my view. Here in the UK we are obsessed by the rise of the far-right to such Channel.
Down in Spain - as in Portugal - it is actually the left which is in the ascendant. The latest opinion polling has PSOE and Podemos combined on close to 50% of the vote, which is 10 points higher than PP and Cs combined. That is a major change over the course of this year. The Catalan separatists, meanwhile, are falling out among themselves. Interesting times.
I found your post on spanish polls really interesting. I thought earlier this year the PSOE was heading down the same route as the socialists in France, but that summer revival is impressive. It shows there can be life in some of the old dogs.
PSOE has regained a lot of support just by being in government. The party is relevant again and so many who had flirted with Podemos and some who had gone over to Cs are basically coming home. PSOE has also been massively helped by the existential crisis that PP now finds itself in - and Cs track to the right.
I think if we ever did get PR in the UK, Spain is the country we would most resemble in terms of party breakdown: a left, a centre left, a centre right and a right party, with nationalists making up most of the rest.
The difference between En Marche and Citizens is En Marche are seen as liberal centre left and therefore still squeeze the French Socialist Party while Citizens are seen as liberal centre right and therefore are less of a threat to the PSOE
Cs started off in Catalonia as an anti-nationalist, anti-corruption, centre-left, non-Socialist party and kept that position until relatively recently. It's really only in the last couple of years that it has tacked right. though it still sits with the LibDems in the Liberal bloc in the European Parliament. Initially that did not cause any problems, but ever since it voted with PP against the creation of the PSOE government it has lost votes to the left but gained some from the right. PP is finding itself squeezed by Cs and by Vox, the small but very vocal far right party. It's possible that Spain may buck Europe's Pasokification trend by seeing the established right-wing party collapse (PP), rather than the established left-wing one (PSOE).
Citizens are really Cleggite.
PP are still second though Citizens are close behind. Les Republicains and Forza Italia are both in a worse position than the PP having been overtaken on the right by Front National and Lega Nord respectively
Very sensible article (ie I agree with it) I the Telegraph today by Ryan Bourne. Basically May should never have claimed the end of austerity. It framed the argument on Labour’s terms and the Tories will never be able to out promise them. If more spending is thought necessary it should have been characterised as a pro growth policy post Brexit.
But the underlying reality is we have seriously raised debt levels and huge demographic pressures so no government has money to burn. It’s dishonest to even suggest otherwise.
Harold Macmillan happily ran an economy with about 2x the debt to GDP ratio that we have had in the late 2000s/2010s.
'Demographic limits' are baloney. Almost alone among developed countries, the UK has privatised the 'earnings-related' element of old age pensions. Paying out the state pension costs not vastly more than the cost of the tax relief on high-income private pensions. The latter is £50-55 billion per year.
There was much lower private (individual and corporate) debt in the 1950s though.
And there was a rather pressing reason for incurring it in the first place.
Also any wartime deficit created is not 'structural' to the economy in peacetime.
Fascinating stuff. The point about the Greens and the AfD is very important in my view. Here in the UK we are obsessed by the rise of the far-right to such Channel.
Down in Spain - as in Portugal - it is actually the left which is in the ascendant. The latest opinion polling has PSOE and Podemos combined on close to 50% of the vote, which is 10 points higher than PP and Cs combined. That is a major change over the course of this year. The Catalan separatists, meanwhile, are falling out among themselves. Interesting times.
I found your post on spanish polls really interesting. I thought earlier this year the PSOE was heading down the same route as the socialists in France, but that summer revival is impressive. It shows there can be life in some of the old dogs.
PSOE has regained a lot of support just by being in government. The party is relevant again and so many who had flirted with Podemos and some who had gone over to Cs are basically coming home. PSOE has also been massively helped by the existential crisis that PP now finds itself in - and Cs track to the right.
I think if we ever did get PR in the UK, Spain is the country we would most resemble in terms of party breakdown: a left, a centre left, a centre right and a right party, with nationalists making up most of the rest.
The difference between En Marche and Citizens is En Marche are seen as liberal centre left and therefore still squeeze the French Socialist Party while Citizens are seen as liberal centre right and therefore are less of a threat to the PSOE
Cs started off in Catalonia as an anti-nationalist, anti-corruption, centre-left, non-Socialist party and kept that position until relatively recently. It's really only in the last couple of years that it has tacked right. though it still sits with the LibDems in the Liberal bloc in the European Parliament. Initially that did not cause any problems, but ever since it voted with PP against the creation of the PSOE government it has lost votes to the left but gained some from the right. PP is finding itself squeezed by Cs and by Vox, the small but very vocal far right party. It's possible that Spain may buck Europe's Pasokification trend by seeing the established right-wing party collapse (PP), rather than the established left-wing one (PSOE).
PP are not in a good place but a cursory glance at the last 6 or so polls in Spain does not suggest they are quite out of the picture yet. Always dangerous to draw too many conclusions from a single poll.
Colin Appleby: "I’ve been told “it’s a pity all of your lot weren’t gassed”."
This is in the Labour party. It is beyond belief.
As TSE said, "What is it about Jews that drives some people mad?"
There are a minority of people who are mad in a wide variety of ways. Given the rapid and massive increase in Labour's membership it isn't surprising that some of them became members.
What is surprising, and infuriating, is that Labour haven't managed to throw these people out.
Why should they throw out people who hold the same views as the party leader?
Yes, people should stop thinking of Labour's anti-semitism as a bug. It's a feature.
Nobody is entitled to a platform. But, if a student society wishes to give a platform to a speaker, they should not be prevented from doing so. There is nothing new in this. When I was a student, Conservative politicians were routinely disrupted by left wing activists.
Sure, and to a degree that sums up to conflicts of freedoms; if one group says "we want so and so" and another group says "but so and so is bad", who does institutional power protect?
Say I wanted Varoufakis to speak at an event; he's a lefty of some note. Now say some classical liberal / conservative types decided to stand outside the hall with signs along the lines of "socialists will turn us into Venezuela" and you get 20 odd students protesting. That's fine, I guess. But say a donor to the university, who is a big investor in "capitalist things", says "hey, I don't want this socialist speaking at a uni I donate to, shift him or lose my money". I would suggest one group who dislike the speaker is more likely to effect change than the other.
Similarly, say a group of students want to invite a prominent white nationalist to speak, like the "The Golden One" (white nationalist youtuber). Is it censorship to prevent that? And if it is, is that bad? Because even if by allowing him to speak you're not saying you endorse him, you're allowing him a platform he has no innate right to. Even if a student society is the one to organise the speaker, the university and community as a whole have a responsibility.
Depending on people's sensibilities I cannot recommend enough the videos of Contrapoints, a lefty youtuber has a video on "Does the Left Hate Free Speech". I dunno how people here feel about youtubers (I know it's a medium mostly aimed at younger people), but the discourse can sometimes be interesting, if also frustrating....
I did originally post a link, but it was auto imbedded, and I felt that was a bit over the top....
At first I thought you were heading down the PB route of saying Merkel and Germany were going to Hell in a handcart because Merkel let in too many immigrants and (if we're lucky) they'd take the EU down with them. Fortunately the second half of your excellent piece veered in a different direction.
The Germans due to their past have a different attitude towards immigrants than we do. It wasn't just Merkel who woke up one morning and decided to invite in a lot of refugees. It was felt by most Germans (certainly in the old West) to be the right thing to do. Someting very important to most Germans.
So why did Germans not feel it very important to let in Poles and other East Europeans to come and live and work in Germany? If there was one part of the world to which Germany owed a moral obligation it was Eastern Europe. Their guilt and sense of honour and of wanting to do the right thing seems rather limited and self-interested, frankly.
I'd cut them a little more slack: don't forget Germany was struggling with the integration of the DDR at the time.
Colin Appleby: "I’ve been told “it’s a pity all of your lot weren’t gassed”."
This is in the Labour party. It is beyond belief.
As TSE said, "What is it about Jews that drives some people mad?"
There are a minority of people who are mad in a wide variety of ways. Given the rapid and massive increase in Labour's membership it isn't surprising that some of them became members.
What is surprising, and infuriating, is that Labour haven't managed to throw these people out.
Why should they throw out people who hold the same views as the party leader?
I don't believe that Jeremy Corbyn is an anti-Semite.
I think remainers and Labour should try and get Jenkyns on the TV as much as possible.
The worst thing I’ve ever done in my life is to help Andrea Jenkyns win Morley and Outwood in 2015.
In my defence
1) She didn’t appear like a loon then she was positively Cameroon.
2) It was to help my betting position
3) I so wanted to do a ‘Balls deep in trouble’ headline on election night.
Fair play to Ed Balls though, he's built himself an impressive media profile and comes across pretty likeable nowadays His Trump America documentary was a decent watch.
Losing in 2015 was probably the greatest thing to happen in his career.
On another note, having suffered 15 minutes of Question Time last night and then watched an old episode from the 80s, I really hope whoever takes over from Dimbleby can somehow bring the programme back to what it used to be. I don't hold out much hope though.
Andrew Neil would be ideal
Whoever hosts it, Question Time is finished as a serious forum because very few front line politicians will appear these days. It is competing with too many other formats and outlets. Politicians these days are less interested in engagement and changing-minds - their main goal is to shore up their bases.
If that was the case May would be going for No Deal without question as Leavers make up most current Tory voters if not her MPs rather than aiming for a Deal with the EU which most of the country wants even if it requires significant concessions
Electorally, the Tories need to keep the base on side for 2022, not 2019 (providing they can keep the DUP on board and not massively piss off too many backbenchers). No Deal, and the trouble it would cause, is unlikely to be forgiven by an electorate if it was thought to be the government's aim, whatever they might think of the concept now.
Very sensible article (ie I agree with it) I the Telegraph today by Ryan Bourne. Basically May should never have claimed the end of austerity. It framed the argument on Labour’s terms and the Tories will never be able to out promise them. If more spending is thought necessary it should have been characterised as a pro growth policy post Brexit.
But the underlying reality is we have seriously raised debt levels and huge demographic pressures so no government has money to burn. It’s dishonest to even suggest otherwise.
Harold Macmillan happily ran an economy with about 2x the debt to GDP ratio that we have had in the late 2000s/2010s.
'Demographic limits' are baloney. Almost alone among developed countries, the UK has privatised the 'earnings-related' element of old age pensions. Paying out the state pension costs not vastly more than the cost of the tax relief on high-income private pensions. The latter is £50-55 billion per year.
There was much lower private (individual and corporate) debt in the 1950s though.
And there was a rather pressing reason for incurring it in the first place.
Also any wartime deficit created is not 'structural' to the economy in peacetime.
At first I thought you were heading down the PB route of saying Merkel and Germany were going to Hell in a handcart because Merkel let in too many immigrants and (if we're lucky) they'd take the EU down with them. Fortunately the second half of your excellent piece veered in a different direction.
The Germans due to their past have a different attitude towards immigrants than we do. It wasn't just Merkel who woke up one morning and decided to invite in a lot of refugees. It was felt by most Germans (certainly in the old West) to be the right thing to do. Someting very important to most Germans.
So why did Germans not feel it very important to let in Poles and other East Europeans to come and live and work in Germany? If there was one part of the world to which Germany owed a moral obligation it was Eastern Europe. Their guilt and sense of honour and of wanting to do the right thing seems rather limited and self-interested, frankly.
I'd cut them a little more slack: don't forget Germany was struggling with the integration of the DDR at the time.
bollocks to that, were still struggling to integrate Scotland
Colin Appleby: "I’ve been told “it’s a pity all of your lot weren’t gassed”."
This is in the Labour party. It is beyond belief.
As TSE said, "What is it about Jews that drives some people mad?"
There are a minority of people who are mad in a wide variety of ways. Given the rapid and massive increase in Labour's membership it isn't surprising that some of them became members.
What is surprising, and infuriating, is that Labour haven't managed to throw these people out.
Why should they throw out people who hold the same views as the party leader?
I don't believe that Jeremy Corbyn is an anti-Semite.
Good for you. Others do.
FWIW, I don't believe he's an active antisemite but in terms of the company he chooses to keep and the arguments he chooses not to make, I do think that he ranks antisemitism far below other forms of racism and combating it as subsidiary to many other priorities - and that amounts to being a passive antisemite.
I think remainers and Labour should try and get Jenkyns on the TV as much as possible.
The worst thing I’ve ever done in my life is to help Andrea Jenkyns win Morley and Outwood in 2015.
In my defence
1) She didn’t appear like a loon then she was positively Cameroon.
2) It was to help my betting position
3) I so wanted to do a ‘Balls deep in trouble’ headline on election night.
Fair play to Ed Balls though, he's built himself an impressive media profile and comes across pretty likeable nowadays His Trump America documentary was a decent watch.
Losing in 2015 was probably the greatest thing to happen in his career.
On another note, having suffered 15 minutes of Question Time last night and then watched an old episode from the 80s, I really hope whoever takes over from Dimbleby can somehow bring the programme back to what it used to be. I don't hold out much hope though.
Andrew Neil would be ideal
Whoever hosts it, Question Time is finished as a serious forum because very few front line politicians will appear these days. It is competing with too many other formats and outlets. Politicians these days are less interested in engagement and changing-minds - their main goal is to shore up their bases.
I think its also an issue with the lack of talent within politics at the moment. Think of the quality of politicians from the 70s and 80s in terms of generating debate and ideas, Benn, Tebbit, Healey, Owen etc. They were all QT regulars.
There are still a few about Cox and Mogg, Cable, Field etc
Very sensible article (ie I agree with it) I the Telegraph today by Ryan Bourne. Basically May should never have claimed the end of austerity. It framed the argument on Labour’s terms and the Tories will never be able to out promise them. If more spending is thought necessary it should have been characterised as a pro growth policy post Brexit.
But the underlying reality is we have seriously raised debt levels and huge demographic pressures so no government has money to burn. It’s dishonest to even suggest otherwise.
Harold Macmillan happily ran an economy with about 2x the debt to GDP ratio that we have had in the late 2000s/2010s.
'Demographic limits' are baloney. Almost alone among developed countries, the UK has privatised the 'earnings-related' element of old age pensions. Paying out the state pension costs not vastly more than the cost of the tax relief on high-income private pensions. The latter is £50-55 billion per year.
And the cost of their health care,social care, the balance between those paying in and those taking out? None of that concerns you?
Very sensible article (ie I agree with it) I the Telegraph today by Ryan Bourne. Basically May should never have claimed the end of austerity. It framed the argument on Labour’s terms and the Tories will never be able to out promise them. If more spending is thought necessary it should have been characterised as a pro growth policy post Brexit.
But the underlying reality is we have seriously raised debt levels and huge demographic pressures so no government has money to burn. It’s dishonest to even suggest otherwise.
Harold Macmillan happily ran an economy with about 2x the debt to GDP ratio that we have had in the late 2000s/2010s.
'Demographic limits' are baloney. Almost alone among developed countries, the UK has privatised the 'earnings-related' element of old age pensions. Paying out the state pension costs not vastly more than the cost of the tax relief on high-income private pensions. The latter is £50-55 billion per year.
There was much lower private (individual and corporate) debt in the 1950s though.
And there was a rather pressing reason for incurring it in the first place.
Also any wartime deficit created is not 'structural' to the economy in peacetime.
The truth is that we defaulted on most of our war time debt by the use of inflation in the days of fixed returns. Hence the popularity of index linked bonds today.
Very sensible article (ie I agree with it) I the Telegraph today by Ryan Bourne. Basically May should never have claimed the end of austerity. It framed the argument on Labour’s terms and the Tories will never be able to out promise them. If more spending is thought necessary it should have been characterised as a pro growth policy post Brexit.
But the underlying reality is we have seriously raised debt levels and huge demographic pressures so no government has money to burn. It’s dishonest to even suggest otherwise.
Harold Macmillan happily ran an economy with about 2x the debt to GDP ratio that we have had in the late 2000s/2010s.
'Demographic limits' are baloney. Almost alone among developed countries, the UK has privatised the 'earnings-related' element of old age pensions. Paying out the state pension costs not vastly more than the cost of the tax relief on high-income private pensions. The latter is £50-55 billion per year.
Where is that figure from? My understanding is that the total amount of tax relief on pension contributions is about £25 billion per year, and surely a good part of that is relief at basic rate?
Colin Appleby: "I’ve been told “it’s a pity all of your lot weren’t gassed”."
This is in the Labour party. It is beyond belief.
As TSE said, "What is it about Jews that drives some people mad?"
There are a minority of people who are mad in a wide variety of ways. Given the rapid and massive increase in Labour's membership it isn't surprising that some of them became members.
What is surprising, and infuriating, is that Labour haven't managed to throw these people out.
Why should they throw out people who hold the same views as the party leader?
I don't believe that Jeremy Corbyn is an anti-Semite.
Good for you. Others do.
FWIW, I don't believe he's an active antisemite but in terms of the company he chooses to keep and the arguments he chooses not to make, I do think that he ranks antisemitism far below other forms of racism and combating it as subsidiary to many other priorities - and that amounts to being a passive antisemite.
I can agree with that. I think that an argument over his personal beliefs is a bit pointless, though. We can't get inside his head and unless he makes it obvious with a gas chamber remark of his own it can never be known.
His inability to expel anti-semites from the Labour party - contrary to his stated opinion that they have no place in the party - does mean that he has shown himself unable to implement his policies. If he can't rid the Labour Party of anti-semites he isn't going to be able to nationalise the railways, or any of the other things he wants to change.
Very sensible article (ie I agree with it) I the Telegraph today by Ryan Bourne. Basically May should never have claimed the end of austerity. It framed the argument on Labour’s terms and the Tories will never be able to out promise them. If more spending is thought necessary it should have been characterised as a pro growth policy post Brexit.
But the underlying reality is we have seriously raised debt levels and huge demographic pressures so no government has money to burn. It’s dishonest to even suggest otherwise.
Harold Macmillan happily ran an economy with about 2x the debt to GDP ratio that we have had in the late 2000s/2010s.
'Demographic limits' are baloney. Almost alone among developed countries, the UK has privatised the 'earnings-related' element of old age pensions. Paying out the state pension costs not vastly more than the cost of the tax relief on high-income private pensions. The latter is £50-55 billion per year.
There was much lower private (individual and corporate) debt in the 1950s though.
And there was a rather pressing reason for incurring it in the first place.
Also any wartime deficit created is not 'structural' to the economy in peacetime.
The truth is that we defaulted on most of our war time debt by the use of inflation in the days of fixed returns. Hence the popularity of index linked bonds today.
Not entirely true. The debt-to-GDP ratio had already come down from about 240% to 60% between the peak in the late 1940s and 1970, when inflation began to take off. The high inflation era of the 1970s saw no substantial further drop, though that's not to say that individual holders didn't lose out.
Fascinating stuff. The point about the Greens and the AfD is very important in my view. Here in the UK we are obsessed by the rise of the far-right to such Channel.
Down in Spain - as in Portugal - it is actually the left which is in the ascendant. The latest opinion polling has PSOE and Podemos combined on close to 50% of the vote, which is 10 points higher than PP and Cs combined. That is a major change over the course of this year. The Catalan separatists, meanwhile, are falling out among themselves. Interesting times.
I found your post on spanish polls really interesting. I thought earlier this year the PSOE was heading down the same route as the socialists in France, but that summer revival is impressive. It shows there can be life in some of the old dogs.
PSOE has regained a lot of support just by being in government. The party is relevant again and so many who had flirted with Podemos and some who had gone over to Cs are basically coming home. PSOE has also been massively helped by the existential crisis that PP now finds itself in - and Cs track to the right.
I think if we ever did get PR in the UK, Spain is the country we would most resemble in terms of party breakdown: a left, a centre left, a centre right and a right party, with nationalists making up most of the rest.
The difference between En Marche and Citizens is En Marche are seen as liberal centre left and therefore still squeeze the French Socialist Party while Citizens are seen as liberal centre right and therefore are less of a threat to the PSOE
Cs sone (PSOE).
PP are not in a good place but a cursory glance at the last 6 or so polls in Spain does not suggest they are quite out of the picture yet. Always dangerous to draw too many conclusions from a single poll.
Good article. It is worse then that for SPD. The age splits in Bavaria show them doing best among the 60+. Grune amongst 18-24. Also. Re P Green. Not much has been made of the rights of a couple of well-known bearded businessmen not to be falsely accused Online on no basis whatsoever. What about their rights?
Good article. It is worse then that for SPD. The age splits in Bavaria show them doing best among the 60+. Grune amongst 18-24. Also. Re P Green. Not much has been made of the rights of a couple of well-known bearded businessmen not to be falsely accused Online on no basis whatsoever. What about their rights?
Doing best among the 60-64’s. Of whom does that remind us?
Been thinking about this recently. Given the problems with for those using social care or receiving UC, the Windrushers and others, it strikes that far from being the Nasty Party Theresa, the ‘daughter of the vicarage’ has made the Tories the Cruel Party.
Very sensible article (ie I agree with it) I the Telegraph today by Ryan Bourne. Basically May should never have claimed the end of austerity. It framed the argument on Labour’s terms and the Tories will never be able to out promise them. If more spending is thought necessary it should have been characterised as a pro growth policy post Brexit.
But the underlying reality is we have seriously raised debt levels and huge demographic pressures so no government has money to burn. It’s dishonest to even suggest otherwise.
Harold Macmillan happily ran an economy with about 2x the debt to GDP ratio that we have had in the late 2000s/2010s.
'Demographic limits' are baloney. Almost alone among developed countries, the UK has privatised the 'earnings-related' element of old age pensions. Paying out the state pension costs not vastly more than the cost of the tax relief on high-income private pensions. The latter is £50-55 billion per year.
There was much lower private (individual and corporate) debt in the 1950s though.
And there was a rather pressing reason for incurring it in the first place.
Also any wartime deficit created is not 'structural' to the economy in peacetime.
The truth is that we defaulted on most of our war time debt by the use of inflation in the days of fixed returns. Hence the popularity of index linked bonds today.
Not entirely true. The debt-to-GDP ratio had already come down from about 240% to 60% between the peak in the late 1940s and 1970, when inflation began to take off. The high inflation era of the 1970s saw no substantial further drop, though that's not to say that individual holders didn't lose out.
Mostly the decline in the debt/GDP ratio was due to high economic growth rate increasing the denominator. Most postwar governments ran only minimal deficits, and through most of the period real interest rates were higher than inflation.
The rise over the last 15 years has been mostly because of poor GDP growth, the same as in Japan and Italy albeit less severe. With demographics of an aging population, reduced immigration a slowdown due* and Brexit affecting growth in the short to medium term, I can see little room for complacency.
*Another red day on the FTSE makes me wonder if the economic mood has already changed.
Comments
I do agree that Leave Ultras have the edge in sheer bonkersdom though.
In the 2000s it would have been a Zaha Hadid project, surely?
What did Arne Jacobsen have to do with it? Isn't his most famous design a chair :-D ? (Plus some rather good smallish commissions, and Copenhagen's version of the Sydney OH, which was less successful.)
(Did you mean Utzon, or is my memory failing?)
In my defence
1) She didn’t appear like a loon then she was positively Cameroon.
2) It was to help my betting position
3) I so wanted to do a ‘Balls deep in trouble’ headline on election night.
The issue brings out strong feelings of identity and destiny, on both sides, that overwhelm rational thought and argument at times.
Probably similar for Brexit. The more media-luvvie and metropolitan you are, the more the very thought of leaving the EU is a horror perpetrated by Fascist swine.
I think if we ever did get PR in the UK, Spain is the country we would most resemble in terms of party breakdown: a left, a centre left, a centre right and a right party, with nationalists making up most of the rest.
But there are gradations of tools. Lumping all Brexiteers, or the ERG, all into one pile is not doing anybody any favours.
Mogg is actually a very articulate operator. Certainly not my cup of tea politically, but I bet he persuades a lot of people because he's a) articulate and on top of his brief, and b) very willing to speak in a polite way to any camera thrust in his face.
Boris and Gove certainly aren't loons. Boris, in my view, is a great ideas man but also a greatly conflicted politician (I'm still not sure he's sure about Brexit).
Davis is an enigma. I've never been able to work him out.
IDS is odd. He can appear very right wing on some issues and surprisingly in-touch with the poor on others. But I'd say, on balance, it's unfair to call him a loon.
Jenkin - persuasive, polite, principled... appears to have a dark side but certainly not a tool in the Jenkyns mode.
On the other side we have Adonis, who until Brexit was well-respected on all sides but has turned into a mirror-loon. Intransigent and prickly and quick to block anyone who disagrees with him.
I actually liked the Brexit referendum because it tipped politicians up out of their comfort zones. But two years on it appears to have brought the worst out of some people.
One of your better posts.
What DID you do!
Time for you to do a walk of atonement.
Losing in 2015 was probably the greatest thing to happen in his career.
On another note, having suffered 15 minutes of Question Time last night and then watched an old episode from the 80s, I really hope whoever takes over from Dimbleby can somehow bring the programme back to what it used to be. I don't hold out much hope though.
And now I had better go and work on it.
Bye!
In the UK, at least, there is no such thing as "free speech": speech is regulated and some speech is indeed criminal.
As for the general "snowflakes can't take argumentation" thing, a few points:
1) Many people, especially online, do not have discussions in good faith. If "leftist" see someone spout right wing talking points and don't engage, blame the hordes of right wing trolls who make it impossible to tell sincere discussion apart from trolling.
2) As has been mentioned, this is not a left wing only issue. Try and get a thoughtful discussion about racial equality, gender equality or Brexit and many on the right refuse to have conversations, and instead just go straight to denials.
3) Do we really need to hear everyone's viewpoint equally? Holocaust denial, "race realism" or 9/11 "truthers" come to mind.
4) The idea that students hate "free speech" or universities are "intolerant" is increasingly annoying. Universities host speakers all the time, and indeed pay some speakers for the privilege. Students, therefore, are funding speakers. If some customers (students) dislike where their money is going when they are presented with the product (a speaker), surely they have a right to protest this? Indeed, because of the elitism and cronyism in the upper echelons of academia and politics, many speakers come from a background and perspective many students have no interest in and / or need no further platform.
5) This is the big one. Free speech is all well and good, but what some speakers are demanding is access to a stage. I can say whatever nonsense I like; doesn't mean anyone has to listen or care. The difference is when the BBC, or a university or a radio station give someone a platform to say stuff that comes with responsibility. You need to justify why so and so gets to speak while whats his name doesn't. Take auntie Beeb and climate change denial. It is obviously unnecessary, unjustified and downright irresponsible to give climate change deniers an equal platform when covering climate change news. It is good the Beeb have finally taken this on board; but people cry censorship. Many institutions lean rightward (yes, even universities), and therefore what the institution considers acceptable can easily be out of step massively with faculty and students.
The day the Daily Mail gets shut down by the government because of the bile it spews, then I'll accept free speech censorship may have gone too far. People saying "now wait a minute, why do these people in power who keep getting things wrong still get to swan around and have everyone listen to them like they're important or geniuses, when other people can never get heard, maybe people should question the priorities of this system" is not censorship.
October was the mo th she would go before Brexit. October had passed. She's safe.
'Twas ever thus.
Then again I think that campaigning for Cameron so that he can deliver his referendum and then whining endlessly when you don't like the result makes you a loon too.
https://twitter.com/francesbarber13/status/1055765013229645825
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/11/sydney-opera-house-announces-major-renovations-to-fix-its-hideou/
So not a bad Brexit analogy. All symbolism, but failing in its primary role, and looks better the further away the observer is!
Probably spent the last week trying to negotiate a settlement...
But what moved me to log in an comment, is something that Alanbrooke has only indirectly mentioned regarding the SPD. The SPD is really caught between a rock and a hard place. At a national level they have been been in govenment 9 out of the last 13 years. In government with Merkel who is on the left of her party. After the election last year, the SPD really did not want to form another Große Koalition, but had they not, there would have had to be another election resulting in an almost certain bigger AfD vote share with out soving the problem how to form a government.
Coalitions are accepted in Germany but eventually voters start to think a vote for the SPD is a half vote for CDU/CSU. Like the LibDems between 2010 and 2015 the SPD is not given enough credit for preventing the CDU/CSU from implementing right-wing policies, and for implementing many social policies. In the mean time the Green Party is becoming even more credible while remaing clearly to the left, whereas now the SPD are seen as a centre party. In the Bavarian election the drop in SPD vote was similar to the increase in the Green Vote, and the Non-CSU direct candidates are now all Green (and all in Munich).
From a purely strategic point of view the SPD should leve the GroKo as soon as possible, while promising not to bring down Merkels government. This will allow them to openly criticise the CDU/CSU policies. But that will never happen as their worry is that the sensible german electorate will not tolerate the SPD abandoning the concept of a strong government.
But the underlying reality is we have seriously raised debt levels and huge demographic pressures so no government has money to burn. It’s dishonest to even suggest otherwise.
This is in the Labour party. It is beyond belief.
A week or two ago I posted some tweets from Jews manhandled out of an 'open' Labour meeting. There have been deep concerns about what's happened since Corbyn became leader.
I'm not sure it is beyond belief.
Well done Ed Miliband, Beckett and all the rest of them who allowed all this to start.
https://order-order.com/2018/10/26/friday-caption-contest-greenery-edition/
Good afternoon, everyone.
'Demographic limits' are baloney. Almost alone among developed countries, the UK has privatised the 'earnings-related' element of old age pensions. Paying out the state pension costs not vastly more than the cost of the tax relief on high-income private pensions. The latter is £50-55 billion per year.
What is surprising, and infuriating, is that Labour haven't managed to throw these people out.
PP are still second though Citizens are close behind. Les Republicains and Forza Italia are both in a worse position than the PP having been overtaken on the right by Front National and Lega Nord respectively
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_Spanish_general_election
Sure, and to a degree that sums up to conflicts of freedoms; if one group says "we want so and so" and another group says "but so and so is bad", who does institutional power protect?
Say I wanted Varoufakis to speak at an event; he's a lefty of some note. Now say some classical liberal / conservative types decided to stand outside the hall with signs along the lines of "socialists will turn us into Venezuela" and you get 20 odd students protesting. That's fine, I guess. But say a donor to the university, who is a big investor in "capitalist things", says "hey, I don't want this socialist speaking at a uni I donate to, shift him or lose my money". I would suggest one group who dislike the speaker is more likely to effect change than the other.
Similarly, say a group of students want to invite a prominent white nationalist to speak, like the "The Golden One" (white nationalist youtuber). Is it censorship to prevent that? And if it is, is that bad? Because even if by allowing him to speak you're not saying you endorse him, you're allowing him a platform he has no innate right to. Even if a student society is the one to organise the speaker, the university and community as a whole have a responsibility.
Depending on people's sensibilities I cannot recommend enough the videos of Contrapoints, a lefty youtuber has a video on "Does the Left Hate Free Speech". I dunno how people here feel about youtubers (I know it's a medium mostly aimed at younger people), but the discourse can sometimes be interesting, if also frustrating....
I did originally post a link, but it was auto imbedded, and I felt that was a bit over the top....
https://twitter.com/channel4/status/1055792897881239555?s=21
FWIW, I don't believe he's an active antisemite but in terms of the company he chooses to keep and the arguments he chooses not to make, I do think that he ranks antisemitism far below other forms of racism and combating it as subsidiary to many other priorities - and that amounts to being a passive antisemite.
Interesting.
https://www.texastribune.org/2018/10/26/ut-tt-poll-ted-cruz-leads-beto-orourke-texas-senate/
Cruz is simply not unpopular enough to shed sufficient Republican votes in a deeply polarised electorate.
https://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/pension-tax-relie-contributions/
His inability to expel anti-semites from the Labour party - contrary to his stated opinion that they have no place in the party - does mean that he has shown himself unable to implement his policies. If he can't rid the Labour Party of anti-semites he isn't going to be able to nationalise the railways, or any of the other things he wants to change.
American politics makes ours look good.
Also. Re P Green. Not much has been made of the rights of a couple of well-known bearded businessmen not to be falsely accused Online on no basis whatsoever.
What about their rights?
Been thinking about this recently. Given the problems with for those using social care or receiving UC, the Windrushers and others, it strikes that far from being the Nasty Party Theresa, the ‘daughter of the vicarage’ has made the Tories the Cruel Party.
The rise over the last 15 years has been mostly because of poor GDP growth, the same as in Japan and Italy albeit less severe. With demographics of an aging population, reduced immigration a slowdown due* and Brexit affecting growth in the short to medium term, I can see little room for complacency.
*Another red day on the FTSE makes me wonder if the economic mood has already changed.