'This divorce will be fairly clean, I think, because there’s no real battle for the soul of Scotland any more. Far from a bitter divorce over an affair with a long, drawn out custody battle, this will be a fairly straightforward division of assets and liabilities, the kind you get when the husband finally admits he’s gay and everyone just realizes this is what needs to happen. Scotland is gone, the Union is dead, and 2019 was probably the last election where Scottish voters sent MPs to Westminster. Vive l’Ecosse Libre.'
A "Philip Schofield" model for Scottish independence.
It is extreme and disproportionate at times. I dont see how that applies to Starkey. Academics and teachers do need to held to higher standards because of their influence on shaping the future, and that they tend to be funded by taxpayers including those they are racist to.
Yes, perhaps. I picked Starkey because I wanted to have an example of someone I almost always disagree with. I wouldn't dream of buying a book by him, but I don't want his career cvompletely wrecked because he has opinions I dislike. Academic life is strong enough to include some repellent views.
Note that I'm not especially libertarian in general. For example, in the virus crisis, I'm fine with governments telling us all to stay home, wear masks or whatever. But I think we need to be careful about closing down views altogether.
I agree care is needed and there are some cases where it goes too far, but then equally there are even more cases where not enough is being done to tackle racism.
State funded teaching whether in schools or universities is somewhere we shouldnt tolerate racism. It is not reasonable to demand minority taxpayers pay tax which goes to further racism in the next generation. If Starkey wants to teach privately Im sure he can sell out some theatre tours, publish books or youtube videos and get students to pay him directly for his time.
I'd agree with your latter point entirely. They key word in the letter was 'disproportionate'. These things will, I suspect, find some reasonable balance in time, but for now so pushback against disproportionate responses is entirely warranted.
Disproportionate is one of those words that by definition is pointing out an unfairness. Of course responses shouldnt be disproportionate. Hard to argue against! It can only be challenged by real life examples as to what is proportionate.
Using Starkey as that example is seen by you and kle as problematic....
That is to misunderstand me. I thought there was a reasonable case to act on Starkey's plainly racist outburst.
Of course people will disagree on what is reasonable or proportionate and what isn't, and I wouldn't insist on my own view. Whether Starkey's comment amounted to gross misconduct justifying dismissal, or whether it merited a warning, might in other circumstances be justiciable - but it looks as though none of the consequences he suffered will be contested by him.
My point it that there will be widely different views across society on what is reasonable and proportionate, just as there will be wildly different views on what constitutes acceptable speech. And I err on the side of tolerance of the expression of views with which I vehemently disagree.
Fair enough, expressing caution about being disproportionate is clearly sensible, just not seen any evidence its a widespread significant problem outside of twitter.
I'm curious if all those pretending to be flabbergasted that a Conservative Brexiteer government hasn't nominated Labour's Eurofanatic Peter Mandelson would be equally shocked if an elected Joe Biden didn't nominate a Trumpist who had served in the Trump government and was a lifelong Republican to a comparable post?
Well of course no sane President is going to appoint a Trumpist to anything. One looks for competence and relavant experience.
A better example is Obama appointing Jon Huntsman as Ambassador to China.
Was Jon Huntsman actively opposing Obama's foreign policy to China at the time he was appointed?
Mandelson is actively opposing British trade policy and we're supposed to be nominating him in what universe exactly?
British trade policy is to reduce protectionism and encourage free trade, which is exactly Mandelson's policy as well. His stint at the EU was a prime example of this and of how effective he is. But ideological purity - even to the extent of shooting ourselves in the foot by not getting the candidate who would be highly competent and act exactly in accordance with the British view of world trade, as he did at the EU - trumps all.
I'm curious if all those pretending to be flabbergasted that a Conservative Brexiteer government hasn't nominated Labour's Eurofanatic Peter Mandelson would be equally shocked if an elected Joe Biden didn't nominate a Trumpist who had served in the Trump government and was a lifelong Republican to a comparable post?
Well of course no sane President is going to appoint a Trumpist to anything. One looks for competence and relavant experience.
A better example is Obama appointing Jon Huntsman as Ambassador to China.
Was Jon Huntsman actively opposing Obama's foreign policy to China at the time he was appointed?
Mandelson is actively opposing British trade policy and we're supposed to be nominating him in what universe exactly?
That is the point being made. The post Brexit dynamic has changed Mandelson's priority. He would be batting for Britain whatever his previous pro- EU inclinations might have been.
I don't agree with Brexit. I think it madness, but if I was installed as Head of the WTO I would have half an eye on helping out my fellow countrymen and women to safeguard the economy, post- Brexit.
Good morning everyone. Cricket is about to start, at last, and the forecast for Southampton, where the first Test is being played, is rain.
Only to be expected, of course!
Rained off cricket in July, thank goodness for a return to normality indeed.
A sensibly run sport might realise there are no spectators, and it would be trivial to start tomorrow and significantly increase the chance of a result.
Modern batting means a result is all but certain unless more than 2 days are totally rained off. Numbers of draws in test cricket dropped like a stone, around the same time that T20 became really popular, but I'd hate to suggest a link...
It was undoubtedly a factor but there are others. Flexible playing hours mean that you really need seriously bad weather weather to lose two whole days.
I suspect the wider use of UDRS may also contribute but the evidence is difficult to assess. Batsmen benefit as well as bowlers but I think on balance it's the batters who were more likely to get away with stuff pre-DRS.
Swann has said that it made a huge difference in terms of the number of lbw decisions given for off-spinners. Umpires have become convinced by the technology that they can give more of those out, when they rarely did before.
Yes, but that's subjective evidence. I had a quick look round this morning to see if there was anything more telling on the statistical side and quickly realised what a complex subject it is.
Batters appeal more and are more successful but you would expect that because in a lot of cases they know for sure when a decision is wrong, whereas there is almost invariably guesswork involved in the bowlers' appeals.
Then there is the impact on umpires which Swann rightly alludes to. Are they emboldened by the thought that DRS will put it right if they make a mistake? It used to be taken for granted that any batsmen playing forward in Australia was unlikely ever to be given out lbw. Don't think that applies any more.
Fascinating subject, worth a few PhD theses. My guess is that DRS favors the bowlers on balance, but not easy to prove.
That would be a great thesis for a cricket fan.
Much better than watching a wet Southampton on TV, anyway!
Chaotic bumbling, in other words. It almost makes one nostalgic for Alastair Campbell's iron grip on political messaging.
But Cummings is supposed to be the master, not just of rigid message discipline but strategic planning and innovative solutions.
It's almost as though he isn't nearly as smart as he thinks he is, and just got lucky...
Maybe lucky - but also pushing the boundaries of what's moral in campaigning.
There have always been dodgy practices, but compared to somewhere like the US, all the main parties have been pretty restrained. His biggest success is understanding how weak/outdated the rules are around election campaigns in the UK, and exploiting them.
Cummings reminds me of a type you sometimes saw in local council elections in the 80's and 90's. Very hard-working, using new technology (photocopying! DTP!) to get messages out quickly and cheaply, good at identifying localised grumbles, willing to stretch the boundaries of truth... whether you call it the "Focus Team" or "In Touch", it's a potent combination.
The trouble is that the skills to win a campaign like that turn out to be rubbish for actually running a council.
My issue with cancel culture is it feels like all sins are equal and there can be no forgiveness. A mistake or clumsy language is treated as being as reprehensible as being a Klansman, apologies (sincere or not) cannot make up for it and everyone is expected to instantly cut ties.
Its disproportionate. Someone who repeatedly does offensive things, sure. But consequences for words and actions doesnt need to mean instant consequences in every case.
I think the breadth of those warning about this culture going too far is quite telling.
It is extreme and disproportionate at times. I dont see how that applies to Starkey. Academics and teachers do need to held to higher standards because of their influence on shaping the future, and that they tend to be funded by taxpayers including those they are racist to.
Yes, perhaps. I picked Starkey because I wanted to have an example of someone I almost always disagree with. I wouldn't dream of buying a book by him, but I don't want his career cvompletely wrecked because he has opinions I dislike. Academic life is strong enough to include some repellent views.
Note that I'm not especially libertarian in general. For example, in the virus crisis, I'm fine with governments telling us all to stay home, wear masks or whatever. But I think we need to be careful about closing down views altogether.
I agree care is needed and there are some cases where it goes too far, but then equally there are even more cases where not enough is being done to tackle racism.
State funded teaching whether in schools or universities is somewhere we shouldnt tolerate racism. It is not reasonable to demand minority taxpayers pay tax which goes to further racism in the next generation. If Starkey wants to teach privately Im sure he can sell out some theatre tours, publish books or youtube videos and get students to pay him directly for his time.
I'd agree with your latter point entirely. They key word in the letter was 'disproportionate'. These things will, I suspect, find some reasonable balance in time, but for now so pushback against disproportionate responses is entirely warranted.
Bet that was because Rowling signed it. Judgement by association rather than content. Bit sad.
A sort of mirror - although not quite the same - of a few days ago where she posted a fulsome tribute to Stephen King and then deleted it when she found out his views on the transgender debate were not to her liking.
Indeed. I strongly disagree with Rowling's views on transgender people (some misguided, some pretty reprehensible), but I think it absurd to disavow a reasonable call for free speech just because she co-signed it.
President Donald Trump has a 91 per cent chance of winning the November 2020 election, according to a political science professor who has correctly predicted five out of six elections since 1996.
“The Primary Model gives Trump a 91 percent chance of winning in November,” Stony Brook professor Helmut Norpoth told Mediaite on Tuesday.
Mr Norpoth told the outlet that his model, which he curated in 1996, would have correctly predicted the outcome for 25 of the 27 elections since 1912, when primaries were introduced.
Comments
I don't agree with Brexit. I think it madness, but if I was installed as Head of the WTO I would have half an eye on helping out my fellow countrymen and women to safeguard the economy, post- Brexit.
Much better than watching a wet Southampton on TV, anyway!
The trouble is that the skills to win a campaign like that turn out to be rubbish for actually running a council.
I strongly disagree with Rowling's views on transgender people (some misguided, some pretty reprehensible), but I think it absurd to disavow a reasonable call for free speech just because she co-signed it.
President Donald Trump has a 91 per cent chance of winning the November 2020 election, according to a political science professor who has correctly predicted five out of six elections since 1996.
“The Primary Model gives Trump a 91 percent chance of winning in November,” Stony Brook professor Helmut Norpoth told Mediaite on Tuesday.
Mr Norpoth told the outlet that his model, which he curated in 1996, would have correctly predicted the outcome for 25 of the 27 elections since 1912, when primaries were introduced.