Given that the sea level is set to rise by about 60m as the ice caps melt, it might make sense to move parliament permanently to the Midlands. Granted, this will take a few thousand years, but why not get ahead of the curve and make Birmingham the capital of the current British Isles and future British Archipelago now?
But it is Birmingham.
Do we want our Parliamentarians to end up having Brummie accents?
Between 2012 and 2016 I visited Parliament several times, I was shocked by how much of a literal shit hole it was.
One of the people I visited, their office often had leaks of piss and shite from a nearby toilet.
They weren't the only one blighted by that problem.
I saw a rat or mouse on pretty much every occasion as well.
Don't even get me started how bad Downing Street is.
Once Larry and I saw a mouse, he laid on his back and kinda yawned, I screamed.
Clearly you - unlike Larry - are NOT cut out to be a civil servant.
You, sir, are just like that Manx pussy they imported, looked gorgeous, meowed prettily, but was worthless as a mouser, let alone ratter.
Of course, there is the matter of the West West Virginia claim, which yours truly entrusted to your "professional" "services", "sir"! Speaking of piss & such, MUST I be forced to report your "conduct" in this vital matter to the Privy Council?
once upon a time most companies paid in company scrip that could only be spent in company stores. While you can argue well if you dont like it change jobs it wasnt so easy. Laws were passed to stop it
1) Do you agree with those laws or do you regard being paid in company scrip should be allowed
2) if you answer the law was right what is the difference between that and telling companies they have to also accept hard currency and not just cards. In the first the company issuing the scrips dictates where you can purchase things in the second card issuing companies and dont forget there are really only two are limiting where you can shop by giving you a card or not
I have no qualms with people getting a benefit in kind of company scrip so long as other laws are followed including getting paid a minimum wage in hard currency and getting taxed on their benefit in kind.
2: The difference is that cards are hard currency. If you spend pound sterlings in coins, pound sterlings in notes, pound sterlings by BACS transfer, pound sterlings by cheques or pound sterlings by cards your hard currency is pound sterling either way.
If there is a role for the government to pay it is to ensure everyone has access to being able to get a card. A universal service obligation on banks even if it's only for prepayment or debit cards without borrowing options. Other than that there is no role for the government to play, it is a matter for commercial choice by both businesses and consumers.
You didn't get hard currency only company scrip so I take it you answer is No it should not be allowed......so state intervention was good
I fail to see the difference between the state intervention declaring all shops must accept cash and state intervention stating banks must give a bank account to everyone. In fact the second is the worst of the pair for intervention because it takes choice out of peoples hands
So now we have established you don't mind state intervention can you cease your whining when others say that it is sometimes necessary and go read some more Ayn Rand
I've never said I support zero state intervention in the first place, as I've said when this has come up in the past I am a libertarian not an anarchist.
It is far, far, far better to impose a universal service obligation on banks than it is to impose an obligation on every single small shop, large shop, restaurant, bar, hairdresser, boutique or anything else in the entire country that they must accept cash.
Banks are structurally important and integral to the entire economy, a universal service obligation is something they can withstand without jeopardising their business and as part of their regulations (which must exist). Ensuring everyone has access to banking is far better because it puts the choice into people's hands, they can access all parts of the economy (many online retailers won't accept cash for instance and I doubt even you're suggesting they must are you?). There is a requirement to ensure everyone has access to basic banking.
Putting the onus on eg small businesses that don't want the security or other risks involved with accepting cash is an entirely different matter. Cash is not required and can lead to armed robberies and stabbings so there is a very valid justification not to want to accept it. If everyone has access to banking there is absolutely zero justification to compel people to literally put their lives at risk accepting cash when they don't want to do so . . . I don't know if you've ever been subject to an armed robbery by people looking for cash but it is not a pleasant experience.
Small business have always accepted cash so its not asking them to change it is merely specifying that they must continue to do so. The number of businesses that only accept card payments is tiny so as usual your argument is bollocks.
Libertarians believe that defence is one the people of the country is one of the key things for a governement. Defence doesn't just mean from invasion it is also a defence of freedom. In this case the freedom not to have a bank account, not to have every penny spent tracked, not to have their data given to governments and big business
You should give up being a libertarian you really do fail at it
Small businesses have not always accepted cash. In the past some small businesses only accepted cheques and have swapped asking for cheques with asking for card payments. The idea that businesses have always all accepted cash is total bollocks. Your argument is the bollocks one not mine.
You may want to be a conspiracy nut without a bank account . . . that's your choice and if you find businesses willing to trade with you on that basis then good luck to you. There's no reason to compel an onus on businesses to trade with you on that basis that has never existed in the past nor does now. Its your choice.
Companies are not compelled to cater to your choices.
Africa is the fastest area of growth in Christianity yes, hence we will likely soon have a black Archbishop of Canterbury
Is that a err sequitur ?
It is a rather interesting question - the Church Of England is vanishing in England and growing explosively in Africa and other places.
The interesting bit is that the English Church of England is very progressive, and the African CoE tends to be extremely... traditionalist.
So you have the ongoing situation where very progressive white people are trying to stop black people from using the growing strength they have in the Church.
once upon a time most companies paid in company scrip that could only be spent in company stores. While you can argue well if you dont like it change jobs it wasnt so easy. Laws were passed to stop it
1) Do you agree with those laws or do you regard being paid in company scrip should be allowed
2) if you answer the law was right what is the difference between that and telling companies they have to also accept hard currency and not just cards. In the first the company issuing the scrips dictates where you can purchase things in the second card issuing companies and dont forget there are really only two are limiting where you can shop by giving you a card or not
I have no qualms with people getting a benefit in kind of company scrip so long as other laws are followed including getting paid a minimum wage in hard currency and getting taxed on their benefit in kind.
2: The difference is that cards are hard currency. If you spend pound sterlings in coins, pound sterlings in notes, pound sterlings by BACS transfer, pound sterlings by cheques or pound sterlings by cards your hard currency is pound sterling either way.
If there is a role for the government to pay it is to ensure everyone has access to being able to get a card. A universal service obligation on banks even if it's only for prepayment or debit cards without borrowing options. Other than that there is no role for the government to play, it is a matter for commercial choice by both businesses and consumers.
You didn't get hard currency only company scrip so I take it you answer is No it should not be allowed......so state intervention was good
I fail to see the difference between the state intervention declaring all shops must accept cash and state intervention stating banks must give a bank account to everyone. In fact the second is the worst of the pair for intervention because it takes choice out of peoples hands
So now we have established you don't mind state intervention can you cease your whining when others say that it is sometimes necessary and go read some more Ayn Rand
I've never said I support zero state intervention in the first place, as I've said when this has come up in the past I am a libertarian not an anarchist.
It is far, far, far better to impose a universal service obligation on banks than it is to impose an obligation on every single small shop, large shop, restaurant, bar, hairdresser, boutique or anything else in the entire country that they must accept cash.
Banks are structurally important and integral to the entire economy, a universal service obligation is something they can withstand without jeopardising their business and as part of their regulations (which must exist). Ensuring everyone has access to banking is far better because it puts the choice into people's hands, they can access all parts of the economy (many online retailers won't accept cash for instance and I doubt even you're suggesting they must are you?). There is a requirement to ensure everyone has access to basic banking.
Putting the onus on eg small businesses that don't want the security or other risks involved with accepting cash is an entirely different matter. Cash is not required and can lead to armed robberies and stabbings so there is a very valid justification not to want to accept it. If everyone has access to banking there is absolutely zero justification to compel people to literally put their lives at risk accepting cash when they don't want to do so . . . I don't know if you've ever been subject to an armed robbery by people looking for cash but it is not a pleasant experience.
Small business have always accepted cash so its not asking them to change it is merely specifying that they must continue to do so. The number of businesses that only accept card payments is tiny so as usual your argument is bollocks.
Libertarians believe that defence is one the people of the country is one of the key things for a governement. Defence doesn't just mean from invasion it is also a defence of freedom. In this case the freedom not to have a bank account, not to have every penny spent tracked, not to have their data given to governments and big business
You should give up being a libertarian you really do fail at it
Small businesses have not always accepted cash. In the past some small businesses only accepted cheques and have swapped asking for cheques with asking for card payments. The idea that businesses have always all accepted cash is total bollocks. Your argument is the bollocks one not mine.
You may want to be a conspiracy nut without a bank account . . . that's your choice and if you find businesses willing to trade with you on that basis then good luck to you. There's no reason to compel an onus on businesses to trade with you on that basis that has never existed in the past nor does now. Its your choice.
Companies are not compelled to cater to your choices.
99% of businesses at least have always accepted cash...obviously I am referring to physical shops not mail order or online at this point.
Your way paves the way to authoritarianism as soon as we get in the wrong government. Mine is a small intervention to protect freedom.
As to conspiracy theory which part is conspiracy. We know governements have access to are bank accounts and card payments, we know big business collects data on our spending. A conspiracy theory is a theory that something is happening without any tangible proof it is. I don't think worrying about data collection is a conspiracy theory.
You will be the first one shrieking when a nanny state government using all the data available because its all electronic decides to restrict for example alcohol purchase by blocking payment for it after a certain amount each week. That is the power you want to hand them.
So (my point) voter suppression will be key for Trump.
Trump down amongst everyone earning under $100K.
The working class revolt going well I see.
As a result though he will be doing better on the West and North East coasts than 2016 given he is up with richer voters but worse in the more working class rustbelt and south, hence I think Biden will do better in the electoral college than Hillary but Trump has a better chance of winning the popular vote than he did last time if he recovers amongst middle income voters (where he currently polls 1% below his share with high income voters)
once upon a time most companies paid in company scrip that could only be spent in company stores. While you can argue well if you dont like it change jobs it wasnt so easy. Laws were passed to stop it
1) Do you agree with those laws or do you regard being paid in company scrip should be allowed
2) if you answer the law was right what is the difference between that and telling companies they have to also accept hard currency and not just cards. In the first the company issuing the scrips dictates where you can purchase things in the second card issuing companies and dont forget there are really only two are limiting where you can shop by giving you a card or not
I have no qualms with people getting a benefit in kind of company scrip so long as other laws are followed including getting paid a minimum wage in hard currency and getting taxed on their benefit in kind.
2: The difference is that cards are hard currency. If you spend pound sterlings in coins, pound sterlings in notes, pound sterlings by BACS transfer, pound sterlings by cheques or pound sterlings by cards your hard currency is pound sterling either way.
If there is a role for the government to pay it is to ensure everyone has access to being able to get a card. A universal service obligation on banks even if it's only for prepayment or debit cards without borrowing options. Other than that there is no role for the government to play, it is a matter for commercial choice by both businesses and consumers.
You didn't get hard currency only company scrip so I take it you answer is No it should not be allowed......so state intervention was good
I fail to see the difference between the state intervention declaring all shops must accept cash and state intervention stating banks must give a bank account to everyone. In fact the second is the worst of the pair for intervention because it takes choice out of peoples hands
So now we have established you don't mind state intervention can you cease your whining when others say that it is sometimes necessary and go read some more Ayn Rand
I've never said I support zero state intervention in the first place, as I've said when this has come up in the past I am a libertarian not an anarchist.
It is far, far, far better to impose a universal service obligation on banks than it is to impose an obligation on every single small shop, large shop, restaurant, bar, hairdresser, boutique or anything else in the entire country that they must accept cash.
Banks are structurally important and integral to the entire economy, a universal service obligation is something they can withstand without jeopardising their business and as part of their regulations (which must exist). Ensuring everyone has access to banking is far better because it puts the choice into people's hands, they can access all parts of the economy (many online retailers won't accept cash for instance and I doubt even you're suggesting they must are you?). There is a requirement to ensure everyone has access to basic banking.
Putting the onus on eg small businesses that don't want the security or other risks involved with accepting cash is an entirely different matter. Cash is not required and can lead to armed robberies and stabbings so there is a very valid justification not to want to accept it. If everyone has access to banking there is absolutely zero justification to compel people to literally put their lives at risk accepting cash when they don't want to do so . . . I don't know if you've ever been subject to an armed robbery by people looking for cash but it is not a pleasant experience.
Small business have always accepted cash so its not asking them to change it is merely specifying that they must continue to do so. The number of businesses that only accept card payments is tiny so as usual your argument is bollocks.
Libertarians believe that defence is one the people of the country is one of the key things for a governement. Defence doesn't just mean from invasion it is also a defence of freedom. In this case the freedom not to have a bank account, not to have every penny spent tracked, not to have their data given to governments and big business
You should give up being a libertarian you really do fail at it
Small businesses have not always accepted cash. In the past some small businesses only accepted cheques and have swapped asking for cheques with asking for card payments. The idea that businesses have always all accepted cash is total bollocks. Your argument is the bollocks one not mine.
You may want to be a conspiracy nut without a bank account . . . that's your choice and if you find businesses willing to trade with you on that basis then good luck to you. There's no reason to compel an onus on businesses to trade with you on that basis that has never existed in the past nor does now. Its your choice.
Companies are not compelled to cater to your choices.
99% of businesses at least have always accepted cash...obviously I am referring to physical shops not mail order or online at this point.
Your way paves the way to authoritarianism as soon as we get in the wrong government. Mine is a small intervention to protect freedom.
As to conspiracy theory which part is conspiracy. We know governements have access to are bank accounts and card payments, we know big business collects data on our spending. A conspiracy theory is a theory that something is happening without any tangible proof it is. I don't think worrying about data collection is a conspiracy theory.
You will be the first one shrieking when a nanny state government using all the data available because its all electronic decides to restrict for example alcohol purchase by blocking payment for it after a certain amount each week. That is the power you want to hand them.
Not quite - it's a power Philip will accidently hand to them as he once again doesn't think through the consequences of his previous statement...
It's been a mosque, cathedral and museum at various points in its history. The important thing to my mind is the preservation of the artwork etc, whatever guise it is under.
It was built as a cathedral. It is a cathedral. It was converted into a mosque by the Ottomans to show the triumph of Islam over Christianity.
Ataturk did the wise thing when he forced a compromise, and made it a museum.
Erdogan's move is Islamic triumphalism, redux
Its their country. Why should we care?
It's part of world patrimony, and it's on our continent, Europe, and as such it is a keystone of European cultural and architectural history.
Presumably you'd be OK with India turning the Jama Masjid mosque in Delhi into a Hindu Temple, because it's "their country"?
And I guess you're OK with China bulldozing all the mosques in Xinjiang. I mean, it's their country, after all.
It's been a mosque, cathedral and museum at various points in its history. The important thing to my mind is the preservation of the artwork etc, whatever guise it is under.
It was built as a cathedral. It is a cathedral. It was converted into a mosque by the Ottomans to show the triumph of Islam over Christianity.
Ataturk did the wise thing when he forced a compromise, and made it a museum.
Erdogan's move is Islamic triumphalism, redux
Its their country. Why should we care?
Quite.
In Casablanca the Christian church is carefully preserved. Nobody goes there of course - except me to take this photo.
Given that the sea level is set to rise by about 60m as the ice caps melt, it might make sense to move parliament permanently to the Midlands. Granted, this will take a few thousand years, but why not get ahead of the curve and make Birmingham the capital of the current British Isles and future British Archipelago now?
Do you think a few thousand years is enough to make Birmingham a decent, interesting city though?
FWIW I think York is a decent place for Parliament. Or Chester maybe. Northern and civilised.
And the Palace of Westminster, once repaired, would then be an excellent spot for an English Parliament to correct the obvious democratic deficit we have.
It's been a mosque, cathedral and museum at various points in its history. The important thing to my mind is the preservation of the artwork etc, whatever guise it is under.
It was built as a cathedral. It is a cathedral. It was converted into a mosque by the Ottomans to show the triumph of Islam over Christianity.
Ataturk did the wise thing when he forced a compromise, and made it a museum.
Erdogan's move is Islamic triumphalism, redux
Its their country. Why should we care?
It's part of world patrimony, and it's on our continent, Europe, and as such it is a keystone of European cultural and architectural history.
Presumably you'd be OK with India turning the Jama Masjid mosque in Delhi into a Hindu Temple, because it's "their country"?
And I guess you're OK with China bulldozing all the mosques in Xinjiang. I mean, it's their country, after all.
I couldn't care less if India turned a mosque into a Hindu temple. Or if they turned it into a pub.
Bulldozing listed buildings is a different matter, but changing its use - I couldn't care less. Its still there, still maintained, just got a different use.
Demographics may not be fully destiny, but steep population decline will limit China's and Russia's economic and military power in coming years.
We need to add India into the Western sphere giving it is still growing fast population wise and economically but otherwise yes the economic shift is to China and the demographic shift is to the Muslim world
The demographic shift is actually to Africa - which is slightly more Christian than Muslim
Africa is the fastest area of growth in Christianity yes, hence we will likely soon have a black Archbishop of Canterbury and ultimately a black Pope too, however because of growth in South Asia and the Middle East as well as Africa Islam is growing faster overall
Human populations are now expected to decline EVERYWHERE except Africa
Fastest growth where there still is growth is in Nigeria which is 53% Muslim and the US population is also expected to slightly increase even if the global population falls from 2.1 children per woman to 1.7 as projected by 2100
But have you read Samuel Huntington’s seminal work?
Yes, I have. Jolly good, as I recall, though I didn't agree with everything
Reread the last chapter. The conclusion isn’t quite what you expect
What does it say? I read it many years ago and don't have a copy.
The argument is that the real “clash of civilisations” isn’t between Islam/Sino/Judeo-Christian but inside the West between social conservatives and progressives. That will undermine their west and fatally weaken it in the struggle with other cultural blocs
once upon a time most companies paid in company scrip that could only be spent in company stores. While you can argue well if you dont like it change jobs it wasnt so easy. Laws were passed to stop it
1) Do you agree with those laws or do you regard being paid in company scrip should be allowed
2) if you answer the law was right what is the difference between that and telling companies they have to also accept hard currency and not just cards. In the first the company issuing the scrips dictates where you can purchase things in the second card issuing companies and dont forget there are really only two are limiting where you can shop by giving you a card or not
I have no qualms with people getting a benefit in kind of company scrip so long as other laws are followed including getting paid a minimum wage in hard currency and getting taxed on their benefit in kind.
2: The difference is that cards are hard currency. If you spend pound sterlings in coins, pound sterlings in notes, pound sterlings by BACS transfer, pound sterlings by cheques or pound sterlings by cards your hard currency is pound sterling either way.
If there is a role for the government to pay it is to ensure everyone has access to being able to get a card. A universal service obligation on banks even if it's only for prepayment or debit cards without borrowing options. Other than that there is no role for the government to play, it is a matter for commercial choice by both businesses and consumers.
You didn't get hard currency only company scrip so I take it you answer is No it should not be allowed......so state intervention was good
I fail to see the difference between the state intervention declaring all shops must accept cash and state intervention stating banks must give a bank account to everyone. In fact the second is the worst of the pair for intervention because it takes choice out of peoples hands
So now we have established you don't mind state intervention can you cease your whining when others say that it is sometimes necessary and go read some more Ayn Rand
I've never said I support zero state intervention in the first place, as I've said when this has come up in the past I am a libertarian not an anarchist.
It is far, far, far better to impose a universal service obligation on banks than it is to impose an obligation on every single small shop, large shop, restaurant, bar, hairdresser, boutique or anything else in the entire country that they must accept cash.
Banks are structurally important and integral to the entire economy, a universal service obligation is something they can withstand without jeopardising their business and as part of their regulations (which must exist). Ensuring everyone has access to banking is far better because it puts the choice into people's hands, they can access all parts of the economy (many online retailers won't accept cash for instance and I doubt even you're suggesting they must are you?). There is a requirement to ensure everyone has access to basic banking.
Putting the onus on eg small businesses that don't want the security or other risks involved with accepting cash is an entirely different matter. Cash is not required and can lead to armed robberies and stabbings so there is a very valid justification not to want to accept it. If everyone has access to banking there is absolutely zero justification to compel people to literally put their lives at risk accepting cash when they don't want to do so . . . I don't know if you've ever been subject to an armed robbery by people looking for cash but it is not a pleasant experience.
Small business have always accepted cash so its not asking them to change it is merely specifying that they must continue to do so. The number of businesses that only accept card payments is tiny so as usual your argument is bollocks.
Libertarians believe that defence is one the people of the country is one of the key things for a governement. Defence doesn't just mean from invasion it is also a defence of freedom. In this case the freedom not to have a bank account, not to have every penny spent tracked, not to have their data given to governments and big business
You should give up being a libertarian you really do fail at it
Small businesses have not always accepted cash. In the past some small businesses only accepted cheques and have swapped asking for cheques with asking for card payments. The idea that businesses have always all accepted cash is total bollocks. Your argument is the bollocks one not mine.
You may want to be a conspiracy nut without a bank account . . . that's your choice and if you find businesses willing to trade with you on that basis then good luck to you. There's no reason to compel an onus on businesses to trade with you on that basis that has never existed in the past nor does now. Its your choice.
Companies are not compelled to cater to your choices.
99% of businesses at least have always accepted cash...obviously I am referring to physical shops not mail order or online at this point.
Your way paves the way to authoritarianism as soon as we get in the wrong government. Mine is a small intervention to protect freedom.
As to conspiracy theory which part is conspiracy. We know governements have access to are bank accounts and card payments, we know big business collects data on our spending. A conspiracy theory is a theory that something is happening without any tangible proof it is. I don't think worrying about data collection is a conspiracy theory.
You will be the first one shrieking when a nanny state government using all the data available because its all electronic decides to restrict for example alcohol purchase by blocking payment for it after a certain amount each week. That is the power you want to hand them.
Not quite - it's a power Philip will accidently hand to them as he once again doesn't think through the consequences of his previous statement...
I don't think its a case of he doesn't think. I think that governments and companies having that sort of power is something he would quite like. He is certainly not what I would call a libertarian. Doesn't seem to care much about civil liberties as seen by his support of mandatory mask wearing in shops because it allows him to have a pint, doesn't seem to care about the rule of law as he was an ardent supporter of tearing down statues, seems to have no privacy concerns.
I have him more down as leftie corporate shill than libertarian
It's been a mosque, cathedral and museum at various points in its history. The important thing to my mind is the preservation of the artwork etc, whatever guise it is under.
It was built as a cathedral. It is a cathedral. It was converted into a mosque by the Ottomans to show the triumph of Islam over Christianity.
Ataturk did the wise thing when he forced a compromise, and made it a museum.
Erdogan's move is Islamic triumphalism, redux
Its their country. Why should we care?
It's part of world patrimony, and it's on our continent, Europe, and as such it is a keystone of European cultural and architectural history.
Presumably you'd be OK with India turning the Jama Masjid mosque in Delhi into a Hindu Temple, because it's "their country"?
And I guess you're OK with China bulldozing all the mosques in Xinjiang. I mean, it's their country, after all.
I couldn't care less if India turned a mosque into a Hindu temple. Or if they turned it into a pub.
Bulldozing listed buildings is a different matter, but changing its use - I couldn't care less. Its still there, still maintained, just got a different use.
Your historical knowledge is lacking, but I can't be arsed to educate you any more
Besides all that, Erdogan doing this is another sign of him Islamifying the country. Which really is a bad thing, especially for the many moderates in Turkey who want no such thing.
But have you read Samuel Huntington’s seminal work?
Yes, I have. Jolly good, as I recall, though I didn't agree with everything
Reread the last chapter. The conclusion isn’t quite what you expect
What does it say? I read it many years ago and don't have a copy.
The argument is that the real “clash of civilisations” isn’t between Islam/Sino/Judeo-Christian but inside the West between social conservatives and progressives. That will undermine their west and fatally weaken it in the struggle with other cultural blocs
Don’t forget this was written in the early 90s
Golly. That's prescient.
I fear he is right. The rot started in academe, and spread from there. Some of the examples of mad cancel culture in this essay are quite startling, and depressing - see the one about the college persecuting a bakery. Amazing.
And did you know the Vagina Monologues is no longer allowed on American campuses? It is considered regressive and reactionary, as it excludes women who don't have vaginas.
once upon a time most companies paid in company scrip that could only be spent in company stores. While you can argue well if you dont like it change jobs it wasnt so easy. Laws were passed to stop it
1) Do you agree with those laws or do you regard being paid in company scrip should be allowed
2) if you answer the law was right what is the difference between that and telling companies they have to also accept hard currency and not just cards. In the first the company issuing the scrips dictates where you can purchase things in the second card issuing companies and dont forget there are really only two are limiting where you can shop by giving you a card or not
I have no qualms with people getting a benefit in kind of company scrip so long as other laws are followed including getting paid a minimum wage in hard currency and getting taxed on their benefit in kind.
2: The difference is that cards are hard currency. If you spend pound sterlings in coins, pound sterlings in notes, pound sterlings by BACS transfer, pound sterlings by cheques or pound sterlings by cards your hard currency is pound sterling either way.
If there is a role for the government to pay it is to ensure everyone has access to being able to get a card. A universal service obligation on banks even if it's only for prepayment or debit cards without borrowing options. Other than that there is no role for the government to play, it is a matter for commercial choice by both businesses and consumers.
You didn't get hard currency only company scrip so I take it you answer is No it should not be allowed......so state intervention was good
I fail to see the difference between the state intervention declaring all shops must accept cash and state intervention stating banks must give a bank account to everyone. In fact the second is the worst of the pair for intervention because it takes choice out of peoples hands
So now we have established you don't mind state intervention can you cease your whining when others say that it is sometimes necessary and go read some more Ayn Rand
I've never said I support zero state intervention in the first place, as I've said when this has come up in the past I am a libertarian not an anarchist.
It is far, far, far better to impose a universal service obligation on banks than it is to impose an obligation on every single small shop, large shop, restaurant, bar, hairdresser, boutique or anything else in the entire country that they must accept cash.
Banks are structurally important and integral to the entire economy, a universal service obligation is something they can withstand without jeopardising their business and as part of their regulations (which must exist). Ensuring everyone has access to banking is far better because it puts the choice into people's hands, they can access all parts of the economy (many online retailers won't accept cash for instance and I doubt even you're suggesting they must are you?). There is a requirement to ensure everyone has access to basic banking.
Putting the onus on eg small businesses that don't want the security or other risks involved with accepting cash is an entirely different matter. Cash is not required and can lead to armed robberies and stabbings so there is a very valid justification not to want to accept it. If everyone has access to banking there is absolutely zero justification to compel people to literally put their lives at risk accepting cash when they don't want to do so . . . I don't know if you've ever been subject to an armed robbery by people looking for cash but it is not a pleasant experience.
Small business have always accepted cash so its not asking them to change it is merely specifying that they must continue to do so. The number of businesses that only accept card payments is tiny so as usual your argument is bollocks.
Libertarians believe that defence is one the people of the country is one of the key things for a governement. Defence doesn't just mean from invasion it is also a defence of freedom. In this case the freedom not to have a bank account, not to have every penny spent tracked, not to have their data given to governments and big business
You should give up being a libertarian you really do fail at it
Small businesses have not always accepted cash. In the past some small businesses only accepted cheques and have swapped asking for cheques with asking for card payments. The idea that businesses have always all accepted cash is total bollocks. Your argument is the bollocks one not mine.
You may want to be a conspiracy nut without a bank account . . . that's your choice and if you find businesses willing to trade with you on that basis then good luck to you. There's no reason to compel an onus on businesses to trade with you on that basis that has never existed in the past nor does now. Its your choice.
Companies are not compelled to cater to your choices.
99% of businesses at least have always accepted cash...obviously I am referring to physical shops not mail order or online at this point.
Your way paves the way to authoritarianism as soon as we get in the wrong government. Mine is a small intervention to protect freedom.
As to conspiracy theory which part is conspiracy. We know governements have access to are bank accounts and card payments, we know big business collects data on our spending. A conspiracy theory is a theory that something is happening without any tangible proof it is. I don't think worrying about data collection is a conspiracy theory.
You will be the first one shrieking when a nanny state government using all the data available because its all electronic decides to restrict for example alcohol purchase by blocking payment for it after a certain amount each week. That is the power you want to hand them.
99% is not 100%.
The principle has always existed that businesses could refuse cash and many have. Unless you're prepared to pay for security, safe banking, the installation of safes etc, etc, etc that deals with the externalities of accepting cash then you don't get to insist others are suddenly compelled to accept it when they never have been in the past. In the past when I worked in a cash handling business we were robbed by knife wielding thugs who held knives to staffs throats (including a pregnant woman) and ordered the manager to open the safe so they could leave with all the cash. So you can shove your conspiracy bollocks up your arse, there are real problems with cash which is why some businesses have always refused to accept it and why all businesses should have the right to refuse it.
I am not saying cash should be abolished, but it should be a choice. If businesses don't want to take it - and others do - then that is a sales pitch for those who want to spend cash to take their business to a cash-accepting business.
Given that the sea level is set to rise by about 60m as the ice caps melt, it might make sense to move parliament permanently to the Midlands. Granted, this will take a few thousand years, but why not get ahead of the curve and make Birmingham the capital of the current British Isles and future British Archipelago now?
Do you think a few thousand years is enough to make Birmingham a decent, interesting city though?
FWIW I think York is a decent place for Parliament. Or Chester maybe. Northern and civilised.
And the Palace of Westminster, once repaired, would then be an excellent spot for an English Parliament to correct the obvious democratic deficit we have.
York and Chester. Both places that seem to be really, really busy already.
I'd love to see somewhere "grim" being regenerated by a permanent move.
But have you read Samuel Huntington’s seminal work?
Yes, I have. Jolly good, as I recall, though I didn't agree with everything
Reread the last chapter. The conclusion isn’t quite what you expect
What does it say? I read it many years ago and don't have a copy.
The argument is that the real “clash of civilisations” isn’t between Islam/Sino/Judeo-Christian but inside the West between social conservatives and progressives. That will undermine their west and fatally weaken it in the struggle with other cultural blocs
Don’t forget this was written in the early 90s
Golly. That's prescient.
I fear he is right. The rot started in academe, and spread from there. Some of the examples of mad cancel culture in this essay are quite startling, and depressing - see the one about the college persecuting a bakery. Amazing.
And did you know the Vagina Monologues is no longer allowed on American campuses? It is considered regressive and reactionary, as it excludes women who don't have vaginas.
However even if wokeism temporarily wins in the West demographically the growth of socially conservative Africa means social conservatism will likely win globally, especially as migration from Africa to the West continues due to relatively low western fertility rates compared to those in Africa.
Which would lead to the ironic conclusion that Jacob Rees Mogg and Nadine Dorries and those opposed to abortion and supportive of the more traditional family model more than further LGBTQ advances might find longer term their greatest support comes from 'Black Lives Matter' and by supporting uncontrolled immigration the progressive woke left will weaken their own cause
It's been a mosque, cathedral and museum at various points in its history. The important thing to my mind is the preservation of the artwork etc, whatever guise it is under.
It was built as a cathedral. It is a cathedral. It was converted into a mosque by the Ottomans to show the triumph of Islam over Christianity.
Ataturk did the wise thing when he forced a compromise, and made it a museum.
Erdogan's move is Islamic triumphalism, redux
Its their country. Why should we care?
It's part of world patrimony, and it's on our continent, Europe, and as such it is a keystone of European cultural and architectural history.
Presumably you'd be OK with India turning the Jama Masjid mosque in Delhi into a Hindu Temple, because it's "their country"?
And I guess you're OK with China bulldozing all the mosques in Xinjiang. I mean, it's their country, after all.
I couldn't care less if India turned a mosque into a Hindu temple. Or if they turned it into a pub.
Bulldozing listed buildings is a different matter, but changing its use - I couldn't care less. Its still there, still maintained, just got a different use.
Your historical knowledge is lacking, but I can't be arsed to educate you any more
Besides all that, Erdogan doing this is another sign of him Islamifying the country. Which really is a bad thing, especially for the many moderates in Turkey who want no such thing.
He's a bad guy. He's a Muslim Putin.
Buildings change use. C'est la vie.
One of the most stunning pubs I've ever been into was the Pitcher & Piano in Nottingham. A Grade II listed Church that has been turned into a public house. When I went there with a group of friends everyone enjoyed it except oddly enough a Muslim friend (who drinks lots of alcohol and eats pork etc) who found it blasphemous. Are you suggesting conversions like that should never be permitted?
If a Mosque in this country closed down and it was bought by a pub chain and converted to be a public house instead . . . or a Church . . . or a pizza restaurant . . . or anything else . . . I couldn't care less.
(I agree that Erdogan is a bad man - but that goes much deeper than a building changing use).
once upon a time most companies paid in company scrip that could only be spent in company stores. While you can argue well if you dont like it change jobs it wasnt so easy. Laws were passed to stop it
1) Do you agree with those laws or do you regard being paid in company scrip should be allowed
2) if you answer the law was right what is the difference between that and telling companies they have to also accept hard currency and not just cards. In the first the company issuing the scrips dictates where you can purchase things in the second card issuing companies and dont forget there are really only two are limiting where you can shop by giving you a card or not
I have no qualms with people getting a benefit in kind of company scrip so long as other laws are followed including getting paid a minimum wage in hard currency and getting taxed on their benefit in kind.
2: The difference is that cards are hard currency. If you spend pound sterlings in coins, pound sterlings in notes, pound sterlings by BACS transfer, pound sterlings by cheques or pound sterlings by cards your hard currency is pound sterling either way.
If there is a role for the government to pay it is to ensure everyone has access to being able to get a card. A universal service obligation on banks even if it's only for prepayment or debit cards without borrowing options. Other than that there is no role for the government to play, it is a matter for commercial choice by both businesses and consumers.
You didn't get hard currency only company scrip so I take it you answer is No it should not be allowed......so state intervention was good
I fail to see the difference between the state intervention declaring all shops must accept cash and state intervention stating banks must give a bank account to everyone. In fact the second is the worst of the pair for intervention because it takes choice out of peoples hands
So now we have established you don't mind state intervention can you cease your whining when others say that it is sometimes necessary and go read some more Ayn Rand
I've never said I support zero state intervention in the first place, as I've said when this has come up in the past I am a libertarian not an anarchist.
It is far, far, far better to impose a universal service obligation on banks than it is to impose an obligation on every single small shop, large shop, restaurant, bar, hairdresser, boutique or anything else in the entire country that they must accept cash.
Banks are structurally important and integral to the entire economy, a universal service obligation is something they can withstand without jeopardising their business and as part of their regulations (which must exist). Ensuring everyone has access to banking is far better because it puts the choice into people's hands, they can access all parts of the economy (many online retailers won't accept cash for instance and I doubt even you're suggesting they must are you?). There is a requirement to ensure everyone has access to basic banking.
Putting the onus on eg small businesses that don't want the security or other risks involved with accepting cash is an entirely different matter. Cash is not required and can lead to armed robberies and stabbings so there is a very valid justification not to want to accept it. If everyone has access to banking there is absolutely zero justification to compel people to literally put their lives at risk accepting cash when they don't want to do so . . . I don't know if you've ever been subject to an armed robbery by people looking for cash but it is not a pleasant experience.
Small business have always accepted cash so its not asking them to change it is merely specifying that they must continue to do so. The number of businesses that only accept card payments is tiny so as usual your argument is bollocks.
Libertarians believe that defence is one the people of the country is one of the key things for a governement. Defence doesn't just mean from invasion it is also a defence of freedom. In this case the freedom not to have a bank account, not to have every penny spent tracked, not to have their data given to governments and big business
You should give up being a libertarian you really do fail at it
Small businesses have not always accepted cash. In the past some small businesses only accepted cheques and have swapped asking for cheques with asking for card payments. The idea that businesses have always all accepted cash is total bollocks. Your argument is the bollocks one not mine.
You may want to be a conspiracy nut without a bank account . . . that's your choice and if you find businesses willing to trade with you on that basis then good luck to you. There's no reason to compel an onus on businesses to trade with you on that basis that has never existed in the past nor does now. Its your choice.
Companies are not compelled to cater to your choices.
99% of businesses at least have always accepted cash...obviously I am referring to physical shops not mail order or online at this point.
Your way paves the way to authoritarianism as soon as we get in the wrong government. Mine is a small intervention to protect freedom.
As to conspiracy theory which part is conspiracy. We know governements have access to are bank accounts and card payments, we know big business collects data on our spending. A conspiracy theory is a theory that something is happening without any tangible proof it is. I don't think worrying about data collection is a conspiracy theory.
You will be the first one shrieking when a nanny state government using all the data available because its all electronic decides to restrict for example alcohol purchase by blocking payment for it after a certain amount each week. That is the power you want to hand them.
To a certain extent, this mirrors the arguments about forcing people to accept paper money when that was introduced. Instead of "real" silver and gold.
The reality is that most people I know have some cash in their wallets as backup. The recent COVID crisis has accelerated the trend (another one) towards cashlessness.
Given that the sea level is set to rise by about 60m as the ice caps melt, it might make sense to move parliament permanently to the Midlands. Granted, this will take a few thousand years, but why not get ahead of the curve and make Birmingham the capital of the current British Isles and future British Archipelago now?
Do you think a few thousand years is enough to make Birmingham a decent, interesting city though?
FWIW I think York is a decent place for Parliament. Or Chester maybe. Northern and civilised.
And the Palace of Westminster, once repaired, would then be an excellent spot for an English Parliament to correct the obvious democratic deficit we have.
If you're going to keep using the Palace of Westminster then I'd argue the reverse: Federal Parliament in London, English Parliament in York.
But have you read Samuel Huntington’s seminal work?
Yes, I have. Jolly good, as I recall, though I didn't agree with everything
Reread the last chapter. The conclusion isn’t quite what you expect
What does it say? I read it many years ago and don't have a copy.
The argument is that the real “clash of civilisations” isn’t between Islam/Sino/Judeo-Christian but inside the West between social conservatives and progressives. That will undermine their west and fatally weaken it in the struggle with other cultural blocs
Don’t forget this was written in the early 90s
Golly. That's prescient.
I fear he is right. The rot started in academe, and spread from there. Some of the examples of mad cancel culture in this essay are quite startling, and depressing - see the one about the college persecuting a bakery. Amazing.
And did you know the Vagina Monologues is no longer allowed on American campuses? It is considered regressive and reactionary, as it excludes women who don't have vaginas.
However even if wokeism temporarily wins in the West demographically the growth of socially conservative Africa means social conservatism will likely win globally, especially as migration from Africa to the West continues due to relatively low western fertility rates compared to those in Africa
So it's OK if the liberal West collapses due to Wokeism, because eventually Europe will mainly be inhabited by conservative African Muslims?
once upon a time most companies paid in company scrip that could only be spent in company stores. While you can argue well if you dont like it change jobs it wasnt so easy. Laws were passed to stop it
1) Do you agree with those laws or do you regard being paid in company scrip should be allowed
2) if you answer the law was right what is the difference between that and telling companies they have to also accept hard currency and not just cards. In the first the company issuing the scrips dictates where you can purchase things in the second card issuing companies and dont forget there are really only two are limiting where you can shop by giving you a card or not
I have no qualms with people getting a benefit in kind of company scrip so long as other laws are followed including getting paid a minimum wage in hard currency and getting taxed on their benefit in kind.
2: The difference is that cards are hard currency. If you spend pound sterlings in coins, pound sterlings in notes, pound sterlings by BACS transfer, pound sterlings by cheques or pound sterlings by cards your hard currency is pound sterling either way.
If there is a role for the government to pay it is to ensure everyone has access to being able to get a card. A universal service obligation on banks even if it's only for prepayment or debit cards without borrowing options. Other than that there is no role for the government to play, it is a matter for commercial choice by both businesses and consumers.
You didn't get hard currency only company scrip so I take it you answer is No it should not be allowed......so state intervention was good
I fail to see the difference between the state intervention declaring all shops must accept cash and state intervention stating banks must give a bank account to everyone. In fact the second is the worst of the pair for intervention because it takes choice out of peoples hands
So now we have established you don't mind state intervention can you cease your whining when others say that it is sometimes necessary and go read some more Ayn Rand
I've never said I support zero state intervention in the first place, as I've said when this has come up in the past I am a libertarian not an anarchist.
It is far, far, far better to impose a universal service obligation on banks than it is to impose an obligation on every single small shop, large shop, restaurant, bar, hairdresser, boutique or anything else in the entire country that they must accept cash.
Banks are structurally important and integral to the entire economy, a universal service obligation is something they can withstand without jeopardising their business and as part of their regulations (which must exist). Ensuring everyone has access to banking is far better because it puts the choice into people's hands, they can access all parts of the economy (many online retailers won't accept cash for instance and I doubt even you're suggesting they must are you?). There is a requirement to ensure everyone has access to basic banking.
Putting the onus on eg small businesses that don't want the security or other risks involved with accepting cash is an entirely different matter. Cash is not required and can lead to armed robberies and stabbings so there is a very valid justification not to want to accept it. If everyone has access to banking there is absolutely zero justification to compel people to literally put their lives at risk accepting cash when they don't want to do so . . . I don't know if you've ever been subject to an armed robbery by people looking for cash but it is not a pleasant experience.
Small business have always accepted cash so its not asking them to change it is merely specifying that they must continue to do so. The number of businesses that only accept card payments is tiny so as usual your argument is bollocks.
Libertarians believe that defence is one the people of the country is one of the key things for a governement. Defence doesn't just mean from invasion it is also a defence of freedom. In this case the freedom not to have a bank account, not to have every penny spent tracked, not to have their data given to governments and big business
You should give up being a libertarian you really do fail at it
Small businesses have not always accepted cash. In the past some small businesses only accepted cheques and have swapped asking for cheques with asking for card payments. The idea that businesses have always all accepted cash is total bollocks. Your argument is the bollocks one not mine.
You may want to be a conspiracy nut without a bank account . . . that's your choice and if you find businesses willing to trade with you on that basis then good luck to you. There's no reason to compel an onus on businesses to trade with you on that basis that has never existed in the past nor does now. Its your choice.
Companies are not compelled to cater to your choices.
99% of businesses at least have always accepted cash...obviously I am referring to physical shops not mail order or online at this point.
Your way paves the way to authoritarianism as soon as we get in the wrong government. Mine is a small intervention to protect freedom.
As to conspiracy theory which part is conspiracy. We know governements have access to are bank accounts and card payments, we know big business collects data on our spending. A conspiracy theory is a theory that something is happening without any tangible proof it is. I don't think worrying about data collection is a conspiracy theory.
You will be the first one shrieking when a nanny state government using all the data available because its all electronic decides to restrict for example alcohol purchase by blocking payment for it after a certain amount each week. That is the power you want to hand them.
To a certain extent, this mirrors the arguments about forcing people to accept paper money when that was introduced. Instead of "real" silver and gold.
The reality is that most people I know have some cash in their wallets as backup. The recent COVID crisis has accelerated the trend (another one) towards cashlessness.
It is nothing like the same argument because paper money is no more traceable than gold or silver neither did it require you to have a bank account. I suspect the argument at the time was while gold and silver had an intrinsic value in and of themselves paper money didn't
So (my point) voter suppression will be key for Trump.
Question: does it cover changes to the size of each demographic? For example, if Trump increases GOP support from 84% to 91%, that’s an uptick in total number of votes IF the size of the GOP demographic is unchanged (and a bigger uptick if it has expanded). If he’s ended up driving a chunk of the not-Trump support out of the Party and simply retained what he had before (but going from 84% of 30% of voters to 91% of 27% of voters), that’s not a benefit for him.
It's been a mosque, cathedral and museum at various points in its history. The important thing to my mind is the preservation of the artwork etc, whatever guise it is under.
It was built as a cathedral. It is a cathedral. It was converted into a mosque by the Ottomans to show the triumph of Islam over Christianity.
Ataturk did the wise thing when he forced a compromise, and made it a museum.
Erdogan's move is Islamic triumphalism, redux
Its their country. Why should we care?
It's part of world patrimony, and it's on our continent, Europe, and as such it is a keystone of European cultural and architectural history.
Presumably you'd be OK with India turning the Jama Masjid mosque in Delhi into a Hindu Temple, because it's "their country"?
And I guess you're OK with China bulldozing all the mosques in Xinjiang. I mean, it's their country, after all.
I couldn't care less if India turned a mosque into a Hindu temple. Or if they turned it into a pub.
Bulldozing listed buildings is a different matter, but changing its use - I couldn't care less. Its still there, still maintained, just got a different use.
Your historical knowledge is lacking, but I can't be arsed to educate you any more
Besides all that, Erdogan doing this is another sign of him Islamifying the country. Which really is a bad thing, especially for the many moderates in Turkey who want no such thing.
He's a bad guy. He's a Muslim Putin.
Buildings change use. C'est la vie.
One of the most stunning pubs I've ever been into was the Pitcher & Piano in Nottingham. A Grade II listed Church that has been turned into a public house. When I went there with a group of friends everyone enjoyed it except oddly enough a Muslim friend (who drinks lots of alcohol and eats pork etc) who found it blasphemous. Are you suggesting conversions like that should never be permitted?
If a Mosque in this country closed down and it was bought by a pub chain and converted to be a public house instead . . . or a Church . . . or a pizza restaurant . . . or anything else . . . I couldn't care less.
(I agree that Erdogan is a bad man - but that goes much deeper than a building changing use).
There is a strong.... tradition... in both Islam and Christianity that excessive veneration, in the religious sense, of buildings is a bad thing.
So in a sense, no support isn't crumbling - but support is a lot less sure than a few months ago.
These communities want to be supported and want lots of investment and they expect Johnson to deliver it. Right now they think he will stick to his promises on Brexit.
once upon a time most companies paid in company scrip that could only be spent in company stores. While you can argue well if you dont like it change jobs it wasnt so easy. Laws were passed to stop it
1) Do you agree with those laws or do you regard being paid in company scrip should be allowed
2) if you answer the law was right what is the difference between that and telling companies they have to also accept hard currency and not just cards. In the first the company issuing the scrips dictates where you can purchase things in the second card issuing companies and dont forget there are really only two are limiting where you can shop by giving you a card or not
I have no qualms with people getting a benefit in kind of company scrip so long as other laws are followed including getting paid a minimum wage in hard currency and getting taxed on their benefit in kind.
2: The difference is that cards are hard currency. If you spend pound sterlings in coins, pound sterlings in notes, pound sterlings by BACS transfer, pound sterlings by cheques or pound sterlings by cards your hard currency is pound sterling either way.
If there is a role for the government to pay it is to ensure everyone has access to being able to get a card. A universal service obligation on banks even if it's only for prepayment or debit cards without borrowing options. Other than that there is no role for the government to play, it is a matter for commercial choice by both businesses and consumers.
You didn't get hard currency only company scrip so I take it you answer is No it should not be allowed......so state intervention was good
I fail to see the difference between the state intervention declaring all shops must accept cash and state intervention stating banks must give a bank account to everyone. In fact the second is the worst of the pair for intervention because it takes choice out of peoples hands
So now we have established you don't mind state intervention can you cease your whining when others say that it is sometimes necessary and go read some more Ayn Rand
I've never said I support zero state intervention in the first place, as I've said when this has come up in the past I am a libertarian not an anarchist.
It is far, far, far better to impose a universal service obligation on banks than it is to impose an obligation on every single small shop, large shop, restaurant, bar, hairdresser, boutique or anything else in the entire country that they must accept cash.
Banks are structurally important and integral to the entire economy, a universal service obligation is something they can withstand without jeopardising their business and as part of their regulations (which must exist). Ensuring everyone has access to banking is far better because it puts the choice into people's hands, they can access all parts of the economy (many online retailers won't accept cash for instance and I doubt even you're suggesting they must are you?). There is a requirement to ensure everyone has access to basic banking.
Putting the onus on eg small businesses that don't want the security or other risks involved with accepting cash is an entirely different matter. Cash is not required and can lead to armed robberies and stabbings so there is a very valid justification not to want to accept it. If everyone has access to banking there is absolutely zero justification to compel people to literally put their lives at risk accepting cash when they don't want to do so . . . I don't know if you've ever been subject to an armed robbery by people looking for cash but it is not a pleasant experience.
Small business have always accepted cash so its not asking them to change it is merely specifying that they must continue to do so. The number of businesses that only accept card payments is tiny so as usual your argument is bollocks.
Libertarians believe that defence is one the people of the country is one of the key things for a governement. Defence doesn't just mean from invasion it is also a defence of freedom. In this case the freedom not to have a bank account, not to have every penny spent tracked, not to have their data given to governments and big business
You should give up being a libertarian you really do fail at it
Small businesses have not always accepted cash. In the past some small businesses only accepted cheques and have swapped asking for cheques with asking for card payments. The idea that businesses have always all accepted cash is total bollocks. Your argument is the bollocks one not mine.
You may want to be a conspiracy nut without a bank account . . . that's your choice and if you find businesses willing to trade with you on that basis then good luck to you. There's no reason to compel an onus on businesses to trade with you on that basis that has never existed in the past nor does now. Its your choice.
Companies are not compelled to cater to your choices.
99% of businesses at least have always accepted cash...obviously I am referring to physical shops not mail order or online at this point.
Your way paves the way to authoritarianism as soon as we get in the wrong government. Mine is a small intervention to protect freedom.
As to conspiracy theory which part is conspiracy. We know governements have access to are bank accounts and card payments, we know big business collects data on our spending. A conspiracy theory is a theory that something is happening without any tangible proof it is. I don't think worrying about data collection is a conspiracy theory.
You will be the first one shrieking when a nanny state government using all the data available because its all electronic decides to restrict for example alcohol purchase by blocking payment for it after a certain amount each week. That is the power you want to hand them.
To a certain extent, this mirrors the arguments about forcing people to accept paper money when that was introduced. Instead of "real" silver and gold.
The reality is that most people I know have some cash in their wallets as backup. The recent COVID crisis has accelerated the trend (another one) towards cashlessness.
It is nothing like the same argument because paper money is no more traceable than gold or silver neither did it require you to have a bank account. I suspect the argument at the time was while gold and silver had an intrinsic value in and of themselves paper money didn't
You might be surprised - some people were not happy about serial numbers on money, in addition to the whole fiat money thing.
Even in the days of hand written ledgers, governments and banks tracked (well, tried to) paper money.
But have you read Samuel Huntington’s seminal work?
Yes, I have. Jolly good, as I recall, though I didn't agree with everything
Reread the last chapter. The conclusion isn’t quite what you expect
What does it say? I read it many years ago and don't have a copy.
The argument is that the real “clash of civilisations” isn’t between Islam/Sino/Judeo-Christian but inside the West between social conservatives and progressives. That will undermine their west and fatally weaken it in the struggle with other cultural blocs
Don’t forget this was written in the early 90s
Golly. That's prescient.
I fear he is right. The rot started in academe, and spread from there. Some of the examples of mad cancel culture in this essay are quite startling, and depressing - see the one about the college persecuting a bakery. Amazing.
And did you know the Vagina Monologues is no longer allowed on American campuses? It is considered regressive and reactionary, as it excludes women who don't have vaginas.
However even if wokeism temporarily wins in the West demographically the growth of socially conservative Africa means social conservatism will likely win globally, especially as migration from Africa to the West continues due to relatively low western fertility rates compared to those in Africa.
Which would lead to the ironic conclusion that Jacob Rees Mogg and Nadine Dorries and those opposed to abortion and supportive of the more traditional family model more than further LGBTQ advances might find longer term their greatest support comes from 'Black Lives Matter' and by supporting uncontrolled immigration the progressive woke left will weaken their own cause
Well there's big picture and then there's BIG picture.
once upon a time most companies paid in company scrip that could only be spent in company stores. While you can argue well if you dont like it change jobs it wasnt so easy. Laws were passed to stop it
1) Do you agree with those laws or do you regard being paid in company scrip should be allowed
2) if you answer the law was right what is the difference between that and telling companies they have to also accept hard currency and not just cards. In the first the company issuing the scrips dictates where you can purchase things in the second card issuing companies and dont forget there are really only two are limiting where you can shop by giving you a card or not
I have no qualms with people getting a benefit in kind of company scrip so long as other laws are followed including getting paid a minimum wage in hard currency and getting taxed on their benefit in kind.
2: The difference is that cards are hard currency. If you spend pound sterlings in coins, pound sterlings in notes, pound sterlings by BACS transfer, pound sterlings by cheques or pound sterlings by cards your hard currency is pound sterling either way.
If there is a role for the government to pay it is to ensure everyone has access to being able to get a card. A universal service obligation on banks even if it's only for prepayment or debit cards without borrowing options. Other than that there is no role for the government to play, it is a matter for commercial choice by both businesses and consumers.
You didn't get hard currency only company scrip so I take it you answer is No it should not be allowed......so state intervention was good
I fail to see the difference between the state intervention declaring all shops must accept cash and state intervention stating banks must give a bank account to everyone. In fact the second is the worst of the pair for intervention because it takes choice out of peoples hands
So now we have established you don't mind state intervention can you cease your whining when others say that it is sometimes necessary and go read some more Ayn Rand
I've never said I support zero state intervention in the first place, as I've said when this has come up in the past I am a libertarian not an anarchist.
It is far, far, far better to impose a universal service obligation on banks than it is to impose an obligation on every single small shop, large shop, restaurant, bar, hairdresser, boutique or anything else in the entire country that they must accept cash.
Banks are structurally important and integral to the entire economy, a universal service obligation is something they can withstand without jeopardising their business and as part of their regulations (which must exist). Ensuring everyone has access to banking is far better because it puts the choice into people's hands, they can access all parts of the economy (many online retailers won't accept cash for instance and I doubt even you're suggesting they must are you?). There is a requirement to ensure everyone has access to basic banking.
Putting the onus on eg small businesses that don't want the security or other risks involved with accepting cash is an entirely different matter. Cash is not required and can lead to armed robberies and stabbings so there is a very valid justification not to want to accept it. If everyone has access to banking there is absolutely zero justification to compel people to literally put their lives at risk accepting cash when they don't want to do so . . . I don't know if you've ever been subject to an armed robbery by people looking for cash but it is not a pleasant experience.
Small business have always accepted cash so its not asking them to change it is merely specifying that they must continue to do so. The number of businesses that only accept card payments is tiny so as usual your argument is bollocks.
Libertarians believe that defence is one the people of the country is one of the key things for a governement. Defence doesn't just mean from invasion it is also a defence of freedom. In this case the freedom not to have a bank account, not to have every penny spent tracked, not to have their data given to governments and big business
You should give up being a libertarian you really do fail at it
Small businesses have not always accepted cash. In the past some small businesses only accepted cheques and have swapped asking for cheques with asking for card payments. The idea that businesses have always all accepted cash is total bollocks. Your argument is the bollocks one not mine.
You may want to be a conspiracy nut without a bank account . . . that's your choice and if you find businesses willing to trade with you on that basis then good luck to you. There's no reason to compel an onus on businesses to trade with you on that basis that has never existed in the past nor does now. Its your choice.
Companies are not compelled to cater to your choices.
99% of businesses at least have always accepted cash...obviously I am referring to physical shops not mail order or online at this point.
Your way paves the way to authoritarianism as soon as we get in the wrong government. Mine is a small intervention to protect freedom.
As to conspiracy theory which part is conspiracy. We know governements have access to are bank accounts and card payments, we know big business collects data on our spending. A conspiracy theory is a theory that something is happening without any tangible proof it is. I don't think worrying about data collection is a conspiracy theory.
You will be the first one shrieking when a nanny state government using all the data available because its all electronic decides to restrict for example alcohol purchase by blocking payment for it after a certain amount each week. That is the power you want to hand them.
To a certain extent, this mirrors the arguments about forcing people to accept paper money when that was introduced. Instead of "real" silver and gold.
The reality is that most people I know have some cash in their wallets as backup. The recent COVID crisis has accelerated the trend (another one) towards cashlessness.
It is nothing like the same argument because paper money is no more traceable than gold or silver neither did it require you to have a bank account. I suspect the argument at the time was while gold and silver had an intrinsic value in and of themselves paper money didn't
You might be surprised - some people were not happy about serial numbers on money, in addition to the whole fiat money thing.
Even in the days of hand written ledgers, governments and banks tracked (well, tried to) paper money.
Serial numbers on money are like numbers on ballots truly conspiracy theory territory unlike government and big business ability to track electronic transactions which Philip keeps throwing in because he knows he is wrong
Train station is an Americanism. I think it's also that it makes it sound like it's a place where you station trains.
As opposed to a place where you station railways?
Just digging around it seems that the complaint is that the station is more than just a place to get on a train (contrast with a bus stop). I guess that depends a bit on which station we're talking about. York I'd suggest deserves to be considered a railway station.
Tories are still ahead of Labour in Scotland, mostly because Labour has the utterly useless leader in Leonard, if they can't remove him (why not?) they can at least make their opposition to Independence clear
As a result though he will be doing better on the West and North East coasts than 2016 given he is up with richer voters but worse in the more working class rustbelt and south, hence I think Biden will do better in the electoral college than Hillary but Trump has a better chance of winning the popular vote than he did last time if he recovers amongst middle income voters (where he currently polls 1% below his share with high income voters)
I'm struggling with the notion Trump will outpoll Biden across the country. He lost 48-46 to Clinton last time and among the key voting demographic (whites), he is doing much better. Among men it is tied but white women are strongly voting for Biden.
I'm always interested in the regional splits in the US polls particularly with regard to the Midwest and the South. No reference to those in the Fox News crosstabs but on the ABC News/Washington Post poll, the reference to the regional split is in the text:
"Regional shifts also are substantial. Biden's advanced in the Midwest, from a dead heat to a 17-point lead. It’s close in the South, 50-44 percent, Biden-Trump, compared with a 13-point Trump lead in late March. And Biden is ahead by 15 points in the Northeast and a broad 30 points in the West."
Those regional splits are catastrophic for the President. Trump won the Midwest by four in 2016 so that's a 10.5% swing to Biden while the South went for Trump by eight last time so that's also a 10.5% swing. 7% swing to Biden in the West, no swing at all in the NE (!).
The national swing overall is just 4% to Biden but that alone would be more than enough.
Weak and Stable. That is reported cases of the virus in England. Weak because low incidence of 10 reported cases per million per day (6 per million per day in London). Hot spots in the North. Stable because R is hovering around 1. A bit above I in London causing the number of reported cases to move from 5 per million per day to 6. No sign of any "surge".
Africa is the fastest area of growth in Christianity yes, hence we will likely soon have a black Archbishop of Canterbury
Is that a err sequitur ?
It is a rather interesting question - the Church Of England is vanishing in England and growing explosively in Africa and other places.
The interesting bit is that the English Church of England is very progressive, and the African CoE tends to be extremely... traditionalist.
So you have the ongoing situation where very progressive white people are trying to stop black people from using the growing strength they have in the Church.
Technically the CofE is not the same as the Anglican Communion. I assume that the church in Africa is not part of the CofE
It's been a mosque, cathedral and museum at various points in its history. The important thing to my mind is the preservation of the artwork etc, whatever guise it is under.
It was built as a cathedral. It is a cathedral. It was converted into a mosque by the Ottomans to show the triumph of Islam over Christianity.
Ataturk did the wise thing when he forced a compromise, and made it a museum.
Erdogan's move is Islamic triumphalism, redux
Its their country. Why should we care?
It's part of world patrimony, and it's on our continent, Europe, and as such it is a keystone of European cultural and architectural history.
Presumably you'd be OK with India turning the Jama Masjid mosque in Delhi into a Hindu Temple, because it's "their country"?
And I guess you're OK with China bulldozing all the mosques in Xinjiang. I mean, it's their country, after all.
I couldn't care less if India turned a mosque into a Hindu temple. Or if they turned it into a pub.
Bulldozing listed buildings is a different matter, but changing its use - I couldn't care less. Its still there, still maintained, just got a different use.
Your historical knowledge is lacking, but I can't be arsed to educate you any more
Besides all that, Erdogan doing this is another sign of him Islamifying the country. Which really is a bad thing, especially for the many moderates in Turkey who want no such thing.
He's a bad guy. He's a Muslim Putin.
Buildings change use. C'est la vie.
One of the most stunning pubs I've ever been into was the Pitcher & Piano in Nottingham. A Grade II listed Church that has been turned into a public house. When I went there with a group of friends everyone enjoyed it except oddly enough a Muslim friend (who drinks lots of alcohol and eats pork etc) who found it blasphemous. Are you suggesting conversions like that should never be permitted?
If a Mosque in this country closed down and it was bought by a pub chain and converted to be a public house instead . . . or a Church . . . or a pizza restaurant . . . or anything else . . . I couldn't care less.
(I agree that Erdogan is a bad man - but that goes much deeper than a building changing use).
Hagia Sophia is not another church in Nottingham. It is one of the most important buildings in the world, indeed it is hard to think of a building which is its equal in terms of history AND artistry. It was an architectural miracle of its time, and is still one of the loveliest structures on earth.
Ataturk knew its pivotal symbolism, hence his wise decision to compromise, and make it a museum.
Remaking it as a mosque is utterly divisive, is a deliberate insult to Turkey's Christians, and to Orthodox Christians around the world (who see it as their citadel). It is just another waymarker in the Islamification of Turkey
But have you read Samuel Huntington’s seminal work?
Yes, I have. Jolly good, as I recall, though I didn't agree with everything
Reread the last chapter. The conclusion isn’t quite what you expect
What does it say? I read it many years ago and don't have a copy.
The argument is that the real “clash of civilisations” isn’t between Islam/Sino/Judeo-Christian but inside the West between social conservatives and progressives. That will undermine their west and fatally weaken it in the struggle with other cultural blocs
Don’t forget this was written in the early 90s
Sounds a bit sinister. Why would being socially conservative make the West stronger?
But have you read Samuel Huntington’s seminal work?
Yes, I have. Jolly good, as I recall, though I didn't agree with everything
Reread the last chapter. The conclusion isn’t quite what you expect
What does it say? I read it many years ago and don't have a copy.
The argument is that the real “clash of civilisations” isn’t between Islam/Sino/Judeo-Christian but inside the West between social conservatives and progressives. That will undermine their west and fatally weaken it in the struggle with other cultural blocs
Don’t forget this was written in the early 90s
Golly. That's prescient.
I fear he is right. The rot started in academe, and spread from there. Some of the examples of mad cancel culture in this essay are quite startling, and depressing - see the one about the college persecuting a bakery. Amazing.
And did you know the Vagina Monologues is no longer allowed on American campuses? It is considered regressive and reactionary, as it excludes women who don't have vaginas.
However even if wokeism temporarily wins in the West demographically the growth of socially conservative Africa means social conservatism will likely win globally, especially as migration from Africa to the West continues due to relatively low western fertility rates compared to those in Africa
So it's OK if the liberal West collapses due to Wokeism, because eventually Europe will mainly be inhabited by conservative African Muslims?
That's one of your best. Genuinely impressive.
Well if you are a staunch social conservative, a socially conservative African Muslim or African evangelical is more of an ally than a white social liberal
But have you read Samuel Huntington’s seminal work?
Yes, I have. Jolly good, as I recall, though I didn't agree with everything
Reread the last chapter. The conclusion isn’t quite what you expect
What does it say? I read it many years ago and don't have a copy.
The argument is that the real “clash of civilisations” isn’t between Islam/Sino/Judeo-Christian but inside the West between social conservatives and progressives. That will undermine their west and fatally weaken it in the struggle with other cultural blocs
Don’t forget this was written in the early 90s
Sounds a bit sinister. Why would being socially conservative make the West stronger?
Reagan said conservatism rested on faith, flag and family, the West needed all 3 to prosper and grow
Africa is the fastest area of growth in Christianity yes, hence we will likely soon have a black Archbishop of Canterbury
Is that a err sequitur ?
It is a rather interesting question - the Church Of England is vanishing in England and growing explosively in Africa and other places.
The interesting bit is that the English Church of England is very progressive, and the African CoE tends to be extremely... traditionalist.
So you have the ongoing situation where very progressive white people are trying to stop black people from using the growing strength they have in the Church.
Technically the CofE is not the same as the Anglican Communion. I assume that the church in Africa is not part of the CofE
They are under the same umbrella even if distinct but even in England the black population attends Church of England services on a regular basis in a greater percentage of their numbers than the white population now, certainly for those under 50
Weak and Stable. That is reported cases of the virus in England. Weak because low incidence of 10 reported cases per million per day (6 per million per day in London). Hot spots in the North. Stable because R is hovering around 1. A bit above I in London causing the number of reported cases to move from 5 per million per day to 6. No sign of any "surge".
Are you basing this on the reported Pillar 1 + Pillar 2 data, or the Pillar 1 data alone?
But have you read Samuel Huntington’s seminal work?
Yes, I have. Jolly good, as I recall, though I didn't agree with everything
Reread the last chapter. The conclusion isn’t quite what you expect
What does it say? I read it many years ago and don't have a copy.
The argument is that the real “clash of civilisations” isn’t between Islam/Sino/Judeo-Christian but inside the West between social conservatives and progressives. That will undermine their west and fatally weaken it in the struggle with other cultural blocs
Don’t forget this was written in the early 90s
Golly. That's prescient.
I fear he is right. The rot started in academe, and spread from there. Some of the examples of mad cancel culture in this essay are quite startling, and depressing - see the one about the college persecuting a bakery. Amazing.
And did you know the Vagina Monologues is no longer allowed on American campuses? It is considered regressive and reactionary, as it excludes women who don't have vaginas.
However even if wokeism temporarily wins in the West demographically the growth of socially conservative Africa means social conservatism will likely win globally, especially as migration from Africa to the West continues due to relatively low western fertility rates compared to those in Africa
So it's OK if the liberal West collapses due to Wokeism, because eventually Europe will mainly be inhabited by conservative African Muslims?
That's one of your best. Genuinely impressive.
Well if you are a staunch social conservative, a socially conservative African Muslim or African evangelical is more of an ally than a white social liberal
I'm quite keen on a liberal democratic secular Europe, shaped by the Enlightnment and inhabited mainly by Europeans. But it seems I am in a minority. Or I soon will be.
York should be a location for a English Parliament as said previously the UK parliament should be in London. In history Lord Thomas Fairfax fighting on the parliamentary side in the English civil war has a house in York Which is still there now as a museum.I guess he would approve. I was once in a historic bookshop in York city centre and they were selling handwritten letters from Oliver Cromwell to Fairfax discussing tactics.They seemed quite cheap to me at the time.Wish I had bought them.
Reagan said conservatism rested on faith, flag and family, the West needed all 3 to prosper and grow
Those aren't solely pre-requisities of conservatism as I'm sure you realise.
Liberals are often people of great faith but sometimes none - patriotism or love for one's own country transcends ideology and the notion of "family" is again supported by liberals and socialists.
The relationships with the State may differ but I'd argue plenty of liberals and socialists would buy into the notions of faith, flag and family.
As a result though he will be doing better on the West and North East coasts than 2016 given he is up with richer voters but worse in the more working class rustbelt and south, hence I think Biden will do better in the electoral college than Hillary but Trump has a better chance of winning the popular vote than he did last time if he recovers amongst middle income voters (where he currently polls 1% below his share with high income voters)
I'm struggling with the notion Trump will outpoll Biden across the country. He lost 48-46 to Clinton last time and among the key voting demographic (whites), he is doing much better. Among men it is tied but white women are strongly voting for Biden.
I'm always interested in the regional splits in the US polls particularly with regard to the Midwest and the South. No reference to those in the Fox News crosstabs but on the ABC News/Washington Post poll, the reference to the regional split is in the text:
"Regional shifts also are substantial. Biden's advanced in the Midwest, from a dead heat to a 17-point lead. It’s close in the South, 50-44 percent, Biden-Trump, compared with a 13-point Trump lead in late March. And Biden is ahead by 15 points in the Northeast and a broad 30 points in the West."
Those regional splits are catastrophic for the President. Trump won the Midwest by four in 2016 so that's a 10.5% swing to Biden while the South went for Trump by eight last time so that's also a 10.5% swing. 7% swing to Biden in the West, no swing at all in the NE (!).
The national swing overall is just 4% to Biden but that alone would be more than enough.
Biden is polling 49.3% nationwide on average, only 1% more than Hillary got in 2016.
If Trump recovered all the 46.1% who voted for him last time and added the 3.28% who voted for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate (Libertarian voters tend to be higher income), he would be on 49.4% without winning a single Hillary voter
In the competition between China and the West, China has the advantage of scale and the ability to execute a long term strategy (no elections). The West lacks scale and is short term because of politicians' desire to be elected.
But the West does have a competitive advantage. Because it is more diverse and experimental in ideas, technologies and processes it is more innovative than China. Hence China's desire to steal IP.
If the West could capitalise on its innovation capability and at the same time form cooperative partnerships and a stable demos that supports long term strategies (PR for the UK and US) then the West could out compete China.
But have you read Samuel Huntington’s seminal work?
Yes, I have. Jolly good, as I recall, though I didn't agree with everything
Reread the last chapter. The conclusion isn’t quite what you expect
What does it say? I read it many years ago and don't have a copy.
The argument is that the real “clash of civilisations” isn’t between Islam/Sino/Judeo-Christian but inside the West between social conservatives and progressives. That will undermine their west and fatally weaken it in the struggle with other cultural blocs
Don’t forget this was written in the early 90s
Sounds a bit sinister. Why would being socially conservative make the West stronger?
His point was that the forces of what we might call “wokeism” were trying to undermine the Judeo-Christian values on which the West was founded. Hence undermining the West as a whole.
I think there is something to that - reform not revolution is the way forward in my view.
Reagan said conservatism rested on faith, flag and family, the West needed all 3 to prosper and grow
Those aren't solely pre-requisities of conservatism as I'm sure you realise.
Liberals are often people of great faith but sometimes none - patriotism or love for one's own country transcends ideology and the notion of "family" is again supported by liberals and socialists.
The relationships with the State may differ but I'd argue plenty of liberals and socialists would buy into the notions of faith, flag and family.
Yes but they are not necessary for socialism nor for liberalism unless of the most classically liberal kind
In the competition between China and the West, China has the advantage of scale and the ability to execute a long term strategy (no elections). The West lacks scale and is short term because of politicians' desire to be elected.
But the West does have a competitive advantage. Because it is more diverse and experimental in ideas, technologies and processes it is more innovative than China. Hence China's desire to steal IP.
If the West could capitalise on its innovation capability and at the same time form cooperative partnerships and a stable demos that supports long term strategies (PR for the UK and US) then the West could out compete China.
Weak and Stable. That is reported cases of the virus in England. Weak because low incidence of 10 reported cases per million per day (6 per million per day in London). Hot spots in the North. Stable because R is hovering around 1. A bit above I in London causing the number of reported cases to move from 5 per million per day to 6. No sign of any "surge".
Are you basing this on the reported Pillar 1 + Pillar 2 data, or the Pillar 1 data alone?
Pillar 1 plus Pillar 2. Same source as you use. Your analysis is superb at identifying hots spots. I'm trying to give the overall picture. It's a bit boringly stable at the moment.
It's been a mosque, cathedral and museum at various points in its history. The important thing to my mind is the preservation of the artwork etc, whatever guise it is under.
It was built as a cathedral. It is a cathedral. It was converted into a mosque by the Ottomans to show the triumph of Islam over Christianity.
Ataturk did the wise thing when he forced a compromise, and made it a museum.
Erdogan's move is Islamic triumphalism, redux
Its their country. Why should we care?
It's part of world patrimony, and it's on our continent, Europe, and as such it is a keystone of European cultural and architectural history.
Presumably you'd be OK with India turning the Jama Masjid mosque in Delhi into a Hindu Temple, because it's "their country"?
And I guess you're OK with China bulldozing all the mosques in Xinjiang. I mean, it's their country, after all.
I couldn't care less if India turned a mosque into a Hindu temple. Or if they turned it into a pub.
Bulldozing listed buildings is a different matter, but changing its use - I couldn't care less. Its still there, still maintained, just got a different use.
Your historical knowledge is lacking, but I can't be arsed to educate you any more
Besides all that, Erdogan doing this is another sign of him Islamifying the country. Which really is a bad thing, especially for the many moderates in Turkey who want no such thing.
He's a bad guy. He's a Muslim Putin.
Buildings change use. C'est la vie.
One of the most stunning pubs I've ever been into was the Pitcher & Piano in Nottingham. A Grade II listed Church that has been turned into a public house. When I went there with a group of friends everyone enjoyed it except oddly enough a Muslim friend (who drinks lots of alcohol and eats pork etc) who found it blasphemous. Are you suggesting conversions like that should never be permitted?
If a Mosque in this country closed down and it was bought by a pub chain and converted to be a public house instead . . . or a Church . . . or a pizza restaurant . . . or anything else . . . I couldn't care less.
(I agree that Erdogan is a bad man - but that goes much deeper than a building changing use).
I can actually sympathise with the Muslim friend.
The one pub/hotel conversion I have ever seen that really rattled me was Oxford Prison. I get the idea of reusing old buildings, but I just coiuldn't stomach the thought of staying there. And I don't believe in ghosts.
Tories are still ahead of Labour in Scotland, mostly because Labour has the utterly useless leader in Leonard, if they can't remove him (why not?) they can at least make their opposition to Independence clear
The problem is that quite a few Labour voters quite like the idea of independence. And the potential Labour voters who don't have the SCUP - full fat unionism - to vote for.
It's been a mosque, cathedral and museum at various points in its history. The important thing to my mind is the preservation of the artwork etc, whatever guise it is under.
It was built as a cathedral. It is a cathedral. It was converted into a mosque by the Ottomans to show the triumph of Islam over Christianity.
Ataturk did the wise thing when he forced a compromise, and made it a museum.
Erdogan's move is Islamic triumphalism, redux
Its their country. Why should we care?
It's part of world patrimony, and it's on our continent, Europe, and as such it is a keystone of European cultural and architectural history.
Presumably you'd be OK with India turning the Jama Masjid mosque in Delhi into a Hindu Temple, because it's "their country"?
And I guess you're OK with China bulldozing all the mosques in Xinjiang. I mean, it's their country, after all.
I couldn't care less if India turned a mosque into a Hindu temple. Or if they turned it into a pub.
Bulldozing listed buildings is a different matter, but changing its use - I couldn't care less. Its still there, still maintained, just got a different use.
Your historical knowledge is lacking, but I can't be arsed to educate you any more
Besides all that, Erdogan doing this is another sign of him Islamifying the country. Which really is a bad thing, especially for the many moderates in Turkey who want no such thing.
He's a bad guy. He's a Muslim Putin.
Buildings change use. C'est la vie.
One of the most stunning pubs I've ever been into was the Pitcher & Piano in Nottingham. A Grade II listed Church that has been turned into a public house. When I went there with a group of friends everyone enjoyed it except oddly enough a Muslim friend (who drinks lots of alcohol and eats pork etc) who found it blasphemous. Are you suggesting conversions like that should never be permitted?
If a Mosque in this country closed down and it was bought by a pub chain and converted to be a public house instead . . . or a Church . . . or a pizza restaurant . . . or anything else . . . I couldn't care less.
(I agree that Erdogan is a bad man - but that goes much deeper than a building changing use).
I can actually sympathise with the Muslim friend.
The one pub/hotel conversion I have ever seen that really rattled me was Oxford Prison. I get the idea of reusing old buildings, but I just coiuldn't stomach the thought of staying there. And I don't believe in ghosts.
My parents stayed there, said it was spooky as hell!
It's been a mosque, cathedral and museum at various points in its history. The important thing to my mind is the preservation of the artwork etc, whatever guise it is under.
It was built as a cathedral. It is a cathedral. It was converted into a mosque by the Ottomans to show the triumph of Islam over Christianity.
Ataturk did the wise thing when he forced a compromise, and made it a museum.
Erdogan's move is Islamic triumphalism, redux
Its their country. Why should we care?
It's part of world patrimony, and it's on our continent, Europe, and as such it is a keystone of European cultural and architectural history.
Presumably you'd be OK with India turning the Jama Masjid mosque in Delhi into a Hindu Temple, because it's "their country"?
And I guess you're OK with China bulldozing all the mosques in Xinjiang. I mean, it's their country, after all.
I couldn't care less if India turned a mosque into a Hindu temple. Or if they turned it into a pub.
Bulldozing listed buildings is a different matter, but changing its use - I couldn't care less. Its still there, still maintained, just got a different use.
Your historical knowledge is lacking, but I can't be arsed to educate you any more
Besides all that, Erdogan doing this is another sign of him Islamifying the country. Which really is a bad thing, especially for the many moderates in Turkey who want no such thing.
He's a bad guy. He's a Muslim Putin.
Buildings change use. C'est la vie.
One of the most stunning pubs I've ever been into was the Pitcher & Piano in Nottingham. A Grade II listed Church that has been turned into a public house. When I went there with a group of friends everyone enjoyed it except oddly enough a Muslim friend (who drinks lots of alcohol and eats pork etc) who found it blasphemous. Are you suggesting conversions like that should never be permitted?
If a Mosque in this country closed down and it was bought by a pub chain and converted to be a public house instead . . . or a Church . . . or a pizza restaurant . . . or anything else . . . I couldn't care less.
(I agree that Erdogan is a bad man - but that goes much deeper than a building changing use).
I can actually sympathise with the Muslim friend.
The one pub/hotel conversion I have ever seen that really rattled me was Oxford Prison. I get the idea of reusing old buildings, but I just coiuldn't stomach the thought of staying there. And I don't believe in ghosts.
My parents stayed there, said it was spooky as hell!
That does not surprise me at all. But for me it was the thought of the misery of decades commodified in that way.
Tories are still ahead of Labour in Scotland, mostly because Labour has the utterly useless leader in Leonard, if they can't remove him (why not?) they can at least make their opposition to Independence clear
The problem is that quite a few Labour voters quite like the idea of independence. And the potential Labour voters who don't have the SCUP - full fat unionism - to vote for.
Yes but Labour being iffy on Independence just damages their performance elsewhere.
Labour is best off being anti-Independence, even if they stick at one MP. Can't really do worse than a record low.
In the competition between China and the West, China has the advantage of scale and the ability to execute a long term strategy (no elections). The West lacks scale and is short term because of politicians' desire to be elected.
But the West does have a competitive advantage. Because it is more diverse and experimental in ideas, technologies and processes it is more innovative than China. Hence China's desire to steal IP.
If the West could capitalise on its innovation capability and at the same time form cooperative partnerships and a stable demos that supports long term strategies (PR for the UK and US) then the West could out compete China.
All we need is PR and we can outcompete China?
You rose to that one I thought I'd slip it in as a prompt for TSE. But do you accept the point that the short termism of western democracy hinders us in our strategic competition with China? If so, what can we do about it. Longer lasting stable political coalitions is one solution.
Tories are still ahead of Labour in Scotland, mostly because Labour has the utterly useless leader in Leonard, if they can't remove him (why not?) they can at least make their opposition to Independence clear
The problem is that quite a few Labour voters quite like the idea of independence. And the potential Labour voters who don't have the SCUP - full fat unionism - to vote for.
Yes but Labour being iffy on Independence just damages their performance elsewhere.
Labour is best off being anti-Independence, even if they stick at one MP. Can't really do worse than a record low.
But they aren't being iffy on indy. They are agin it and have just confirmed that. Or what has brought this notion on?
Edit: just r4ealised I was thinking of SLAB. But the London end of the party has been rather more variable, admittedly.
In the competition between China and the West, China has the advantage of scale and the ability to execute a long term strategy (no elections). The West lacks scale and is short term because of politicians' desire to be elected.
But the West does have a competitive advantage. Because it is more diverse and experimental in ideas, technologies and processes it is more innovative than China. Hence China's desire to steal IP.
If the West could capitalise on its innovation capability and at the same time form cooperative partnerships and a stable demos that supports long term strategies (PR for the UK and US) then the West could out compete China.
All we need is PR and we can outcompete China?
You rose to that one I thought I'd slip it in as a prompt for TSE. But do you accept the point that the short termism of western democracy hinders us in our strategic competition with China? If so, what can we do about it. Longer lasting stable political coalitions is one solution.
Yeah, fuck democracy. Let's leave it to the right kind of politicians.
It's been a mosque, cathedral and museum at various points in its history. The important thing to my mind is the preservation of the artwork etc, whatever guise it is under.
It was built as a cathedral. It is a cathedral. It was converted into a mosque by the Ottomans to show the triumph of Islam over Christianity.
Ataturk did the wise thing when he forced a compromise, and made it a museum.
Erdogan's move is Islamic triumphalism, redux
Its their country. Why should we care?
It's part of world patrimony, and it's on our continent, Europe, and as such it is a keystone of European cultural and architectural history.
Presumably you'd be OK with India turning the Jama Masjid mosque in Delhi into a Hindu Temple, because it's "their country"?
And I guess you're OK with China bulldozing all the mosques in Xinjiang. I mean, it's their country, after all.
I couldn't care less if India turned a mosque into a Hindu temple. Or if they turned it into a pub.
Bulldozing listed buildings is a different matter, but changing its use - I couldn't care less. Its still there, still maintained, just got a different use.
Your historical knowledge is lacking, but I can't be arsed to educate you any more
Besides all that, Erdogan doing this is another sign of him Islamifying the country. Which really is a bad thing, especially for the many moderates in Turkey who want no such thing.
He's a bad guy. He's a Muslim Putin.
Buildings change use. C'est la vie.
One of the most stunning pubs I've ever been into was the Pitcher & Piano in Nottingham. A Grade II listed Church that has been turned into a public house. When I went there with a group of friends everyone enjoyed it except oddly enough a Muslim friend (who drinks lots of alcohol and eats pork etc) who found it blasphemous. Are you suggesting conversions like that should never be permitted?
If a Mosque in this country closed down and it was bought by a pub chain and converted to be a public house instead . . . or a Church . . . or a pizza restaurant . . . or anything else . . . I couldn't care less.
(I agree that Erdogan is a bad man - but that goes much deeper than a building changing use).
I can actually sympathise with the Muslim friend.
The one pub/hotel conversion I have ever seen that really rattled me was Oxford Prison. I get the idea of reusing old buildings, but I just coiuldn't stomach the thought of staying there. And I don't believe in ghosts.
My parents stayed there, said it was spooky as hell!
I stayed at the Malmaison Oxford, it wasn't spooky at all.
I guess as someone who takes a keen (professional) interest in the criminal justice system, it was intriguing for me.
It's been a mosque, cathedral and museum at various points in its history. The important thing to my mind is the preservation of the artwork etc, whatever guise it is under.
It was built as a cathedral. It is a cathedral. It was converted into a mosque by the Ottomans to show the triumph of Islam over Christianity.
Ataturk did the wise thing when he forced a compromise, and made it a museum.
Erdogan's move is Islamic triumphalism, redux
Its their country. Why should we care?
It's part of world patrimony, and it's on our continent, Europe, and as such it is a keystone of European cultural and architectural history.
Presumably you'd be OK with India turning the Jama Masjid mosque in Delhi into a Hindu Temple, because it's "their country"?
And I guess you're OK with China bulldozing all the mosques in Xinjiang. I mean, it's their country, after all.
I couldn't care less if India turned a mosque into a Hindu temple. Or if they turned it into a pub.
Bulldozing listed buildings is a different matter, but changing its use - I couldn't care less. Its still there, still maintained, just got a different use.
Your historical knowledge is lacking, but I can't be arsed to educate you any more
Besides all that, Erdogan doing this is another sign of him Islamifying the country. Which really is a bad thing, especially for the many moderates in Turkey who want no such thing.
He's a bad guy. He's a Muslim Putin.
Buildings change use. C'est la vie.
One of the most stunning pubs I've ever been into was the Pitcher & Piano in Nottingham. A Grade II listed Church that has been turned into a public house. When I went there with a group of friends everyone enjoyed it except oddly enough a Muslim friend (who drinks lots of alcohol and eats pork etc) who found it blasphemous. Are you suggesting conversions like that should never be permitted?
If a Mosque in this country closed down and it was bought by a pub chain and converted to be a public house instead . . . or a Church . . . or a pizza restaurant . . . or anything else . . . I couldn't care less.
(I agree that Erdogan is a bad man - but that goes much deeper than a building changing use).
I can actually sympathise with the Muslim friend.
The one pub/hotel conversion I have ever seen that really rattled me was Oxford Prison. I get the idea of reusing old buildings, but I just coiuldn't stomach the thought of staying there. And I don't believe in ghosts.
I've stayed in this hotel - the "priory" of Fontevraud Abbey.
That website is a bit coy about the real history. The bedrooms in the hotel were, centuries ago, used as accommodation for lepers.
And in the Second World War the Nazis used the same rooms to imprison Resistance fighters, Jews, gays, spies, and so on, who were tortured in the basement and shot in the courtyard.
The atmosphere is "interesting"
However I thoroughly recommend a visit because, as a hotel guest, you are allowed to wander around the entire abbey complex 24/7.
At 2 in the morning, with moonlight streaming through the abbey windows, I was alone in the silvery nave, staring at the graven faces of Eleanor of Aquitaine and Richard the Lionheart. Superb.
But have you read Samuel Huntington’s seminal work?
Yes, I have. Jolly good, as I recall, though I didn't agree with everything
Reread the last chapter. The conclusion isn’t quite what you expect
What does it say? I read it many years ago and don't have a copy.
The argument is that the real “clash of civilisations” isn’t between Islam/Sino/Judeo-Christian but inside the West between social conservatives and progressives. That will undermine their west and fatally weaken it in the struggle with other cultural blocs
Don’t forget this was written in the early 90s
Golly. That's prescient.
I fear he is right. The rot started in academe, and spread from there. Some of the examples of mad cancel culture in this essay are quite startling, and depressing - see the one about the college persecuting a bakery. Amazing.
And did you know the Vagina Monologues is no longer allowed on American campuses? It is considered regressive and reactionary, as it excludes women who don't have vaginas.
I won’t defend the Vagina Monologues being classed as transphobic. That sounds extreme and I reject the extremes in this debate. Gender is not merely a social construct unrelated to body at birth. You should not be able to change it purely by proclamation. But the TERF notion that male to female transformation is yet another attempt by the patriarchy to devalue women is equally bonkers. And I say this as a believer in the concept of the patriarchy.
On this subject I believe that if armed with the facts and a degree of empathy most reasonable people would reach agreement with me on the following -
There is such a thing as biological sex. Almost everybody is born male or female. It’s binary.
Gender usually aligns with this but not always. Dysmorphia is a real thing and those affected by it are entitled to the best remedy which is to transition. Denied this they are often doomed to abject misery. It is a small number of people but for them it is (literally sometimes) a matter of life or death. For the vast majority the transition is beneficial. Conversely it harms no-one.
Transition can be full (with op) or partial (stopping short of this). It should not be compulsory to go all the way. It should however be compulsory to go through a defined process. You should not be changing gender on a whim. The process should be neither desultory nor so elongated and intrusive as to be a barrier. Special care is required in the case of minors.
For transwomen (born male) there are certain fears to be addressed. Some of these – e.g. access to female toilets and changing rooms – require information and education only since they are not well founded. Others – e.g. protections around women’s sport and access to refuges from domestic violence – are better founded and require some rules.
But have you read Samuel Huntington’s seminal work?
Yes, I have. Jolly good, as I recall, though I didn't agree with everything
Reread the last chapter. The conclusion isn’t quite what you expect
What does it say? I read it many years ago and don't have a copy.
The argument is that the real “clash of civilisations” isn’t between Islam/Sino/Judeo-Christian but inside the West between social conservatives and progressives. That will undermine their west and fatally weaken it in the struggle with other cultural blocs
Don’t forget this was written in the early 90s
Golly. That's prescient.
I fear he is right. The rot started in academe, and spread from there. Some of the examples of mad cancel culture in this essay are quite startling, and depressing - see the one about the college persecuting a bakery. Amazing.
And did you know the Vagina Monologues is no longer allowed on American campuses? It is considered regressive and reactionary, as it excludes women who don't have vaginas.
I won’t defend the Vagina Monologues being classed as transphobic. That sounds extreme and I reject the extremes in this debate. Gender is not merely a social construct unrelated to body at birth. You should not be able to change it purely by proclamation. But the TERF notion that male to female transformation is yet another attempt by the patriarchy to devalue women is equally bonkers. And I say this as a believer in the concept of the patriarchy.
On this subject I believe that if armed with the facts and a degree of empathy most reasonable people would reach agreement with me on the following -
There is such a thing as biological sex. Almost everybody is born male or female. It’s binary.
Gender usually aligns with this but not always. Dysmorphia is a real thing and those affected by it are entitled to the best remedy which is to transition. Denied this they are often doomed to abject misery. It is a small number of people but for them it is (literally sometimes) a matter of life or death. For the vast majority the transition is beneficial. Conversely it harms no-one.
Transition can be full (with op) or partial (stopping short of this). It should not be compulsory to go all the way. It should however be compulsory to go through a defined process. You should not be changing gender on a whim. The process should be neither desultory nor so elongated and intrusive as to be a barrier. Special care is required in the case of minors.
For transwomen (born male) there are certain fears to be addressed. Some of these – e.g. access to female toilets and changing rooms – require information and education only since they are not well founded. Others – e.g. protections around women’s sport and access to refuges from domestic violence – are better founded and require some rules.
Well, it's nice to agree. I can sign up for pretty much all of that.
The trouble is, this debate is being driven by the extremists, not you, and the nutters are taking it down a dark road, where cancel culture is very real and some people are getting badly hurt. And the madness is spreading, not dwindling.
The trouble is, soft liberals like you are either ignoring this trend, or denying it, even when it is right there in front of you. Wokeness really is a problem as you implicitly concede, here.
In the competition between China and the West, China has the advantage of scale and the ability to execute a long term strategy (no elections). The West lacks scale and is short term because of politicians' desire to be elected.
But the West does have a competitive advantage. Because it is more diverse and experimental in ideas, technologies and processes it is more innovative than China. Hence China's desire to steal IP.
If the West could capitalise on its innovation capability and at the same time form cooperative partnerships and a stable demos that supports long term strategies (PR for the UK and US) then the West could out compete China.
All we need is PR and we can outcompete China?
You rose to that one I thought I'd slip it in as a prompt for TSE. But do you accept the point that the short termism of western democracy hinders us in our strategic competition with China? If so, what can we do about it. Longer lasting stable political coalitions is one solution.
Yeah, fuck democracy. Let's leave it to the right kind of politicians.
You mean fuck one flavour of "democracy". Do you want to win or not in the big strategic struggle of this century or piddle around?
In the competition between China and the West, China has the advantage of scale and the ability to execute a long term strategy (no elections). The West lacks scale and is short term because of politicians' desire to be elected.
But the West does have a competitive advantage. Because it is more diverse and experimental in ideas, technologies and processes it is more innovative than China. Hence China's desire to steal IP.
If the West could capitalise on its innovation capability and at the same time form cooperative partnerships and a stable demos that supports long term strategies (PR for the UK and US) then the West could out compete China.
All we need is PR and we can outcompete China?
You rose to that one I thought I'd slip it in as a prompt for TSE. But do you accept the point that the short termism of western democracy hinders us in our strategic competition with China? If so, what can we do about it. Longer lasting stable political coalitions is one solution.
Yeah, fuck democracy. Let's leave it to the right kind of politicians.
You mean fuck one flavour of "democracy". Do you to win or not in the big strategic struggle of this century or piddle around?
There are arguments in favour of PR and arguments in favour of FPTP. I don't think it does those in favour of PR any good to argue that it gives better politicians who make better strategic decisions with respect to international political relationships.
It was, after all, the coalition that courted China.
Well it’s a beautiful warm sunny afternoon down here in darkest Cornwall, and as you’d expect the coast is heaving. I’d say people are generally making more of an effort to keep a distance than in the Cotswolds, but the hotel is full of narrow corridors and winding nooks and, apart from the statutory sanitiser by the door (which only a minority are using) they’ve pretty much given up. And so far the mask total is nil.
But have you read Samuel Huntington’s seminal work?
Yes, I have. Jolly good, as I recall, though I didn't agree with everything
Reread the last chapter. The conclusion isn’t quite what you expect
What does it say? I read it many years ago and don't have a copy.
The argument is that the real “clash of civilisations” isn’t between Islam/Sino/Judeo-Christian but inside the West between social conservatives and progressives. That will undermine their west and fatally weaken it in the struggle with other cultural blocs
Don’t forget this was written in the early 90s
Golly. That's prescient.
I fear he is right. The rot started in academe, and spread from there. Some of the examples of mad cancel culture in this essay are quite startling, and depressing - see the one about the college persecuting a bakery. Amazing.
And did you know the Vagina Monologues is no longer allowed on American campuses? It is considered regressive and reactionary, as it excludes women who don't have vaginas.
I won’t defend the Vagina Monologues being classed as transphobic. That sounds extreme and I reject the extremes in this debate. Gender is not merely a social construct unrelated to body at birth. You should not be able to change it purely by proclamation. But the TERF notion that male to female transformation is yet another attempt by the patriarchy to devalue women is equally bonkers. And I say this as a believer in the concept of the patriarchy.
On this subject I believe that if armed with the facts and a degree of empathy most reasonable people would reach agreement with me on the following -
There is such a thing as biological sex. Almost everybody is born male or female. It’s binary.
Gender usually aligns with this but not always. Dysmorphia is a real thing and those affected by it are entitled to the best remedy which is to transition. Denied this they are often doomed to abject misery. It is a small number of people but for them it is (literally sometimes) a matter of life or death. For the vast majority the transition is beneficial. Conversely it harms no-one.
Transition can be full (with op) or partial (stopping short of this). It should not be compulsory to go all the way. It should however be compulsory to go through a defined process. You should not be changing gender on a whim. The process should be neither desultory nor so elongated and intrusive as to be a barrier. Special care is required in the case of minors.
For transwomen (born male) there are certain fears to be addressed. Some of these – e.g. access to female toilets and changing rooms – require information and education only since they are not well founded. Others – e.g. protections around women’s sport and access to refuges from domestic violence – are better founded and require some rules.
Tories are still ahead of Labour in Scotland, mostly because Labour has the utterly useless leader in Leonard, if they can't remove him (why not?) they can at least make their opposition to Independence clear
The problem is that quite a few Labour voters quite like the idea of independence. And the potential Labour voters who don't have the SCUP - full fat unionism - to vote for.
Yes but Labour being iffy on Independence just damages their performance elsewhere.
Labour is best off being anti-Independence, even if they stick at one MP. Can't really do worse than a record low.
But they aren't being iffy on indy. They are agin it and have just confirmed that. Or what has brought this notion on?
Edit: just r4ealised I was thinking of SLAB. But the London end of the party has been rather more variable, admittedly.
My apologies, I meant Labour as in the UK Labour Party as a whole. SLab were undermined by Corbyn constantly.
But have you read Samuel Huntington’s seminal work?
Yes, I have. Jolly good, as I recall, though I didn't agree with everything
Reread the last chapter. The conclusion isn’t quite what you expect
What does it say? I read it many years ago and don't have a copy.
The argument is that the real “clash of civilisations” isn’t between Islam/Sino/Judeo-Christian but inside the West between social conservatives and progressives. That will undermine their west and fatally weaken it in the struggle with other cultural blocs
Don’t forget this was written in the early 90s
Golly. That's prescient.
I fear he is right. The rot started in academe, and spread from there. Some of the examples of mad cancel culture in this essay are quite startling, and depressing - see the one about the college persecuting a bakery. Amazing.
And did you know the Vagina Monologues is no longer allowed on American campuses? It is considered regressive and reactionary, as it excludes women who don't have vaginas.
I won’t defend the Vagina Monologues being classed as transphobic. That sounds extreme and I reject the extremes in this debate. Gender is not merely a social construct unrelated to body at birth. You should not be able to change it purely by proclamation. But the TERF notion that male to female transformation is yet another attempt by the patriarchy to devalue women is equally bonkers. And I say this as a believer in the concept of the patriarchy.
On this subject I believe that if armed with the facts and a degree of empathy most reasonable people would reach agreement with me on the following -
There is such a thing as biological sex. Almost everybody is born male or female. It’s binary.
Gender usually aligns with this but not always. Dysmorphia is a real thing and those affected by it are entitled to the best remedy which is to transition. Denied this they are often doomed to abject misery. It is a small number of people but for them it is (literally sometimes) a matter of life or death. For the vast majority the transition is beneficial. Conversely it harms no-one.
Transition can be full (with op) or partial (stopping short of this). It should not be compulsory to go all the way. It should however be compulsory to go through a defined process. You should not be changing gender on a whim. The process should be neither desultory nor so elongated and intrusive as to be a barrier. Special care is required in the case of minors.
For transwomen (born male) there are certain fears to be addressed. Some of these – e.g. access to female toilets and changing rooms – require information and education only since they are not well founded. Others – e.g. protections around women’s sport and access to refuges from domestic violence – are better founded and require some rules.
Well, it's nice to agree. I can sign up for pretty much all of that.
The trouble is, this debate is being driven by the extremists, not you, and the nutters are taking it down a dark road, where cancel culture is very real and some people are getting badly hurt. And the madness is spreading, not dwindling.
The trouble is, soft liberals like you are either ignoring this trend, or denying it, even when it is right there in front of you. Wokeness really is a problem as you implicitly concede, here.
I think we will end up (by and large) where I've described. And imo there are more people getting hurt by one extreme - the TERF / Rowling tendency which feeds anti trans bigotry - than the other one.
But have you read Samuel Huntington’s seminal work?
Yes, I have. Jolly good, as I recall, though I didn't agree with everything
Reread the last chapter. The conclusion isn’t quite what you expect
What does it say? I read it many years ago and don't have a copy.
The argument is that the real “clash of civilisations” isn’t between Islam/Sino/Judeo-Christian but inside the West between social conservatives and progressives. That will undermine their west and fatally weaken it in the struggle with other cultural blocs
Don’t forget this was written in the early 90s
Golly. That's prescient.
I fear he is right. The rot started in academe, and spread from there. Some of the examples of mad cancel culture in this essay are quite startling, and depressing - see the one about the college persecuting a bakery. Amazing.
And did you know the Vagina Monologues is no longer allowed on American campuses? It is considered regressive and reactionary, as it excludes women who don't have vaginas.
I won’t defend the Vagina Monologues being classed as transphobic. That sounds extreme and I reject the extremes in this debate. Gender is not merely a social construct unrelated to body at birth. You should not be able to change it purely by proclamation. But the TERF notion that male to female transformation is yet another attempt by the patriarchy to devalue women is equally bonkers. And I say this as a believer in the concept of the patriarchy.
On this subject I believe that if armed with the facts and a degree of empathy most reasonable people would reach agreement with me on the following -
There is such a thing as biological sex. Almost everybody is born male or female. It’s binary.
Gender usually aligns with this but not always. Dysmorphia is a real thing and those affected by it are entitled to the best remedy which is to transition. Denied this they are often doomed to abject misery. It is a small number of people but for them it is (literally sometimes) a matter of life or death. For the vast majority the transition is beneficial. Conversely it harms no-one.
Transition can be full (with op) or partial (stopping short of this). It should not be compulsory to go all the way. It should however be compulsory to go through a defined process. You should not be changing gender on a whim. The process should be neither desultory nor so elongated and intrusive as to be a barrier. Special care is required in the case of minors.
For transwomen (born male) there are certain fears to be addressed. Some of these – e.g. access to female toilets and changing rooms – require information and education only since they are not well founded. Others – e.g. protections around women’s sport and access to refuges from domestic violence – are better founded and require some rules.
But have you read Samuel Huntington’s seminal work?
Yes, I have. Jolly good, as I recall, though I didn't agree with everything
Reread the last chapter. The conclusion isn’t quite what you expect
What does it say? I read it many years ago and don't have a copy.
The argument is that the real “clash of civilisations” isn’t between Islam/Sino/Judeo-Christian but inside the West between social conservatives and progressives. That will undermine their west and fatally weaken it in the struggle with other cultural blocs
Don’t forget this was written in the early 90s
Golly. That's prescient.
I fear he is right. The rot started in academe, and spread from there. Some of the examples of mad cancel culture in this essay are quite startling, and depressing - see the one about the college persecuting a bakery. Amazing.
And did you know the Vagina Monologues is no longer allowed on American campuses? It is considered regressive and reactionary, as it excludes women who don't have vaginas.
I won’t defend the Vagina Monologues being classed as transphobic. That sounds extreme and I reject the extremes in this debate. Gender is not merely a social construct unrelated to body at birth. You should not be able to change it purely by proclamation. But the TERF notion that male to female transformation is yet another attempt by the patriarchy to devalue women is equally bonkers. And I say this as a believer in the concept of the patriarchy.
On this subject I believe that if armed with the facts and a degree of empathy most reasonable people would reach agreement with me on the following -
There is such a thing as biological sex. Almost everybody is born male or female. It’s binary.
Gender usually aligns with this but not always. Dysmorphia is a real thing and those affected by it are entitled to the best remedy which is to transition. Denied this they are often doomed to abject misery. It is a small number of people but for them it is (literally sometimes) a matter of life or death. For the vast majority the transition is beneficial. Conversely it harms no-one.
Transition can be full (with op) or partial (stopping short of this). It should not be compulsory to go all the way. It should however be compulsory to go through a defined process. You should not be changing gender on a whim. The process should be neither desultory nor so elongated and intrusive as to be a barrier. Special care is required in the case of minors.
For transwomen (born male) there are certain fears to be addressed. Some of these – e.g. access to female toilets and changing rooms – require information and education only since they are not well founded. Others – e.g. protections around women’s sport and access to refuges from domestic violence – are better founded and require some rules.
Well, it's nice to agree. I can sign up for pretty much all of that.
The trouble is, this debate is being driven by the extremists, not you, and the nutters are taking it down a dark road, where cancel culture is very real and some people are getting badly hurt. And the madness is spreading, not dwindling.
The trouble is, soft liberals like you are either ignoring this trend, or denying it, even when it is right there in front of you. Wokeness really is a problem as you implicitly concede, here.
I think we will end up (by and large) where I've described. And imo there are more people getting hurt by one extreme - the TERF / Rowling tendency which feeds anti trans bigotry - than the other one.
There's no sign that's where we're headed at the moment, though I obv hope you are right. As for people getting hurt, the only ones I can see are allies of Rowling getting fired.
In the competition between China and the West, China has the advantage of scale and the ability to execute a long term strategy (no elections). The West lacks scale and is short term because of politicians' desire to be elected.
But the West does have a competitive advantage. Because it is more diverse and experimental in ideas, technologies and processes it is more innovative than China. Hence China's desire to steal IP.
If the West could capitalise on its innovation capability and at the same time form cooperative partnerships and a stable demos that supports long term strategies (PR for the UK and US) then the West could out compete China.
Disagreed completely.
The West has not just the advantages of innovation but it'd be a step backwards to go for "a stable demos". It is our instability that is our greatest strength. From chaos comes progress.
As for competing with China, we massively outcompete China. Best way of looking is GDP per capita by PPP.
US 67,426 (Hong Kong) 66,527 Taiwan 57,214 UK 48,169 European Union 46,468 Russia 30,820 China 20,984
But have you read Samuel Huntington’s seminal work?
Yes, I have. Jolly good, as I recall, though I didn't agree with everything
Reread the last chapter. The conclusion isn’t quite what you expect
What does it say? I read it many years ago and don't have a copy.
The argument is that the real “clash of civilisations” isn’t between Islam/Sino/Judeo-Christian but inside the West between social conservatives and progressives. That will undermine their west and fatally weaken it in the struggle with other cultural blocs
Don’t forget this was written in the early 90s
Golly. That's prescient.
I fear he is right. The rot started in academe, and spread from there. Some of the examples of mad cancel culture in this essay are quite startling, and depressing - see the one about the college persecuting a bakery. Amazing.
And did you know the Vagina Monologues is no longer allowed on American campuses? It is considered regressive and reactionary, as it excludes women who don't have vaginas.
I won’t defend the Vagina Monologues being classed as transphobic. That sounds extreme and I reject the extremes in this debate. Gender is not merely a social construct unrelated to body at birth. You should not be able to change it purely by proclamation. But the TERF notion that male to female transformation is yet another attempt by the patriarchy to devalue women is equally bonkers. And I say this as a believer in the concept of the patriarchy.
On this subject I believe that if armed with the facts and a degree of empathy most reasonable people would reach agreement with me on the following -
There is such a thing as biological sex. Almost everybody is born male or female. It’s binary.
Gender usually aligns with this but not always. Dysmorphia is a real thing and those affected by it are entitled to the best remedy which is to transition. Denied this they are often doomed to abject misery. It is a small number of people but for them it is (literally sometimes) a matter of life or death. For the vast majority the transition is beneficial. Conversely it harms no-one.
Transition can be full (with op) or partial (stopping short of this). It should not be compulsory to go all the way. It should however be compulsory to go through a defined process. You should not be changing gender on a whim. The process should be neither desultory nor so elongated and intrusive as to be a barrier. Special care is required in the case of minors.
For transwomen (born male) there are certain fears to be addressed. Some of these – e.g. access to female toilets and changing rooms – require information and education only since they are not well founded. Others – e.g. protections around women’s sport and access to refuges from domestic violence – are better founded and require some rules.
In the competition between China and the West, China has the advantage of scale and the ability to execute a long term strategy (no elections). The West lacks scale and is short term because of politicians' desire to be elected.
But the West does have a competitive advantage. Because it is more diverse and experimental in ideas, technologies and processes it is more innovative than China. Hence China's desire to steal IP.
If the West could capitalise on its innovation capability and at the same time form cooperative partnerships and a stable demos that supports long term strategies (PR for the UK and US) then the West could out compete China.
Disagreed completely.
The West has not just the advantages of innovation but it'd be a step backwards to go for "a stable demos". It is our instability that is our greatest strength. From chaos comes progress.
As for competing with China, we massively outcompete China. Best way of looking is GDP per capita by PPP.
US 67,426 (Hong Kong) 66,527 Taiwan 57,214 UK 48,169 European Union 46,468 Russia 30,820 China 20,984
We don't need to become more like China.
Incredible that Taiwan has a GDP per capita so much higher than the UK.
70 years ago it was an island of peasants and rocks, with no natural resources.
If China can repeat that miracle on the mainland, China will eventually be four times bigger than the USA, in economic might. A big if, tho.
But have you read Samuel Huntington’s seminal work?
Yes, I have. Jolly good, as I recall, though I didn't agree with everything
Reread the last chapter. The conclusion isn’t quite what you expect
What does it say? I read it many years ago and don't have a copy.
The argument is that the real “clash of civilisations” isn’t between Islam/Sino/Judeo-Christian but inside the West between social conservatives and progressives. That will undermine their west and fatally weaken it in the struggle with other cultural blocs
Don’t forget this was written in the early 90s
Golly. That's prescient.
I fear he is right. The rot started in academe, and spread from there. Some of the examples of mad cancel culture in this essay are quite startling, and depressing - see the one about the college persecuting a bakery. Amazing.
And did you know the Vagina Monologues is no longer allowed on American campuses? It is considered regressive and reactionary, as it excludes women who don't have vaginas.
I won’t defend the Vagina Monologues being classed as transphobic. That sounds extreme and I reject the extremes in this debate. Gender is not merely a social construct unrelated to body at birth. You should not be able to change it purely by proclamation. But the TERF notion that male to female transformation is yet another attempt by the patriarchy to devalue women is equally bonkers. And I say this as a believer in the concept of the patriarchy.
On this subject I believe that if armed with the facts and a degree of empathy most reasonable people would reach agreement with me on the following -
There is such a thing as biological sex. Almost everybody is born male or female. It’s binary.
Gender usually aligns with this but not always. Dysmorphia is a real thing and those affected by it are entitled to the best remedy which is to transition. Denied this they are often doomed to abject misery. It is a small number of people but for them it is (literally sometimes) a matter of life or death. For the vast majority the transition is beneficial. Conversely it harms no-one.
Transition can be full (with op) or partial (stopping short of this). It should not be compulsory to go all the way. It should however be compulsory to go through a defined process. You should not be changing gender on a whim. The process should be neither desultory nor so elongated and intrusive as to be a barrier. Special care is required in the case of minors.
For transwomen (born male) there are certain fears to be addressed. Some of these – e.g. access to female toilets and changing rooms – require information and education only since they are not well founded. Others – e.g. protections around women’s sport and access to refuges from domestic violence – are better founded and require some rules.
Well, it's nice to agree. I can sign up for pretty much all of that.
The trouble is, this debate is being driven by the extremists, not you, and the nutters are taking it down a dark road, where cancel culture is very real and some people are getting badly hurt. And the madness is spreading, not dwindling.
The trouble is, soft liberals like you are either ignoring this trend, or denying it, even when it is right there in front of you. Wokeness really is a problem as you implicitly concede, here.
Sure, the wackier fringes of wokedom are strange and dark.
The trouble is that both sides of the debate are being driven by extreme nutters. And the violence and rhetoric of the anti-woke is far more alarming than the violence of the woke.
In the competition between China and the West, China has the advantage of scale and the ability to execute a long term strategy (no elections). The West lacks scale and is short term because of politicians' desire to be elected.
But the West does have a competitive advantage. Because it is more diverse and experimental in ideas, technologies and processes it is more innovative than China. Hence China's desire to steal IP.
If the West could capitalise on its innovation capability and at the same time form cooperative partnerships and a stable demos that supports long term strategies (PR for the UK and US) then the West could out compete China.
All we need is PR and we can outcompete China?
You rose to that one I thought I'd slip it in as a prompt for TSE. But do you accept the point that the short termism of western democracy hinders us in our strategic competition with China? If so, what can we do about it. Longer lasting stable political coalitions is one solution.
Yeah, fuck democracy. Let's leave it to the right kind of politicians.
You mean fuck one flavour of "democracy". Do you to win or not in the big strategic struggle of this century or piddle around?
There are arguments in favour of PR and arguments in favour of FPTP. I don't think it does those in favour of PR any good to argue that it gives better politicians who make better strategic decisions with respect to international political relationships.
It was, after all, the coalition that courted China.
It is not a case of "better" politicians. It is longer term strategies and partnerships that endure that would make the difference. Chopping and changing strategies every five years or worrying about the next election for the 2 years out of 5 is destructive of an enduring long term strategy. There have been some successes. NATO. The EU.
"Courting" China is not necessarily a mistake, though I would phrase it "engaging with" China. There are mutual interests and win/win opportunities. Rule of law and trade is a mutual interest. Challenging China on civil rights and democracy isn't.
Those aren't solely pre-requisities of conservatism as I'm sure you realise.
Liberals are often people of great faith but sometimes none - patriotism or love for one's own country transcends ideology and the notion of "family" is again supported by liberals and socialists.
The relationships with the State may differ but I'd argue plenty of liberals and socialists would buy into the notions of faith, flag and family.
Yes but they are not necessary for socialism nor for liberalism unless of the most classically liberal kind
Again, not sure I'm agree. Aren't the competing ideologies of conservatism, liberalism, socialism, Marxism, anarchism and libertarianism (to name but six) all about relationships - the relationship of the individual to and with the State, the relationship of the State to communities and to wider society etc.
Conservatism defines those relationships in one way - the other ideologies do it differently. Some put the State as the primary body, others see the individual as the more important aspect.
In the competition between China and the West, China has the advantage of scale and the ability to execute a long term strategy (no elections). The West lacks scale and is short term because of politicians' desire to be elected.
But the West does have a competitive advantage. Because it is more diverse and experimental in ideas, technologies and processes it is more innovative than China. Hence China's desire to steal IP.
If the West could capitalise on its innovation capability and at the same time form cooperative partnerships and a stable demos that supports long term strategies (PR for the UK and US) then the West could out compete China.
Disagreed completely.
The West has not just the advantages of innovation but it'd be a step backwards to go for "a stable demos". It is our instability that is our greatest strength. From chaos comes progress.
As for competing with China, we massively outcompete China. Best way of looking is GDP per capita by PPP.
US 67,426 (Hong Kong) 66,527 Taiwan 57,214 UK 48,169 European Union 46,468 Russia 30,820 China 20,984
We don't need to become more like China.
Incredible that Taiwan has a GDP per capita so much higher than the UK.
70 years ago it was an island of peasants and rocks, with no natural resources.
If China can repeat that miracle on the mainland, China will eventually be four times bigger than the USA, in economic might. A big if, tho.
Of course Taiwan have done what they have done by not being the same as mainland China. If you compare Taiwan to other microstates like Belgium then it's not all sunshine and roses.
Comments
You, sir, are just like that Manx pussy they imported, looked gorgeous, meowed prettily, but was worthless as a mouser, let alone ratter.
Of course, there is the matter of the West West Virginia claim, which yours truly entrusted to your "professional" "services", "sir"! Speaking of piss & such, MUST I be forced to report your "conduct" in this vital matter to the Privy Council?
You may want to be a conspiracy nut without a bank account . . . that's your choice and if you find businesses willing to trade with you on that basis then good luck to you. There's no reason to compel an onus on businesses to trade with you on that basis that has never existed in the past nor does now. Its your choice.
Companies are not compelled to cater to your choices.
The interesting bit is that the English Church of England is very progressive, and the African CoE tends to be extremely... traditionalist.
So you have the ongoing situation where very progressive white people are trying to stop black people from using the growing strength they have in the Church.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFA6dksRquA
Your way paves the way to authoritarianism as soon as we get in the wrong government. Mine is a small intervention to protect freedom.
As to conspiracy theory which part is conspiracy. We know governements have access to are bank accounts and card payments, we know big business collects data on our spending. A conspiracy theory is a theory that something is happening without any tangible proof it is. I don't think worrying about data collection is a conspiracy theory.
You will be the first one shrieking when a nanny state government using all the data available because its all electronic decides to restrict for example alcohol purchase by blocking payment for it after a certain amount each week. That is the power you want to hand them.
Presumably you'd be OK with India turning the Jama Masjid mosque in Delhi into a Hindu Temple, because it's "their country"?
And I guess you're OK with China bulldozing all the mosques in Xinjiang. I mean, it's their country, after all.
In Casablanca the Christian church is carefully preserved. Nobody goes there of course - except me to take this photo.
FWIW I think York is a decent place for Parliament. Or Chester maybe. Northern and civilised.
And the Palace of Westminster, once repaired, would then be an excellent spot for an English Parliament to correct the obvious democratic deficit we have.
Bulldozing listed buildings is a different matter, but changing its use - I couldn't care less. Its still there, still maintained, just got a different use.
Don’t forget this was written in the early 90s
I have him more down as leftie corporate shill than libertarian
Besides all that, Erdogan doing this is another sign of him Islamifying the country. Which really is a bad thing, especially for the many moderates in Turkey who want no such thing.
He's a bad guy. He's a Muslim Putin.
But just for you, I'll change it.
I fear he is right. The rot started in academe, and spread from there. Some of the examples of mad cancel culture in this essay are quite startling, and depressing - see the one about the college persecuting a bakery. Amazing.
And did you know the Vagina Monologues is no longer allowed on American campuses? It is considered regressive and reactionary, as it excludes women who don't have vaginas.
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2020/07/19/think-cancel-culture-is-a-fabrication-think-again/
https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2020/07/hungary-post-race-analysis-2020.html
The principle has always existed that businesses could refuse cash and many have. Unless you're prepared to pay for security, safe banking, the installation of safes etc, etc, etc that deals with the externalities of accepting cash then you don't get to insist others are suddenly compelled to accept it when they never have been in the past. In the past when I worked in a cash handling business we were robbed by knife wielding thugs who held knives to staffs throats (including a pregnant woman) and ordered the manager to open the safe so they could leave with all the cash. So you can shove your conspiracy bollocks up your arse, there are real problems with cash which is why some businesses have always refused to accept it and why all businesses should have the right to refuse it.
I am not saying cash should be abolished, but it should be a choice. If businesses don't want to take it - and others do - then that is a sales pitch for those who want to spend cash to take their business to a cash-accepting business.
I'd love to see somewhere "grim" being regenerated by a permanent move.
Last 3-5 days of data is subject to revision. Last 5 days included for completeness.
Which would lead to the ironic conclusion that Jacob Rees Mogg and Nadine Dorries and those opposed to abortion and supportive of the more traditional family model more than further LGBTQ advances might find longer term their greatest support comes from 'Black Lives Matter' and by supporting uncontrolled immigration the progressive woke left will weaken their own cause
One of the most stunning pubs I've ever been into was the Pitcher & Piano in Nottingham. A Grade II listed Church that has been turned into a public house. When I went there with a group of friends everyone enjoyed it except oddly enough a Muslim friend (who drinks lots of alcohol and eats pork etc) who found it blasphemous. Are you suggesting conversions like that should never be permitted?
If a Mosque in this country closed down and it was bought by a pub chain and converted to be a public house instead . . . or a Church . . . or a pizza restaurant . . . or anything else . . . I couldn't care less.
(I agree that Erdogan is a bad man - but that goes much deeper than a building changing use).
The reality is that most people I know have some cash in their wallets as backup. The recent COVID crisis has accelerated the trend (another one) towards cashlessness.
That's one of your best. Genuinely impressive.
So in a sense, no support isn't crumbling - but support is a lot less sure than a few months ago.
These communities want to be supported and want lots of investment and they expect Johnson to deliver it. Right now they think he will stick to his promises on Brexit.
Even in the days of hand written ledgers, governments and banks tracked (well, tried to) paper money.
This will go over terribly. Johnson is incredibly unpopular in Scotland.
I'm always interested in the regional splits in the US polls particularly with regard to the Midwest and the South. No reference to those in the Fox News crosstabs but on the ABC News/Washington Post poll, the reference to the regional split is in the text:
"Regional shifts also are substantial. Biden's advanced in the Midwest, from a dead heat to a 17-point lead. It’s close in the South, 50-44 percent, Biden-Trump, compared with a 13-point Trump lead in late March. And Biden is ahead by 15 points in the Northeast and a broad 30 points in the
West."
Those regional splits are catastrophic for the President. Trump won the Midwest by four in 2016 so that's a 10.5% swing to Biden while the South went for Trump by eight last time so that's also a 10.5% swing. 7% swing to Biden in the West, no swing at all in the NE (!).
The national swing overall is just 4% to Biden but that alone would be more than enough.
Indeed since 1997 the only Tory leader more popular in Scotland than Boris was Theresa May
That is reported cases of the virus in England.
Weak because low incidence of 10 reported cases per million per day (6 per million per day in London). Hot spots in the North.
Stable because R is hovering around 1. A bit above I in London causing the number of reported cases to move from 5 per million per day to 6.
No sign of any "surge".
Ataturk knew its pivotal symbolism, hence his wise decision to compromise, and make it a museum.
Remaking it as a mosque is utterly divisive, is a deliberate insult to Turkey's Christians, and to Orthodox Christians around the world (who see it as their citadel). It is just another waymarker in the Islamification of Turkey
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagia_Sophia
Last 3-5 days subject to revision. Last 5 days for completeness.
The orange shows the deaths added today.
In history Lord Thomas Fairfax fighting on the parliamentary side in the English civil war has a house in York Which is still there now as a museum.I guess he would approve.
I was once in a historic bookshop in York city centre and they were selling handwritten letters from Oliver Cromwell to Fairfax discussing tactics.They seemed quite cheap to me
at the time.Wish I had bought them.
Liberals are often people of great faith but sometimes none - patriotism or love for one's own country transcends ideology and the notion of "family" is again supported by liberals and socialists.
The relationships with the State may differ but I'd argue plenty of liberals and socialists would buy into the notions of faith, flag and family.
If Trump recovered all the 46.1% who voted for him last time and added the 3.28% who voted for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate (Libertarian voters tend to be higher income), he would be on 49.4% without winning a single Hillary voter
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html
But the West does have a competitive advantage. Because it is more diverse and experimental in ideas, technologies and processes it is more innovative than China. Hence China's desire to steal IP.
If the West could capitalise on its innovation capability and at the same time form cooperative partnerships and a stable demos that supports long term strategies (PR for the UK and US) then the West could out compete China.
I think there is something to that - reform not revolution is the way forward in my view.
The one pub/hotel conversion I have ever seen that really rattled me was Oxford Prison. I get the idea of reusing old buildings, but I just coiuldn't stomach the thought of staying there. And I don't believe in ghosts.
https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/politics/uk-politics/2242928/scottish-labour-will-oppose-second-independence-referendum-in-2021-holyrood-election-campaign/
The problem is that quite a few Labour voters quite like the idea of independence. And the potential Labour voters who don't have the SCUP - full fat unionism - to vote for.
Labour is best off being anti-Independence, even if they stick at one MP. Can't really do worse than a record low.
But do you accept the point that the short termism of western democracy hinders us in our strategic competition with China? If so, what can we do about it. Longer lasting stable political coalitions is one solution.
Edit: just r4ealised I was thinking of SLAB. But the London end of the party has been rather more variable, admittedly.
I guess as someone who takes a keen (professional) interest in the criminal justice system, it was intriguing for me.
http://hotel-fontevraud.com/en/
That website is a bit coy about the real history. The bedrooms in the hotel were, centuries ago, used as accommodation for lepers.
And in the Second World War the Nazis used the same rooms to imprison Resistance fighters, Jews, gays, spies, and so on, who were tortured in the basement and shot in the courtyard.
The atmosphere is "interesting"
However I thoroughly recommend a visit because, as a hotel guest, you are allowed to wander around the entire abbey complex 24/7.
At 2 in the morning, with moonlight streaming through the abbey windows, I was alone in the silvery nave, staring at the graven faces of Eleanor of Aquitaine and Richard the Lionheart. Superb.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fontevraud_Abbey
On this subject I believe that if armed with the facts and a degree of empathy most reasonable people would reach agreement with me on the following -
There is such a thing as biological sex. Almost everybody is born male or female. It’s binary.
Gender usually aligns with this but not always. Dysmorphia is a real thing and those affected by it are entitled to the best remedy which is to transition. Denied this they are often doomed to abject misery. It is a small number of people but for them it is (literally sometimes) a matter of life or death. For the vast majority the transition is beneficial. Conversely it harms no-one.
Transition can be full (with op) or partial (stopping short of this). It should not be compulsory to go all the way. It should however be compulsory to go through a defined process. You should not be changing gender on a whim. The process should be neither desultory nor so elongated and intrusive as to be a barrier. Special care is required in the case of minors.
For transwomen (born male) there are certain fears to be addressed. Some of these – e.g. access to female toilets and changing rooms – require information and education only since they are not well founded. Others – e.g. protections around women’s sport and access to refuges from domestic violence – are better founded and require some rules.
The trouble is, this debate is being driven by the extremists, not you, and the nutters are taking it down a dark road, where cancel culture is very real and some people are getting badly hurt. And the madness is spreading, not dwindling.
The trouble is, soft liberals like you are either ignoring this trend, or denying it, even when it is right there in front of you. Wokeness really is a problem as you implicitly concede, here.
Remember Mr Cameron's porridge factory visit? No 10 won't risk anything so unstructured.
I just hope Mr Johnson doesn't go off plan and shake hands with anyone this time.
It was, after all, the coalition that courted China.
https://twitter.com/wethefemalescan/status/1282515363129950208?s=20
The West has not just the advantages of innovation but it'd be a step backwards to go for "a stable demos". It is our instability that is our greatest strength. From chaos comes progress.
As for competing with China, we massively outcompete China. Best way of looking is GDP per capita by PPP.
US 67,426
(Hong Kong) 66,527
Taiwan 57,214
UK 48,169
European Union 46,468
Russia 30,820
China 20,984
We don't need to become more like China.
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1284885745086464000?s=20
70 years ago it was an island of peasants and rocks, with no natural resources.
If China can repeat that miracle on the mainland, China will eventually be four times bigger than the USA, in economic might. A big if, tho.
The trouble is that both sides of the debate are being driven by extreme nutters. And the violence and rhetoric of the anti-woke is far more alarming than the violence of the woke.
"Courting" China is not necessarily a mistake, though I would phrase it "engaging with" China. There are mutual interests and win/win opportunities. Rule of law and trade is a mutual interest. Challenging China on civil rights and democracy isn't.
Conservatism defines those relationships in one way - the other ideologies do it differently. Some put the State as the primary body, others see the individual as the more important aspect.
ETA 3/1 Ladbrokes and hope for a boost!