As someone who has been slowly making their way through a compilation of Marx's writings my two main takeaways are:
1. Most of it is tedious in the extreme; hundreds of pages to say that workers add more value than they get paid - well isn't that amazing. 2. He offers no solutions. Throw over the oppressors, then what? Get back to work, do what you're told and we are in charge now.
How this can form the basis of an ideology, or a means to motivate the masses baffles me. You can see right through it.
As the great man said: What's the point in saying destroy? I want a new life for everywhere.
I guess that's why I'm a Democratic Socialist, rather than a raving Commie.
Hat's off for doing so.
The intellectual anchors of "Democratic Socialist" or all of the other tags are rather weak. 'Democracy' though has some good stuff behind it.
So, just two areas in Wales with an R above 1. Drakeford was right.
Not necessarily. If it's just paused levels and not reduced them then lifting lockdown after just 2 weeks could lead to it picking back up again having not been meaningfully reduced.
I guess the reduction is exponential as well as the increase.
At some stage Dominic is going to have to sack Boris
He will only do that if he’s sure Gove is going to replace Johnson.
If it were Sunak or Hunt...Cummings would be out faster than you can say ‘eye test.’
I read on the last thread you called the Welsh first minister a bastard. Was there any need for that on this site.
Did I?
I don’t recall mentioning him at all on that thread. Can you quote that for me?
He is, incidentally, but that’s another story.
Why is he?
Ydoether you were replying to big g about Welsh lockdown. You said if we are stuck with this bastard through the winter ........
Riiight...
The ‘bastard’ in this case was the virus.
If you wish to say Mark Drakeford is comparable to Coronavirus, then even though I will cheerfully admit to not being a fan, I will suggest that perhaps you are not being entirely fair to him.
Edit - I am intrigued that you think that I believed an effective cure for Drakeford’s shortcomings would be to quarantine for two weeks in eight. But I am assuming you misunderstood and thought I lived in Wales, which I no longer do. So ‘we’ could hardly apply to the Welsh government as their actions seldom affect me directly.
As someone who has been slowly making their way through a compilation of Marx's writings my two main takeaways are:
1. Most of it is tedious in the extreme; hundreds of pages to say that workers add more value than they get paid - well isn't that amazing. 2. He offers no solutions. Throw over the oppressors, then what? Get back to work, do what you're told and we are in charge now.
How this can form the basis of an ideology, or a means to motivate the masses baffles me. You can see right through it.
As the great man said: What's the point in saying destroy? I want a new life for everywhere.
I guess that's why I'm a Democratic Socialist, rather than a raving Commie.
It makes a lot more sense if you know that at the time of writing Hegel was the accepted wisdom.
Now that's buggered you, hasn't it. You gotta go read Hegel now.
By comparison, Marx is positively racy.
Marx discussing Hegel is probably the most tedious bit!
As someone who has been slowly making their way through a compilation of Marx's writings my two main takeaways are:
1. Most of it is tedious in the extreme; hundreds of pages to say that workers add more value than they get paid - well isn't that amazing. 2. He offers no solutions. Throw over the oppressors, then what? Get back to work, do what you're told and we are in charge now.
How this can form the basis of an ideology, or a means to motivate the masses baffles me. You can see right through it.
As the great man said: What's the point in saying destroy? I want a new life for everywhere.
I guess that's why I'm a Democratic Socialist, rather than a raving Commie.
I don't think you're quite doing justice to Marx here - there really is quite a lot more than this to his writings (yes, I have studied him). On politics, history, economics, and philosophy he covers a broad sweep of stuff. And, agree with him or not, he has had a huge influence on both intellectual thought and real-life politics (some will say wholly negative) over the last 150 years. Much more than any right-wing thinker or philosopher, I'd venture.
At some stage Dominic is going to have to sack Boris
He will only do that if he’s sure Gove is going to replace Johnson.
If it were Sunak or Hunt...Cummings would be out faster than you can say ‘eye test.’
I read on the last thread you called the Welsh first minister a bastard. Was there any need for that on this site.
Did I?
I don’t recall mentioning him at all on that thread. Can you quote that for me?
He is, incidentally, but that’s another story.
Why is he?
Ydoether you were replying to big g about Welsh lockdown. You said if we are stuck with this bastard through the winter ........
Riiight...
The ‘bastard’ in this case was the virus.
If you wish to say Mark Drakeford is comparable to Coronavirus, then even though I will cheerfully admit to not being a fan, I will suggest that perhaps you are not being entirely fair to him.
My apologies then misunderstood your original post.
At some stage Dominic is going to have to sack Boris
He will only do that if he’s sure Gove is going to replace Johnson.
If it were Sunak or Hunt...Cummings would be out faster than you can say ‘eye test.’
I read on the last thread you called the Welsh first minister a bastard. Was there any need for that on this site.
Did I?
I don’t recall mentioning him at all on that thread. Can you quote that for me?
He is, incidentally, but that’s another story.
Why is he?
Ydoether you were replying to big g about Welsh lockdown. You said if we are stuck with this bastard through the winter ........
Riiight...
The ‘bastard’ in this case was the virus.
If you wish to say Mark Drakeford is comparable to Coronavirus, then even though I will cheerfully admit to not being a fan, I will suggest that perhaps you are not being entirely fair to him.
My apologies then misunderstood your original post.
No worries.
Truthfully, I don’t like him much as I have indicated. I consider him a typical third rate machine politician out for himself and his own ego. I was just rather surprised to find I had expressed that opinion so fruitily without apparently realising it.
And incidentally, I fully expect him to stay FM for at least another three years.
As someone who has been slowly making their way through a compilation of Marx's writings my two main takeaways are:
1. Most of it is tedious in the extreme; hundreds of pages to say that workers add more value than they get paid - well isn't that amazing. 2. He offers no solutions. Throw over the oppressors, then what? Get back to work, do what you're told and we are in charge now.
How this can form the basis of an ideology, or a means to motivate the masses baffles me. You can see right through it.
As the great man said: What's the point in saying destroy? I want a new life for everywhere.
I guess that's why I'm a Democratic Socialist, rather than a raving Commie.
I don't think you're quite doing justice to Marx here - there really is quite a lot more than this to his writings (yes, I have studied him). On politics, history, economics, and philosophy he covers a broad sweep of stuff. And, agree with him or not, he has had a huge influence on both intellectual thought and real-life politics (some will say wholly negative) over the last 150 years. Much more than any right-wing thinker or philosopher, I'd venture.
His thinking changed many people in the twentieth century. It changed a lot of people from being live people to dead people under Stalin,Mao and Pol pot etc
As someone who has been slowly making their way through a compilation of Marx's writings my two main takeaways are:
1. Most of it is tedious in the extreme; hundreds of pages to say that workers add more value than they get paid - well isn't that amazing. 2. He offers no solutions. Throw over the oppressors, then what? Get back to work, do what you're told and we are in charge now.
How this can form the basis of an ideology, or a means to motivate the masses baffles me. You can see right through it.
As the great man said: What's the point in saying destroy? I want a new life for everywhere.
I guess that's why I'm a Democratic Socialist, rather than a raving Commie.
It makes a lot more sense if you know that at the time of writing Hegel was the accepted wisdom.
Now that's buggered you, hasn't it. You gotta go read Hegel now.
As someone who has been slowly making their way through a compilation of Marx's writings my two main takeaways are:
1. Most of it is tedious in the extreme; hundreds of pages to say that workers add more value than they get paid - well isn't that amazing. 2. He offers no solutions. Throw over the oppressors, then what? Get back to work, do what you're told and we are in charge now.
How this can form the basis of an ideology, or a means to motivate the masses baffles me. You can see right through it.
As the great man said: What's the point in saying destroy? I want a new life for everywhere.
I guess that's why I'm a Democratic Socialist, rather than a raving Commie.
It makes a lot more sense if you know that at the time of writing Hegel was the accepted wisdom.
Now that's buggered you, hasn't it. You gotta go read Hegel now.
By comparison, Marx is positively racy.
Marx discussing Hegel is probably the most tedious bit!
As someone who has been slowly making their way through a compilation of Marx's writings my two main takeaways are:
1. Most of it is tedious in the extreme; hundreds of pages to say that workers add more value than they get paid - well isn't that amazing. 2. He offers no solutions. Throw over the oppressors, then what? Get back to work, do what you're told and we are in charge now.
How this can form the basis of an ideology, or a means to motivate the masses baffles me. You can see right through it.
As the great man said: What's the point in saying destroy? I want a new life for everywhere.
I guess that's why I'm a Democratic Socialist, rather than a raving Commie.
It makes a lot more sense if you know that at the time of writing Hegel was the accepted wisdom.
Now that's buggered you, hasn't it. You gotta go read Hegel now.
As someone who has been slowly making their way through a compilation of Marx's writings my two main takeaways are:
1. Most of it is tedious in the extreme; hundreds of pages to say that workers add more value than they get paid - well isn't that amazing. 2. He offers no solutions. Throw over the oppressors, then what? Get back to work, do what you're told and we are in charge now.
How this can form the basis of an ideology, or a means to motivate the masses baffles me. You can see right through it.
As the great man said: What's the point in saying destroy? I want a new life for everywhere.
I guess that's why I'm a Democratic Socialist, rather than a raving Commie.
It makes a lot more sense if you know that at the time of writing Hegel was the accepted wisdom.
Now that's buggered you, hasn't it. You gotta go read Hegel now.
By comparison, Marx is positively racy.
Marx discussing Hegel is probably the most tedious bit!
I doubt we've ever agreed on much, but I'm really interested to read your thoughts as to this re-investigation of your political roots. Please do keep sharing these observations.
As someone who has been slowly making their way through a compilation of Marx's writings my two main takeaways are:
1. Most of it is tedious in the extreme; hundreds of pages to say that workers add more value than they get paid - well isn't that amazing. 2. He offers no solutions. Throw over the oppressors, then what? Get back to work, do what you're told and we are in charge now.
How this can form the basis of an ideology, or a means to motivate the masses baffles me. You can see right through it.
As the great man said: What's the point in saying destroy? I want a new life for everywhere.
I guess that's why I'm a Democratic Socialist, rather than a raving Commie.
I don't think you're quite doing justice to Marx here - there really is quite a lot more than this to his writings (yes, I have studied him). On politics, history, economics, and philosophy he covers a broad sweep of stuff. And, agree with him or not, he has had a huge influence on both intellectual thought and real-life politics (some will say wholly negative) over the last 150 years. Much more than any right-wing thinker or philosopher, I'd venture.
His thinking changed many people in the twentieth century. It changed a lot of people from being live people to dead people under Stalin,Mao and Pol pot etc
Given that Marx died in 1883, I'm not sure you can blame him for the atrocities you cite. But it is common to do so from those who don't understand (or have never read) Marx yet somehow deduce what he would have thought about various movements that used his name in vain.
As someone who has been slowly making their way through a compilation of Marx's writings my two main takeaways are:
1. Most of it is tedious in the extreme; hundreds of pages to say that workers add more value than they get paid - well isn't that amazing. 2. He offers no solutions. Throw over the oppressors, then what? Get back to work, do what you're told and we are in charge now.
How this can form the basis of an ideology, or a means to motivate the masses baffles me. You can see right through it.
As the great man said: What's the point in saying destroy? I want a new life for everywhere.
I guess that's why I'm a Democratic Socialist, rather than a raving Commie.
I don't think you're quite doing justice to Marx here - there really is quite a lot more than this to his writings (yes, I have studied him). On politics, history, economics, and philosophy he covers a broad sweep of stuff. And, agree with him or not, he has had a huge influence on both intellectual thought and real-life politics (some will say wholly negative) over the last 150 years. Much more than any right-wing thinker or philosopher, I'd venture.
His thinking changed many people in the twentieth century. It changed a lot of people from being live people to dead people under Stalin,Mao and Pol pot etc
Given that Marx died in 1883, I'm not sure you can blame him for the atrocities you cite. But it is common to do so from those who don't understand (or have never read) Marx yet somehow deduce what he would have thought about various movements that used his name in vain.
Are you claiming his political philosophy wasn't the spur for Mao, Stalin, Pol pot? Really. I didn't say he personally did it but his writings led to directly to the cultural revolution and the gulags
As someone who has been slowly making their way through a compilation of Marx's writings my two main takeaways are:
1. Most of it is tedious in the extreme; hundreds of pages to say that workers add more value than they get paid - well isn't that amazing. 2. He offers no solutions. Throw over the oppressors, then what? Get back to work, do what you're told and we are in charge now.
How this can form the basis of an ideology, or a means to motivate the masses baffles me. You can see right through it.
As the great man said: What's the point in saying destroy? I want a new life for everywhere.
I guess that's why I'm a Democratic Socialist, rather than a raving Commie.
It makes a lot more sense if you know that at the time of writing Hegel was the accepted wisdom.
Now that's buggered you, hasn't it. You gotta go read Hegel now.
As someone who has been slowly making their way through a compilation of Marx's writings my two main takeaways are:
1. Most of it is tedious in the extreme; hundreds of pages to say that workers add more value than they get paid - well isn't that amazing. 2. He offers no solutions. Throw over the oppressors, then what? Get back to work, do what you're told and we are in charge now.
How this can form the basis of an ideology, or a means to motivate the masses baffles me. You can see right through it.
As the great man said: What's the point in saying destroy? I want a new life for everywhere.
I guess that's why I'm a Democratic Socialist, rather than a raving Commie.
I don't think you're quite doing justice to Marx here - there really is quite a lot more than this to his writings (yes, I have studied him). On politics, history, economics, and philosophy he covers a broad sweep of stuff. And, agree with him or not, he has had a huge influence on both intellectual thought and real-life politics (some will say wholly negative) over the last 150 years. Much more than any right-wing thinker or philosopher, I'd venture.
His thinking changed many people in the twentieth century. It changed a lot of people from being live people to dead people under Stalin,Mao and Pol pot etc
Given that Marx died in 1883, I'm not sure you can blame him for the atrocities you cite. But it is common to do so from those who don't understand (or have never read) Marx yet somehow deduce what he would have thought about various movements that used his name in vain.
Old Soviet joke:
Karl Marx returns from the dead, and visits Moscow. And he looks round and sees how his ideas have worked in practice. So he asks to go on radio and broadcast. Gorbachev is uneasy, so he limits Marx to one sentence.
The moment comes. The great man has the microphone. Out of his mouth come the words:
‘Proletarian alle lande - forgive me.’
Edit - this joke was later adopted by reform protestors in the dying days of the USSR, who marched under banners saying, ‘Workers of the world, we apologise.’
Latest price matched on the handicap -48.5 EC market is 1.3. Madness.
And I just had £2.5k matched at 1.28. This feels too good to be true, given Biden is 1.1 to win Georgia. I'm going to triple check these are definitely the same risk. Seems like a big arb.
EDIT: I really am confused by this. If Biden loses AZ but wins GA (and loses NC) then he wins 295 to 243, a 52 EC gap. So he wins the -48.5 handicap market. Right?
As someone who has been slowly making their way through a compilation of Marx's writings my two main takeaways are:
1. Most of it is tedious in the extreme; hundreds of pages to say that workers add more value than they get paid - well isn't that amazing. 2. He offers no solutions. Throw over the oppressors, then what? Get back to work, do what you're told and we are in charge now.
How this can form the basis of an ideology, or a means to motivate the masses baffles me. You can see right through it.
As the great man said: What's the point in saying destroy? I want a new life for everywhere.
I guess that's why I'm a Democratic Socialist, rather than a raving Commie.
I don't think you're quite doing justice to Marx here - there really is quite a lot more than this to his writings (yes, I have studied him). On politics, history, economics, and philosophy he covers a broad sweep of stuff. And, agree with him or not, he has had a huge influence on both intellectual thought and real-life politics (some will say wholly negative) over the last 150 years. Much more than any right-wing thinker or philosopher, I'd venture.
His thinking changed many people in the twentieth century. It changed a lot of people from being live people to dead people under Stalin,Mao and Pol pot etc
Given that Marx died in 1883, I'm not sure you can blame him for the atrocities you cite. But it is common to do so from those who don't understand (or have never read) Marx yet somehow deduce what he would have thought about various movements that used his name in vain.
Old Soviet joke:
Karl Marx returns from the dead, and visits Moscow. And he looks round and sees how his ideas have worked in practice. So he asks to go on radio and broadcast. Gorbachev is uneasy, so he limits Marx to one sentence.
The moment comes. The great man has the microphone. Out of his mouth come the words:
‘Proletarian alle lande - forgive me.’
Its always the excuse of the left communism/socialism wasn't tried properly and they weren't really socialist/communist. Imagine if someone came along and said mussolini's italy and hitlers germany weren't really fascist and proper fascism had never been tried. Quite rightly there would be huge outrage.
At some stage Dominic is going to have to sack Boris
He will only do that if he’s sure Gove is going to replace Johnson.
If it were Sunak or Hunt...Cummings would be out faster than you can say ‘eye test.’
I read on the last thread you called the Welsh first minister a bastard. Was there any need for that on this site.
Did I?
I don’t recall mentioning him at all on that thread. Can you quote that for me?
He is, incidentally, but that’s another story.
Why is he?
Ydoether you were replying to big g about Welsh lockdown. You said if we are stuck with this bastard through the winter ........
Riiight...
The ‘bastard’ in this case was the virus.
If you wish to say Mark Drakeford is comparable to Coronavirus, then even though I will cheerfully admit to not being a fan, I will suggest that perhaps you are not being entirely fair to him.
My apologies then misunderstood your original post.
No worries.
Truthfully, I don’t like him much as I have indicated. I consider him a typical third rate machine politician out for himself and his own ego. I was just rather surprised to find I had expressed that opinion so fruitily without apparently realising it.
And incidentally, I fully expect him to stay FM for at least another three years.
I do not know a lot about Welsh politics. However there seemed to be an extreme reaction on here by many to the Welsh lockdown. Which seemed a bit over the top , when 2 weeks later England announced a similar one. Many of them critical of the Welsh and supportive of the English one.
“ Today doesn’t have to be over-complicated. A complex election has delivered an unequivocal cause for pure and simple celebration. On 20 January next year, the current resident will be evicted from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, under armed escort if he insists on that kind of exit, and we will no longer have to put Donald Trump in the same sentence as White House.”
As someone who has been slowly making their way through a compilation of Marx's writings my two main takeaways are:
1. Most of it is tedious in the extreme; hundreds of pages to say that workers add more value than they get paid - well isn't that amazing. 2. He offers no solutions. Throw over the oppressors, then what? Get back to work, do what you're told and we are in charge now.
How this can form the basis of an ideology, or a means to motivate the masses baffles me. You can see right through it.
As the great man said: What's the point in saying destroy? I want a new life for everywhere.
I guess that's why I'm a Democratic Socialist, rather than a raving Commie.
I don't think you're quite doing justice to Marx here - there really is quite a lot more than this to his writings (yes, I have studied him). On politics, history, economics, and philosophy he covers a broad sweep of stuff. And, agree with him or not, he has had a huge influence on both intellectual thought and real-life politics (some will say wholly negative) over the last 150 years. Much more than any right-wing thinker or philosopher, I'd venture.
His thinking changed many people in the twentieth century. It changed a lot of people from being live people to dead people under Stalin,Mao and Pol pot etc
Given that Marx died in 1883, I'm not sure you can blame him for the atrocities you cite. But it is common to do so from those who don't understand (or have never read) Marx yet somehow deduce what he would have thought about various movements that used his name in vain.
He attempted to reduce political/economic theory to a solved problem.
The slight flaw with that, is the humans and their constructs are fundamentally non-linear.
So Marx's disciples were faced with an ocean of proles not doing what they were supposed to do, according to The New Testament.
So, with solemn fervour, they set about fixing the problem. By applying the logic of Procrustes to the real world.
Latest price matched on the handicap -48.5 EC market is 1.3. Madness.
And I just had £2.5k matched at 1.28. This feels too good to be true, given Biden is 1.1 to win Georgia. I'm going to triple check these are definitely the same risk. Seems like a big arb.
EDIT: I really am confused by this. If Biden loses AZ but wins GA (and loses NC) then he wins 295 to 243, a 52 EC gap. So he wins the -48.5 handicap market. Right?
As someone who has been slowly making their way through a compilation of Marx's writings my two main takeaways are:
1. Most of it is tedious in the extreme; hundreds of pages to say that workers add more value than they get paid - well isn't that amazing. 2. He offers no solutions. Throw over the oppressors, then what? Get back to work, do what you're told and we are in charge now.
How this can form the basis of an ideology, or a means to motivate the masses baffles me. You can see right through it.
As the great man said: What's the point in saying destroy? I want a new life for everywhere.
I guess that's why I'm a Democratic Socialist, rather than a raving Commie.
I don't think you're quite doing justice to Marx here - there really is quite a lot more than this to his writings (yes, I have studied him). On politics, history, economics, and philosophy he covers a broad sweep of stuff. And, agree with him or not, he has had a huge influence on both intellectual thought and real-life politics (some will say wholly negative) over the last 150 years. Much more than any right-wing thinker or philosopher, I'd venture.
His thinking changed many people in the twentieth century. It changed a lot of people from being live people to dead people under Stalin,Mao and Pol pot etc
Given that Marx died in 1883, I'm not sure you can blame him for the atrocities you cite. But it is common to do so from those who don't understand (or have never read) Marx yet somehow deduce what he would have thought about various movements that used his name in vain.
So has anyone correctly understood him (except you)? It's odd how all the misinterpretations tend in the same direction; makes one think he might have been a bit clearer about things.
The idea that causation and responsibility do not survive death, is mistaken.
Latest price matched on the handicap -48.5 EC market is 1.3. Madness.
And I just had £2.5k matched at 1.28. This feels too good to be true, given Biden is 1.1 to win Georgia. I'm going to triple check these are definitely the same risk. Seems like a big arb.
EDIT: I really am confused by this. If Biden loses AZ but wins GA (and loses NC) then he wins 295 to 243, a 52 EC gap. So he wins the -48.5 handicap market. Right?
Yes, I think so but have I missed something?
I'm on the -48.5 market and it's down at 1.1 - did you snap it all up?
Also, really stupid question (I've forgotten and am sleep lagged) how do you find the last matched price?
I can only see the depth of the market and back/lay prices.
Another stupid question.. presumably Biden wins all of these handicap markets up to the level he's achieved and not just the market for the bracket he's in?
In other words, if he won by over 110 ECVs, say, then you'd win on Biden on the 48.5, 63.5, 81.5 and the 100.5 markets all at once?
“ Today doesn’t have to be over-complicated. A complex election has delivered an unequivocal cause for pure and simple celebration. On 20 January next year, the current resident will be evicted from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, under armed escort if he insists on that kind of exit, and we will no longer have to put Donald Trump in the same sentence as White House.”
At some stage Dominic is going to have to sack Boris
He will only do that if he’s sure Gove is going to replace Johnson.
If it were Sunak or Hunt...Cummings would be out faster than you can say ‘eye test.’
I read on the last thread you called the Welsh first minister a bastard. Was there any need for that on this site.
Did I?
I don’t recall mentioning him at all on that thread. Can you quote that for me?
He is, incidentally, but that’s another story.
Why is he?
Ydoether you were replying to big g about Welsh lockdown. You said if we are stuck with this bastard through the winter ........
Riiight...
The ‘bastard’ in this case was the virus.
If you wish to say Mark Drakeford is comparable to Coronavirus, then even though I will cheerfully admit to not being a fan, I will suggest that perhaps you are not being entirely fair to him.
My apologies then misunderstood your original post.
No worries.
Truthfully, I don’t like him much as I have indicated. I consider him a typical third rate machine politician out for himself and his own ego. I was just rather surprised to find I had expressed that opinion so fruitily without apparently realising it.
And incidentally, I fully expect him to stay FM for at least another three years.
I do not know a lot about Welsh politics. However there seemed to be an extreme reaction on here by many to the Welsh lockdown. Which seemed a bit over the top , when 2 weeks later England announced a similar one. Many of them critical of the Welsh and supportive of the English one.
What I don’t understand is what anyone expects the current English lockdown to achieve given its limitations. But then, I said that of Drakeford’s lockdown as well given the massive holes he left in it, and there was always more than a suspicion in my mind that the key reason was to annoy English people who wanted to visit Wales than any epidemiology. I would also add his attempt to force border police services in England to take his orders was pretty outrageous, and should have earned him a slap down from the Home Office.
I hope you are keeping well, btw. Haven’t seen you in here too much recently since your problems getting food in at the start of lockdown. I trust that’s now all sorted.
Latest price matched on the handicap -48.5 EC market is 1.3. Madness.
And I just had £2.5k matched at 1.28. This feels too good to be true, given Biden is 1.1 to win Georgia. I'm going to triple check these are definitely the same risk. Seems like a big arb.
EDIT: I really am confused by this. If Biden loses AZ but wins GA (and loses NC) then he wins 295 to 243, a 52 EC gap. So he wins the -48.5 handicap market. Right?
Yes, I think so but have I missed something?
I'm on the -48.5 market and it's down at 1.1 - did you snap it all up?
Also, really stupid question (I've forgotten and am sleep lagged) how do you find the last matched price?
I can only see the depth of the market and back/lay prices.
Another stupid question.. presumably Biden wins all of these handicap markets up to the level he's achieved and not just the market for the bracket he's in?
In other words, if he won by over 110 ECVs, say, then you'd win on Biden on the 48.5, 63.5, 81.5 and the 100.5 markets all at once?
In order:
Yes I did, I'm now the £5k waiting to be matched at 1.28 Click on the chart button, it has the last matched price as well as the high/low and amount matched at each price. Yes, he wins all up to that bracket. Rules are clear.
As someone who has been slowly making their way through a compilation of Marx's writings my two main takeaways are:
1. Most of it is tedious in the extreme; hundreds of pages to say that workers add more value than they get paid - well isn't that amazing. 2. He offers no solutions. Throw over the oppressors, then what? Get back to work, do what you're told and we are in charge now.
How this can form the basis of an ideology, or a means to motivate the masses baffles me. You can see right through it.
As the great man said: What's the point in saying destroy? I want a new life for everywhere.
I guess that's why I'm a Democratic Socialist, rather than a raving Commie.
I don't think you're quite doing justice to Marx here - there really is quite a lot more than this to his writings (yes, I have studied him). On politics, history, economics, and philosophy he covers a broad sweep of stuff. And, agree with him or not, he has had a huge influence on both intellectual thought and real-life politics (some will say wholly negative) over the last 150 years. Much more than any right-wing thinker or philosopher, I'd venture.
His thinking changed many people in the twentieth century. It changed a lot of people from being live people to dead people under Stalin,Mao and Pol pot etc
Given that Marx died in 1883, I'm not sure you can blame him for the atrocities you cite. But it is common to do so from those who don't understand (or have never read) Marx yet somehow deduce what he would have thought about various movements that used his name in vain.
He attempted to reduce political/economic theory to a solved problem.
The slight flaw with that, is the humans and their constructs are fundamentally non-linear.
So Marx's disciples were faced with an ocean of proles not doing what they were supposed to do, according to The New Testament.
So, with solemn fervour, they set about fixing the problem. By applying the logic of Procrustes to the real world.
Have you ever read the 18e Brumaire of Louis Napoleon?
It’s the one serious attempt Marx made to fit his theories to actual events.
And it’s absolutely hilarious how they keep not matching.
On a note I also disagree with IanB2. I think that NickPalmer saying he is a former communist indicates a recantation and stepping back from the philosophy and most of us believed things when we were young that real life has shown us to be less black and white than we thought at the time.
Nick is helping a charity to achieve a worthwhile aim and we shouldn't hold what he believed as a youth against a worthwhile cause
The number of patients in Welsh hospitals with coronavirus is now the highest since the height of the pandemic in April.
Latest NHS Wales figures show 1,344 people are being treated in hospital for Covid-19 while 54 of the 163 critical care patients have the virus - with the intensive care occupancy rate beyond Wales' usual 152-bed capacity.
But its ok, Drakeford is going to let people gather in groups of upto 15 indoors and 30 outdoors in a few days.
No rule of 6?
He is allowing "organized activities" to have these many people. Also, I believe you can go and meet up with people in the pub. I think upto 4 others from different households.
Sounds civilised. That's pretty much Tier 1 isn't it?
It isn't...but still even if it was, they are jumping straight from "lockdown" to lowest tier across the whole of the country, despite having a number of areas that are in the top 10 in the UK for COVID.
The whole policy in Wales has been nonsensical. I can't believe any of their scientific advisers were saying that a strict (not actually a) "lockdown" would be sufficient to bring down infection rates to a reasonable level in their hardest hit areas within two weeks. And the effect on the least hit areas will have been pretty insignificant as the levels weren't that high anyway. So potentially a bit of a benefit for some areas in the middle. But not likely to be very long lasting.
It was entirely political. They wanted to demonstrate that they were pursuing SAGE's old strategy (despite Van Tam saying it was no longer relevant) to provide that Boris was dreadful.
As someone who has been slowly making their way through a compilation of Marx's writings my two main takeaways are:
1. Most of it is tedious in the extreme; hundreds of pages to say that workers add more value than they get paid - well isn't that amazing. 2. He offers no solutions. Throw over the oppressors, then what? Get back to work, do what you're told and we are in charge now.
How this can form the basis of an ideology, or a means to motivate the masses baffles me. You can see right through it.
As the great man said: What's the point in saying destroy? I want a new life for everywhere.
I guess that's why I'm a Democratic Socialist, rather than a raving Commie.
I don't think you're quite doing justice to Marx here - there really is quite a lot more than this to his writings (yes, I have studied him). On politics, history, economics, and philosophy he covers a broad sweep of stuff. And, agree with him or not, he has had a huge influence on both intellectual thought and real-life politics (some will say wholly negative) over the last 150 years. Much more than any right-wing thinker or philosopher, I'd venture.
His thinking changed many people in the twentieth century. It changed a lot of people from being live people to dead people under Stalin,Mao and Pol pot etc
Given that Marx died in 1883, I'm not sure you can blame him for the atrocities you cite. But it is common to do so from those who don't understand (or have never read) Marx yet somehow deduce what he would have thought about various movements that used his name in vain.
Old Soviet joke:
Karl Marx returns from the dead, and visits Moscow. And he looks round and sees how his ideas have worked in practice. So he asks to go on radio and broadcast. Gorbachev is uneasy, so he limits Marx to one sentence.
The moment comes. The great man has the microphone. Out of his mouth come the words:
‘Proletarian alle lande - forgive me.’
Its always the excuse of the left communism/socialism wasn't tried properly and they weren't really socialist/communist. Imagine if someone came along and said mussolini's italy and hitlers germany weren't really fascist and proper fascism had never been tried. Quite rightly there would be huge outrage.
All attempts at Communism seem to have arrived at Orwell's Animal Farm. I believe it is inevitable because of the frailties of man (or pigs). I don't think the outcome is what Marx and Engels had in mind however.
At some stage Dominic is going to have to sack Boris
He will only do that if he’s sure Gove is going to replace Johnson.
If it were Sunak or Hunt...Cummings would be out faster than you can say ‘eye test.’
I read on the last thread you called the Welsh first minister a bastard. Was there any need for that on this site.
Did I?
I don’t recall mentioning him at all on that thread. Can you quote that for me?
He is, incidentally, but that’s another story.
Why is he?
Ydoether you were replying to big g about Welsh lockdown. You said if we are stuck with this bastard through the winter ........
Riiight...
The ‘bastard’ in this case was the virus.
If you wish to say Mark Drakeford is comparable to Coronavirus, then even though I will cheerfully admit to not being a fan, I will suggest that perhaps you are not being entirely fair to him.
My apologies then misunderstood your original post.
No worries.
Truthfully, I don’t like him much as I have indicated. I consider him a typical third rate machine politician out for himself and his own ego. I was just rather surprised to find I had expressed that opinion so fruitily without apparently realising it.
And incidentally, I fully expect him to stay FM for at least another three years.
I do not know a lot about Welsh politics. However there seemed to be an extreme reaction on here by many to the Welsh lockdown. Which seemed a bit over the top , when 2 weeks later England announced a similar one. Many of them critical of the Welsh and supportive of the English one.
What I don’t understand is what anyone expects the current English lockdown to achieve given its limitations. But then, I said that of Drakeford’s lockdown as well given the massive holes he left in it, and there was always more than a suspicion in my mind that the key reason was to annoy English people who wanted to visit Wales than any epidemiology. I would also add his attempt to force border police services in England to take his orders was pretty outrageous, and should have earned him a slap down from the Home Office.
I hope you are keeping well, btw. Haven’t seen you in here too much recently since your problems getting food in at the start of lockdown. I trust that’s now all sorted.
Yes good thanks . I eventually got on Sainsbury vulnerable list .They have been excellent with their on line deliveries.On time every occasion we have used them.
As someone who has been slowly making their way through a compilation of Marx's writings my two main takeaways are:
1. Most of it is tedious in the extreme; hundreds of pages to say that workers add more value than they get paid - well isn't that amazing. 2. He offers no solutions. Throw over the oppressors, then what? Get back to work, do what you're told and we are in charge now.
How this can form the basis of an ideology, or a means to motivate the masses baffles me. You can see right through it.
As the great man said: What's the point in saying destroy? I want a new life for everywhere.
I guess that's why I'm a Democratic Socialist, rather than a raving Commie.
I don't think you're quite doing justice to Marx here - there really is quite a lot more than this to his writings (yes, I have studied him). On politics, history, economics, and philosophy he covers a broad sweep of stuff. And, agree with him or not, he has had a huge influence on both intellectual thought and real-life politics (some will say wholly negative) over the last 150 years. Much more than any right-wing thinker or philosopher, I'd venture.
His thinking changed many people in the twentieth century. It changed a lot of people from being live people to dead people under Stalin,Mao and Pol pot etc
Given that Marx died in 1883, I'm not sure you can blame him for the atrocities you cite. But it is common to do so from those who don't understand (or have never read) Marx yet somehow deduce what he would have thought about various movements that used his name in vain.
He attempted to reduce political/economic theory to a solved problem.
The slight flaw with that, is the humans and their constructs are fundamentally non-linear.
So Marx's disciples were faced with an ocean of proles not doing what they were supposed to do, according to The New Testament.
So, with solemn fervour, they set about fixing the problem. By applying the logic of Procrustes to the real world.
Have you ever read the 18e Brumaire of Louis Napoleon?
It’s the one serious attempt Marx made to fit his theories to actual events.
And it’s absolutely hilarious how they keep not matching.
That must be close to the first wave peak now? It was estimated as 100k a day in the UK.
I'm sure they're above first wave peak, given high positivity levels.
It is worth noting - sotto voce - but while the UK did very badly with the first wave, it appears to be doing much better (relative to peers) with the second.
Which peers? France, obviously. Anyone else?
Yes:
Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Italy, all of Eastern Europe, and probably Germany too.
Where are you getting UK probably doing much better than Germany from?
As someone who has been slowly making their way through a compilation of Marx's writings my two main takeaways are:
1. Most of it is tedious in the extreme; hundreds of pages to say that workers add more value than they get paid - well isn't that amazing. 2. He offers no solutions. Throw over the oppressors, then what? Get back to work, do what you're told and we are in charge now.
How this can form the basis of an ideology, or a means to motivate the masses baffles me. You can see right through it.
As the great man said: What's the point in saying destroy? I want a new life for everywhere.
I guess that's why I'm a Democratic Socialist, rather than a raving Commie.
I don't think you're quite doing justice to Marx here - there really is quite a lot more than this to his writings (yes, I have studied him). On politics, history, economics, and philosophy he covers a broad sweep of stuff. And, agree with him or not, he has had a huge influence on both intellectual thought and real-life politics (some will say wholly negative) over the last 150 years. Much more than any right-wing thinker or philosopher, I'd venture.
His thinking changed many people in the twentieth century. It changed a lot of people from being live people to dead people under Stalin,Mao and Pol pot etc
Given that Marx died in 1883, I'm not sure you can blame him for the atrocities you cite. But it is common to do so from those who don't understand (or have never read) Marx yet somehow deduce what he would have thought about various movements that used his name in vain.
Old Soviet joke:
Karl Marx returns from the dead, and visits Moscow. And he looks round and sees how his ideas have worked in practice. So he asks to go on radio and broadcast. Gorbachev is uneasy, so he limits Marx to one sentence.
The moment comes. The great man has the microphone. Out of his mouth come the words:
‘Proletarian alle lande - forgive me.’
Its always the excuse of the left communism/socialism wasn't tried properly and they weren't really socialist/communist. Imagine if someone came along and said mussolini's italy and hitlers germany weren't really fascist and proper fascism had never been tried. Quite rightly there would be huge outrage.
All attempts at Communism seem to have arrived at Orwell's Animal Farm. I believe it is inevitable because of the frailties of man (or pigs). I don't think the outcome is what Marx and Engels had in mind however.
I doubt it too I disagree however with your interpretation of the issue, it is not the frailty of man that is the issue it is that the philosophy ignores human nature. Socialism/communism is a good philosophy for a hive. Humans are not a hive
Mr. Royale, that is reminiscent of a certain strain of Critical Race 'thinkers' who accuse a white person of racism. The white person either confesses their sin and gets to feel guilty but obedient and trying to be good, or does not, and is accused of ignorance and denial (plus being a racist).
"Agree with my theory or you're racist" is an infantile approach, though quite a few seem to have fallen for that brand of bullshit.
As an aside, viewing disagreement with* sin is political fundamentalism akin to Momentum and the far left's preening self-righteousness.
Edited extra bit *should be 'as sin'.
As an aside, one of the other problems of Critical Race Theory is that it blinds people to evidence of actual racism.
We’ve got some pretty smart people on this board. We come from many parts of the UK, and abroad. We represent a wide variety of professions, and we come together, mostly anonymously, because of our shared love of politics and interest in gambling or probability.
From what we can see in our professions and our towns - and realising that with a couple of exceptions we are speaking without knowledge of epidemiology - do we think that we are going to have a a second full fat lockdown this winter?
I’ll go first. I think in education the odds of getting through to Christmas are no better than even. Large numbers of cases are spreading in schools, and it’s going to become increasingly difficult to cover staffing gaps as they open up. And the ‘no better than even,’ incidentally, assumes that about 25% of students will be isolated or otherwise sent home at some point.
We’ve got some pretty smart people on this board. We come from many parts of the UK, and abroad. We represent a wide variety of professions, and we come together, mostly anonymously, because of our shared love of politics and interest in gambling or probability.
From what we can see in our professions and our towns - and realising that with a couple of exceptions we are speaking without knowledge of epidemiology - do we think that we are going to have a a second full fat lockdown this winter?
I’ll go first. I think in education the odds of getting through to Christmas are no better than even. Large numbers of cases are spreading in schools, and it’s going to become increasingly difficult to cover staffing gaps as they open up. And the ‘no better than even,’ incidentally, assumes that about 25% of students will be isolated or otherwise sent home at some point.
I don't want to be unhelpful, but can you define 'full fat lockdown'? I think there will be lots of shades of grey in restrictions for the next few months, so my answer for now is 'It depends'.
I had never even heard the term critical race theory until I read it here, I guarantee it is not what the MSM mean and others mean when they call things "woke".
As someone who has been slowly making their way through a compilation of Marx's writings my two main takeaways are:
1. Most of it is tedious in the extreme; hundreds of pages to say that workers add more value than they get paid - well isn't that amazing. 2. He offers no solutions. Throw over the oppressors, then what? Get back to work, do what you're told and we are in charge now.
How this can form the basis of an ideology, or a means to motivate the masses baffles me. You can see right through it.
As the great man said: What's the point in saying destroy? I want a new life for everywhere.
I guess that's why I'm a Democratic Socialist, rather than a raving Commie.
I don't think you're quite doing justice to Marx here - there really is quite a lot more than this to his writings (yes, I have studied him). On politics, history, economics, and philosophy he covers a broad sweep of stuff. And, agree with him or not, he has had a huge influence on both intellectual thought and real-life politics (some will say wholly negative) over the last 150 years. Much more than any right-wing thinker or philosopher, I'd venture.
His thinking changed many people in the twentieth century. It changed a lot of people from being live people to dead people under Stalin,Mao and Pol pot etc
Given that Marx died in 1883, I'm not sure you can blame him for the atrocities you cite. But it is common to do so from those who don't understand (or have never read) Marx yet somehow deduce what he would have thought about various movements that used his name in vain.
He attempted to reduce political/economic theory to a solved problem.
The slight flaw with that, is the humans and their constructs are fundamentally non-linear.
So Marx's disciples were faced with an ocean of proles not doing what they were supposed to do, according to The New Testament.
So, with solemn fervour, they set about fixing the problem. By applying the logic of Procrustes to the real world.
Have you ever read the 18e Brumaire of Louis Napoleon?
It’s the one serious attempt Marx made to fit his theories to actual events.
And it’s absolutely hilarious how they keep not matching.
No - I haven't. Interesting.
Reality - wrong since Plato....
Ah,Plato. Bless her, reality was not her long suit towards the end. It is perhaps as well she did not live to see this, as it would have caused her much trauma and confusion.
We’ve got some pretty smart people on this board. We come from many parts of the UK, and abroad. We represent a wide variety of professions, and we come together, mostly anonymously, because of our shared love of politics and interest in gambling or probability.
From what we can see in our professions and our towns - and realising that with a couple of exceptions we are speaking without knowledge of epidemiology - do we think that we are going to have a a second full fat lockdown this winter?
I’ll go first. I think in education the odds of getting through to Christmas are no better than even. Large numbers of cases are spreading in schools, and it’s going to become increasingly difficult to cover staffing gaps as they open up. And the ‘no better than even,’ incidentally, assumes that about 25% of students will be isolated or otherwise sent home at some point.
I don't want to be unhelpful, but can you define 'full fat lockdown'? I think there will be lots of shades of grey in restrictions for the next few months, so my answer for now is 'It depends'.
Good question. As in, leave the house only to take exercise and all non-essential economic activity shut down.
As someone who has been slowly making their way through a compilation of Marx's writings my two main takeaways are:
1. Most of it is tedious in the extreme; hundreds of pages to say that workers add more value than they get paid - well isn't that amazing. 2. He offers no solutions. Throw over the oppressors, then what? Get back to work, do what you're told and we are in charge now.
How this can form the basis of an ideology, or a means to motivate the masses baffles me. You can see right through it.
As the great man said: What's the point in saying destroy? I want a new life for everywhere.
I guess that's why I'm a Democratic Socialist, rather than a raving Commie.
I don't think you're quite doing justice to Marx here - there really is quite a lot more than this to his writings (yes, I have studied him). On politics, history, economics, and philosophy he covers a broad sweep of stuff. And, agree with him or not, he has had a huge influence on both intellectual thought and real-life politics (some will say wholly negative) over the last 150 years. Much more than any right-wing thinker or philosopher, I'd venture.
His thinking changed many people in the twentieth century. It changed a lot of people from being live people to dead people under Stalin,Mao and Pol pot etc
Given that Marx died in 1883, I'm not sure you can blame him for the atrocities you cite. But it is common to do so from those who don't understand (or have never read) Marx yet somehow deduce what he would have thought about various movements that used his name in vain.
Old Soviet joke:
Karl Marx returns from the dead, and visits Moscow. And he looks round and sees how his ideas have worked in practice. So he asks to go on radio and broadcast. Gorbachev is uneasy, so he limits Marx to one sentence.
The moment comes. The great man has the microphone. Out of his mouth come the words:
‘Proletarian alle lande - forgive me.’
Its always the excuse of the left communism/socialism wasn't tried properly and they weren't really socialist/communist. Imagine if someone came along and said mussolini's italy and hitlers germany weren't really fascist and proper fascism had never been tried. Quite rightly there would be huge outrage.
All attempts at Communism seem to have arrived at Orwell's Animal Farm. I believe it is inevitable because of the frailties of man (or pigs). I don't think the outcome is what Marx and Engels had in mind however.
I doubt it too I disagree however with your interpretation of the issue, it is not the frailty of man that is the issue it is that the philosophy ignores human nature. Socialism/communism is a good philosophy for a hive. Humans are not a hive
Surely human nature is beset by the frailties of man. On this issue I am not entirely sure we disagree.
As someone who has been slowly making their way through a compilation of Marx's writings my two main takeaways are:
1. Most of it is tedious in the extreme; hundreds of pages to say that workers add more value than they get paid - well isn't that amazing. 2. He offers no solutions. Throw over the oppressors, then what? Get back to work, do what you're told and we are in charge now.
How this can form the basis of an ideology, or a means to motivate the masses baffles me. You can see right through it.
As the great man said: What's the point in saying destroy? I want a new life for everywhere.
I guess that's why I'm a Democratic Socialist, rather than a raving Commie.
I don't think you're quite doing justice to Marx here - there really is quite a lot more than this to his writings (yes, I have studied him). On politics, history, economics, and philosophy he covers a broad sweep of stuff. And, agree with him or not, he has had a huge influence on both intellectual thought and real-life politics (some will say wholly negative) over the last 150 years. Much more than any right-wing thinker or philosopher, I'd venture.
His thinking changed many people in the twentieth century. It changed a lot of people from being live people to dead people under Stalin,Mao and Pol pot etc
Given that Marx died in 1883, I'm not sure you can blame him for the atrocities you cite. But it is common to do so from those who don't understand (or have never read) Marx yet somehow deduce what he would have thought about various movements that used his name in vain.
He attempted to reduce political/economic theory to a solved problem.
The slight flaw with that, is the humans and their constructs are fundamentally non-linear.
So Marx's disciples were faced with an ocean of proles not doing what they were supposed to do, according to The New Testament.
So, with solemn fervour, they set about fixing the problem. By applying the logic of Procrustes to the real world.
Have you ever read the 18e Brumaire of Louis Napoleon?
It’s the one serious attempt Marx made to fit his theories to actual events.
And it’s absolutely hilarious how they keep not matching.
No - I haven't. Interesting.
Reality - wrong since Plato....
Ah,Plato. Bless her, reality was not her long suit towards the end. It is perhaps as well she did not live to see this, as it would have caused her much trauma and confusion.
Perhaps unkind. I was referring to the far more foolish and misguided Greek chap. Not sure he ever posted here.
We’ve got some pretty smart people on this board. We come from many parts of the UK, and abroad. We represent a wide variety of professions, and we come together, mostly anonymously, because of our shared love of politics and interest in gambling or probability.
From what we can see in our professions and our towns - and realising that with a couple of exceptions we are speaking without knowledge of epidemiology - do we think that we are going to have a a second full fat lockdown this winter?
I’ll go first. I think in education the odds of getting through to Christmas are no better than even. Large numbers of cases are spreading in schools, and it’s going to become increasingly difficult to cover staffing gaps as they open up. And the ‘no better than even,’ incidentally, assumes that about 25% of students will be isolated or otherwise sent home at some point.
Personally I dont think we have a chance of avoiding ongoing lockdowns including over christmas and new year. This is while I supported the first lockdown I have switched to not supporting further lockdowns. Seems to me from the evidence yes it reduces cases but as soon as we try to unlock cases go up and lockdown is required again. We can't go on like this without running out of money. The toll in jobs, mental wellbeing is becoming a price not worth paying
We’ve got some pretty smart people on this board. We come from many parts of the UK, and abroad. We represent a wide variety of professions, and we come together, mostly anonymously, because of our shared love of politics and interest in gambling or probability.
From what we can see in our professions and our towns - and realising that with a couple of exceptions we are speaking without knowledge of epidemiology - do we think that we are going to have a a second full fat lockdown this winter?
I’ll go first. I think in education the odds of getting through to Christmas are no better than even. Large numbers of cases are spreading in schools, and it’s going to become increasingly difficult to cover staffing gaps as they open up. And the ‘no better than even,’ incidentally, assumes that about 25% of students will be isolated or otherwise sent home at some point.
I expect the current lockdown 2.0 to be released on 3 Dec and then a more relaxed framework to apply through to Christmas and New Year.
Cases will have fallen by early Dec - probably by quite a bit - but they will start to rise from early Jan.
I do expect a more substantive ie longer lockdown in Q1, it really depends when Boris makes the call to do it, the case numbers may on the face of it justify waiting until late Jan but Boris might go earlier. We do need to defeat this in Q1 so the government may say late Jan to say 31 Mar.
Latest price matched on the handicap -48.5 EC market is 1.3. Madness.
And I just had £2.5k matched at 1.28. This feels too good to be true, given Biden is 1.1 to win Georgia. I'm going to triple check these are definitely the same risk. Seems like a big arb.
EDIT: I really am confused by this. If Biden loses AZ but wins GA (and loses NC) then he wins 295 to 243, a 52 EC gap. So he wins the -48.5 handicap market. Right?
Yes, I think so but have I missed something?
I'm on the -48.5 market and it's down at 1.1 - did you snap it all up?
Also, really stupid question (I've forgotten and am sleep lagged) how do you find the last matched price?
I can only see the depth of the market and back/lay prices.
Another stupid question.. presumably Biden wins all of these handicap markets up to the level he's achieved and not just the market for the bracket he's in?
In other words, if he won by over 110 ECVs, say, then you'd win on Biden on the 48.5, 63.5, 81.5 and the 100.5 markets all at once?
In order:
Yes I did, I'm now the £5k waiting to be matched at 1.28 Click on the chart button, it has the last matched price as well as the high/low and amount matched at each price. Yes, he wins all up to that bracket. Rules are clear.
Thanks. I can't seem to find the chart button but I am on my phone - or I'm doing something silly.
I'm not confident enough to put the level of money you're putting into the market but best of luck with it.
I had never even heard the term critical race theory until I read it here, I guarantee it is not what the MSM mean and others mean when they call things "woke".
This is just yet more conflation.
I think the biggest group of people who have heard of it and understand are the anti-wokists - its hardly a massive threat to society. Its supporters are probably in similar numbers to the complete climate change deniers at most.
As someone who has been slowly making their way through a compilation of Marx's writings my two main takeaways are:
1. Most of it is tedious in the extreme; hundreds of pages to say that workers add more value than they get paid - well isn't that amazing. 2. He offers no solutions. Throw over the oppressors, then what? Get back to work, do what you're told and we are in charge now.
How this can form the basis of an ideology, or a means to motivate the masses baffles me. You can see right through it.
As the great man said: What's the point in saying destroy? I want a new life for everywhere.
I guess that's why I'm a Democratic Socialist, rather than a raving Commie.
I don't think you're quite doing justice to Marx here - there really is quite a lot more than this to his writings (yes, I have studied him). On politics, history, economics, and philosophy he covers a broad sweep of stuff. And, agree with him or not, he has had a huge influence on both intellectual thought and real-life politics (some will say wholly negative) over the last 150 years. Much more than any right-wing thinker or philosopher, I'd venture.
His thinking changed many people in the twentieth century. It changed a lot of people from being live people to dead people under Stalin,Mao and Pol pot etc
Given that Marx died in 1883, I'm not sure you can blame him for the atrocities you cite. But it is common to do so from those who don't understand (or have never read) Marx yet somehow deduce what he would have thought about various movements that used his name in vain.
Old Soviet joke:
Karl Marx returns from the dead, and visits Moscow. And he looks round and sees how his ideas have worked in practice. So he asks to go on radio and broadcast. Gorbachev is uneasy, so he limits Marx to one sentence.
The moment comes. The great man has the microphone. Out of his mouth come the words:
‘Proletarian alle lande - forgive me.’
Its always the excuse of the left communism/socialism wasn't tried properly and they weren't really socialist/communist. Imagine if someone came along and said mussolini's italy and hitlers germany weren't really fascist and proper fascism had never been tried. Quite rightly there would be huge outrage.
Isn't that the argument that followers of Ilyin make? Putin's favourite philosopher and taught very seriously in modern Russia?
As someone who has been slowly making their way through a compilation of Marx's writings my two main takeaways are:
1. Most of it is tedious in the extreme; hundreds of pages to say that workers add more value than they get paid - well isn't that amazing. 2. He offers no solutions. Throw over the oppressors, then what? Get back to work, do what you're told and we are in charge now.
How this can form the basis of an ideology, or a means to motivate the masses baffles me. You can see right through it.
As the great man said: What's the point in saying destroy? I want a new life for everywhere.
I guess that's why I'm a Democratic Socialist, rather than a raving Commie.
I don't think you're quite doing justice to Marx here - there really is quite a lot more than this to his writings (yes, I have studied him). On politics, history, economics, and philosophy he covers a broad sweep of stuff. And, agree with him or not, he has had a huge influence on both intellectual thought and real-life politics (some will say wholly negative) over the last 150 years. Much more than any right-wing thinker or philosopher, I'd venture.
His thinking changed many people in the twentieth century. It changed a lot of people from being live people to dead people under Stalin,Mao and Pol pot etc
Given that Marx died in 1883, I'm not sure you can blame him for the atrocities you cite. But it is common to do so from those who don't understand (or have never read) Marx yet somehow deduce what he would have thought about various movements that used his name in vain.
Old Soviet joke:
Karl Marx returns from the dead, and visits Moscow. And he looks round and sees how his ideas have worked in practice. So he asks to go on radio and broadcast. Gorbachev is uneasy, so he limits Marx to one sentence.
The moment comes. The great man has the microphone. Out of his mouth come the words:
‘Proletarian alle lande - forgive me.’
Its always the excuse of the left communism/socialism wasn't tried properly and they weren't really socialist/communist. Imagine if someone came along and said mussolini's italy and hitlers germany weren't really fascist and proper fascism had never been tried. Quite rightly there would be huge outrage.
All attempts at Communism seem to have arrived at Orwell's Animal Farm. I believe it is inevitable because of the frailties of man (or pigs). I don't think the outcome is what Marx and Engels had in mind however.
I doubt it too I disagree however with your interpretation of the issue, it is not the frailty of man that is the issue it is that the philosophy ignores human nature. Socialism/communism is a good philosophy for a hive. Humans are not a hive
Surely human nature is beset by the frailties of man. On this issue I am not entirely sure we disagree.
Indeed we are not bees.
I don't think we disagree on the whole apart from you see them as frailties I see them as strengths. They are what led us to civillisation and scientific progress. Human's compete to be better than each other. Is it not after all the very definition of Darwins evolution the best pass their genes on.
We’ve got some pretty smart people on this board. We come from many parts of the UK, and abroad. We represent a wide variety of professions, and we come together, mostly anonymously, because of our shared love of politics and interest in gambling or probability.
From what we can see in our professions and our towns - and realising that with a couple of exceptions we are speaking without knowledge of epidemiology - do we think that we are going to have a a second full fat lockdown this winter?
I’ll go first. I think in education the odds of getting through to Christmas are no better than even. Large numbers of cases are spreading in schools, and it’s going to become increasingly difficult to cover staffing gaps as they open up. And the ‘no better than even,’ incidentally, assumes that about 25% of students will be isolated or otherwise sent home at some point.
I don't want to be unhelpful, but can you define 'full fat lockdown'? I think there will be lots of shades of grey in restrictions for the next few months, so my answer for now is 'It depends'.
Good question. As in, leave the house only to take exercise and all non-essential economic activity shut down.
In that case, and assuming you mean on a national/England-wide level, I'd lean to 'No'. The Tories are increasingly uneasy about full on lockdowns and I don't know if the party would stand another without extreme pressure from a spiralling situation.
I suspect that the current lockdown will end sometime in December, either right at the start or midway through. Regional restrictions will then continue, and given how long it took cases/hospitalisations/deaths to grow to critical levels after the first lockdown I expect we'll be in mid/late-spring before that situation recurs at worst.
I'm also quietly hopeful that either we'll be better at keeping cases low with less severe measures or that by the time things begin to get out of control again a vaccine rollout will have begun. We'll see.
We’ve got some pretty smart people on this board. We come from many parts of the UK, and abroad. We represent a wide variety of professions, and we come together, mostly anonymously, because of our shared love of politics and interest in gambling or probability.
From what we can see in our professions and our towns - and realising that with a couple of exceptions we are speaking without knowledge of epidemiology - do we think that we are going to have a a second full fat lockdown this winter?
I’ll go first. I think in education the odds of getting through to Christmas are no better than even. Large numbers of cases are spreading in schools, and it’s going to become increasingly difficult to cover staffing gaps as they open up. And the ‘no better than even,’ incidentally, assumes that about 25% of students will be isolated or otherwise sent home at some point.
I expect the current lockdown 2.0 to be released on 3 Dec and then a more relaxed framework to apply through to Christmas and New Year.
Cases will have fallen by early Dec - probably by quite a bit - but they will start to rise from early Jan.
I do expect a more substantive ie longer lockdown in Q1, it really depends when Boris makes the call to do it, the case numbers may on the face of it justify waiting until late Jan but Boris might go earlier. We do need to defeat this in Q1 so the government may say late Jan to say 31 Mar.
But I might be wrong! It's not unusual!
You are not expecting a vaccine to begin to help out by January?
As someone who has been slowly making their way through a compilation of Marx's writings my two main takeaways are:
1. Most of it is tedious in the extreme; hundreds of pages to say that workers add more value than they get paid - well isn't that amazing. 2. He offers no solutions. Throw over the oppressors, then what? Get back to work, do what you're told and we are in charge now.
How this can form the basis of an ideology, or a means to motivate the masses baffles me. You can see right through it.
As the great man said: What's the point in saying destroy? I want a new life for everywhere.
I guess that's why I'm a Democratic Socialist, rather than a raving Commie.
I don't think you're quite doing justice to Marx here - there really is quite a lot more than this to his writings (yes, I have studied him). On politics, history, economics, and philosophy he covers a broad sweep of stuff. And, agree with him or not, he has had a huge influence on both intellectual thought and real-life politics (some will say wholly negative) over the last 150 years. Much more than any right-wing thinker or philosopher, I'd venture.
His thinking changed many people in the twentieth century. It changed a lot of people from being live people to dead people under Stalin,Mao and Pol pot etc
Given that Marx died in 1883, I'm not sure you can blame him for the atrocities you cite. But it is common to do so from those who don't understand (or have never read) Marx yet somehow deduce what he would have thought about various movements that used his name in vain.
Old Soviet joke:
Karl Marx returns from the dead, and visits Moscow. And he looks round and sees how his ideas have worked in practice. So he asks to go on radio and broadcast. Gorbachev is uneasy, so he limits Marx to one sentence.
The moment comes. The great man has the microphone. Out of his mouth come the words:
‘Proletarian alle lande - forgive me.’
Its always the excuse of the left communism/socialism wasn't tried properly and they weren't really socialist/communist. Imagine if someone came along and said mussolini's italy and hitlers germany weren't really fascist and proper fascism had never been tried. Quite rightly there would be huge outrage.
All attempts at Communism seem to have arrived at Orwell's Animal Farm. I believe it is inevitable because of the frailties of man (or pigs). I don't think the outcome is what Marx and Engels had in mind however.
I doubt it too I disagree however with your interpretation of the issue, it is not the frailty of man that is the issue it is that the philosophy ignores human nature. Socialism/communism is a good philosophy for a hive. Humans are not a hive
Actually various fascists have contended that Mussolini and Hitler "betrayed the revolution".
It seems to be a universal get out clause for any social theory/political cause - "it hasn't been done right, yet"
I suggest we start again, in alphabetical order. So we begin with Absolute Monarchy, with myself as the monarch......
As someone who has been slowly making their way through a compilation of Marx's writings my two main takeaways are:
1. Most of it is tedious in the extreme; hundreds of pages to say that workers add more value than they get paid - well isn't that amazing. 2. He offers no solutions. Throw over the oppressors, then what? Get back to work, do what you're told and we are in charge now.
How this can form the basis of an ideology, or a means to motivate the masses baffles me. You can see right through it.
As the great man said: What's the point in saying destroy? I want a new life for everywhere.
I guess that's why I'm a Democratic Socialist, rather than a raving Commie.
I don't think you're quite doing justice to Marx here - there really is quite a lot more than this to his writings (yes, I have studied him). On politics, history, economics, and philosophy he covers a broad sweep of stuff. And, agree with him or not, he has had a huge influence on both intellectual thought and real-life politics (some will say wholly negative) over the last 150 years. Much more than any right-wing thinker or philosopher, I'd venture.
His thinking changed many people in the twentieth century. It changed a lot of people from being live people to dead people under Stalin,Mao and Pol pot etc
Given that Marx died in 1883, I'm not sure you can blame him for the atrocities you cite. But it is common to do so from those who don't understand (or have never read) Marx yet somehow deduce what he would have thought about various movements that used his name in vain.
He attempted to reduce political/economic theory to a solved problem.
The slight flaw with that, is the humans and their constructs are fundamentally non-linear.
So Marx's disciples were faced with an ocean of proles not doing what they were supposed to do, according to The New Testament.
So, with solemn fervour, they set about fixing the problem. By applying the logic of Procrustes to the real world.
Have you ever read the 18e Brumaire of Louis Napoleon?
It’s the one serious attempt Marx made to fit his theories to actual events.
And it’s absolutely hilarious how they keep not matching.
No - I haven't. Interesting.
Reality - wrong since Plato....
Ah,Plato. Bless her, reality was not her long suit towards the end. It is perhaps as well she did not live to see this, as it would have caused her much trauma and confusion.
Perhaps unkind. I was referring to the far more foolish and misguided Greek chap. Not sure he ever posted here.
Well, you never wish death on anybody, but - you have to wonder how she would have coped with this.
I knew you were referring to the Greek misogynist, but it set off a train of thought.
Mr. Doethur, that comes across as surprisingly harsh and unkind. Whilst Miss Plato had her detractors she was always civil (speaking for myself). Not sure there's much profit or joy in deriding deceased PBers.
On Christmas, I'd be inclined to remember what the Starks said: Winter is coming.
There won't be the political will or public obedience for a proper lockdown but things may very well still be restricted.
We’ve got some pretty smart people on this board. We come from many parts of the UK, and abroad. We represent a wide variety of professions, and we come together, mostly anonymously, because of our shared love of politics and interest in gambling or probability.
From what we can see in our professions and our towns - and realising that with a couple of exceptions we are speaking without knowledge of epidemiology - do we think that we are going to have a a second full fat lockdown this winter?
I’ll go first. I think in education the odds of getting through to Christmas are no better than even. Large numbers of cases are spreading in schools, and it’s going to become increasingly difficult to cover staffing gaps as they open up. And the ‘no better than even,’ incidentally, assumes that about 25% of students will be isolated or otherwise sent home at some point.
I expect the current lockdown 2.0 to be released on 3 Dec and then a more relaxed framework to apply through to Christmas and New Year.
Cases will have fallen by early Dec - probably by quite a bit - but they will start to rise from early Jan.
I do expect a more substantive ie longer lockdown in Q1, it really depends when Boris makes the call to do it, the case numbers may on the face of it justify waiting until late Jan but Boris might go earlier. We do need to defeat this in Q1 so the government may say late Jan to say 31 Mar.
But I might be wrong! It's not unusual!
You are not expecting a vaccine to begin to help out by January?
Latest price matched on the handicap -48.5 EC market is 1.3. Madness.
And I just had £2.5k matched at 1.28. This feels too good to be true, given Biden is 1.1 to win Georgia. I'm going to triple check these are definitely the same risk. Seems like a big arb.
EDIT: I really am confused by this. If Biden loses AZ but wins GA (and loses NC) then he wins 295 to 243, a 52 EC gap. So he wins the -48.5 handicap market. Right?
Yes, I think so but have I missed something?
I'm on the -48.5 market and it's down at 1.1 - did you snap it all up?
Also, really stupid question (I've forgotten and am sleep lagged) how do you find the last matched price?
I can only see the depth of the market and back/lay prices.
Another stupid question.. presumably Biden wins all of these handicap markets up to the level he's achieved and not just the market for the bracket he's in?
In other words, if he won by over 110 ECVs, say, then you'd win on Biden on the 48.5, 63.5, 81.5 and the 100.5 markets all at once?
In order:
Yes I did, I'm now the £5k waiting to be matched at 1.28 Click on the chart button, it has the last matched price as well as the high/low and amount matched at each price. Yes, he wins all up to that bracket. Rules are clear.
Thanks. I can't seem to find the chart button but I am on my phone - or I'm doing something silly.
I'm not confident enough to put the level of money you're putting into the market but best of luck with it.
Cheers. To you, and me, and everyone else on this site: May the odds be ever in our favour.
As someone who has been slowly making their way through a compilation of Marx's writings my two main takeaways are:
1. Most of it is tedious in the extreme; hundreds of pages to say that workers add more value than they get paid - well isn't that amazing. 2. He offers no solutions. Throw over the oppressors, then what? Get back to work, do what you're told and we are in charge now.
How this can form the basis of an ideology, or a means to motivate the masses baffles me. You can see right through it.
As the great man said: What's the point in saying destroy? I want a new life for everywhere.
I guess that's why I'm a Democratic Socialist, rather than a raving Commie.
I don't think you're quite doing justice to Marx here - there really is quite a lot more than this to his writings (yes, I have studied him). On politics, history, economics, and philosophy he covers a broad sweep of stuff. And, agree with him or not, he has had a huge influence on both intellectual thought and real-life politics (some will say wholly negative) over the last 150 years. Much more than any right-wing thinker or philosopher, I'd venture.
His thinking changed many people in the twentieth century. It changed a lot of people from being live people to dead people under Stalin,Mao and Pol pot etc
Given that Marx died in 1883, I'm not sure you can blame him for the atrocities you cite. But it is common to do so from those who don't understand (or have never read) Marx yet somehow deduce what he would have thought about various movements that used his name in vain.
Old Soviet joke:
Karl Marx returns from the dead, and visits Moscow. And he looks round and sees how his ideas have worked in practice. So he asks to go on radio and broadcast. Gorbachev is uneasy, so he limits Marx to one sentence.
The moment comes. The great man has the microphone. Out of his mouth come the words:
‘Proletarian alle lande - forgive me.’
Its always the excuse of the left communism/socialism wasn't tried properly and they weren't really socialist/communist. Imagine if someone came along and said mussolini's italy and hitlers germany weren't really fascist and proper fascism had never been tried. Quite rightly there would be huge outrage.
Isn't that the argument that followers of Ilyin make? Putin's favourite philosopher and taught very seriously in modern Russia?
Then the followers of ilyin are to be equally condemned. Frankly you find a lot of philosophers expressing views that are quite odious to the average person. Thats what got us eugenics, fascism, and communism after all.
We’ve got some pretty smart people on this board. We come from many parts of the UK, and abroad. We represent a wide variety of professions, and we come together, mostly anonymously, because of our shared love of politics and interest in gambling or probability.
From what we can see in our professions and our towns - and realising that with a couple of exceptions we are speaking without knowledge of epidemiology - do we think that we are going to have a a second full fat lockdown this winter?
I’ll go first. I think in education the odds of getting through to Christmas are no better than even. Large numbers of cases are spreading in schools, and it’s going to become increasingly difficult to cover staffing gaps as they open up. And the ‘no better than even,’ incidentally, assumes that about 25% of students will be isolated or otherwise sent home at some point.
I don't want to be unhelpful, but can you define 'full fat lockdown'? I think there will be lots of shades of grey in restrictions for the next few months, so my answer for now is 'It depends'.
Good question. As in, leave the house only to take exercise and all non-essential economic activity shut down.
In that case, and assuming you mean on a national/England-wide level, I'd lean to 'No'. The Tories are increasingly uneasy about full on lockdowns and I don't know if the party would stand another without extreme pressure from a spiralling situation.
I suspect that the current lockdown will end sometime in December, either right at the start or midway through. Regional restrictions will then continue, and given how long it took cases/hospitalisations/deaths to grow to critical levels after the first lockdown I expect we'll be in mid/late-spring before that situation recurs at worst.
I'm also quietly hopeful that either we'll be better at keeping cases low with less severe measures or that by the time things begin to get out of control again a vaccine rollout will have begun. We'll see.
As someone who has been slowly making their way through a compilation of Marx's writings my two main takeaways are:
1. Most of it is tedious in the extreme; hundreds of pages to say that workers add more value than they get paid - well isn't that amazing. 2. He offers no solutions. Throw over the oppressors, then what? Get back to work, do what you're told and we are in charge now.
How this can form the basis of an ideology, or a means to motivate the masses baffles me. You can see right through it.
As the great man said: What's the point in saying destroy? I want a new life for everywhere.
I guess that's why I'm a Democratic Socialist, rather than a raving Commie.
I don't think you're quite doing justice to Marx here - there really is quite a lot more than this to his writings (yes, I have studied him). On politics, history, economics, and philosophy he covers a broad sweep of stuff. And, agree with him or not, he has had a huge influence on both intellectual thought and real-life politics (some will say wholly negative) over the last 150 years. Much more than any right-wing thinker or philosopher, I'd venture.
His thinking changed many people in the twentieth century. It changed a lot of people from being live people to dead people under Stalin,Mao and Pol pot etc
Given that Marx died in 1883, I'm not sure you can blame him for the atrocities you cite. But it is common to do so from those who don't understand (or have never read) Marx yet somehow deduce what he would have thought about various movements that used his name in vain.
He attempted to reduce political/economic theory to a solved problem.
The slight flaw with that, is the humans and their constructs are fundamentally non-linear.
So Marx's disciples were faced with an ocean of proles not doing what they were supposed to do, according to The New Testament.
So, with solemn fervour, they set about fixing the problem. By applying the logic of Procrustes to the real world.
Have you ever read the 18e Brumaire of Louis Napoleon?
It’s the one serious attempt Marx made to fit his theories to actual events.
And it’s absolutely hilarious how they keep not matching.
No - I haven't. Interesting.
Reality - wrong since Plato....
Ah,Plato. Bless her, reality was not her long suit towards the end. It is perhaps as well she did not live to see this, as it would have caused her much trauma and confusion.
Perhaps unkind. I was referring to the far more foolish and misguided Greek chap. Not sure he ever posted here.
Well, you never wish death on anybody, but - you have to wonder how she would have coped with this.
I knew you were referring to the Greek misogynist, but it set off a train of thought.
I don't think that she ever posted anything as mad as the Republic.
I expect the current lockdown 2.0 to be released on 3 Dec and then a more relaxed framework to apply through to Christmas and New Year.
Cases will have fallen by early Dec - probably by quite a bit - but they will start to rise from early Jan.
I do expect a more substantive ie longer lockdown in Q1, it really depends when Boris makes the call to do it, the case numbers may on the face of it justify waiting until late Jan but Boris might go earlier. We do need to defeat this in Q1 so the government may say late Jan to say 31 Mar.
But I might be wrong! It's not unusual!
It would be political suicide for Boris Johnson, "Mr Optimistic", to be seen as the man who ruined Christmas. It's also quite clear any attempt to prevent families from meeting up over Christmas is going to be widely flouted.
IF the case numbers are moving in the right direction by December 2nd, I could envisage a resumption of the three-tier system with those areas with higher residual case numbers in Tier 2 and everyone else going to Tier 1. If the case numbers haven't fallen too much, I could envisage another week added.
By the 9th I envisage Boris having gone on national tv to thank us all for our forbearance and promising we can all enjoy Christmas.
Sting in the tail will come IF the festivities see a renewed spike in cases in late December/early January with a renewed phase of lockdown from mid January but that's open to how things go over the Christmas/New Year period. I expect large public events for New Year to be cancelled.
Mr. Doethur, that comes across as surprisingly harsh and unkind. Whilst Miss Plato had her detractors she was always civil (speaking for myself). Not sure there's much profit or joy in deriding deceased PBers.
On Christmas, I'd be inclined to remember what the Starks said: Winter is coming.
There won't be the political will or public obedience for a proper lockdown but things may very well still be restricted.
She and I always got on very well, and I tended not to respond to her more, ummm, imaginative episodes.
That is a point though that I hadn’t really considered about Trump. A lot of his supporters genuinely believed in conspiracy theories even before his election. So far, they seem comparatively restrained but how long will the likes of Brietbart and QAnon keep quiet before feeding a whole load of new rubbish to vulnerable people that might tip them over the edge?
Mr. Pagan, it's worth noting that early views of evolution were what might be politely termed 'quaint' today. It was genuinely thought that the different races of humans were actually different races, and not just European and Indian, Chinese and Arab, but even that Englishmen and Frenchmen were different.
That's wrong, of course, genetically there's very little difference indeed, but that does help to explain why some felt certain peoples were superior/inferior.
At some stage Dominic is going to have to sack Boris
He will only do that if he’s sure Gove is going to replace Johnson.
If it were Sunak or Hunt...Cummings would be out faster than you can say ‘eye test.’
I read on the last thread you called the Welsh first minister a bastard. Was there any need for that on this site.
Did I?
I don’t recall mentioning him at all on that thread. Can you quote that for me?
He is, incidentally, but that’s another story.
Why is he?
Ydoether you were replying to big g about Welsh lockdown. You said if we are stuck with this bastard through the winter ........
Riiight...
The ‘bastard’ in this case was the virus.
If you wish to say Mark Drakeford is comparable to Coronavirus, then even though I will cheerfully admit to not being a fan, I will suggest that perhaps you are not being entirely fair to him.
My apologies then misunderstood your original post.
No worries.
Truthfully, I don’t like him much as I have indicated. I consider him a typical third rate machine politician out for himself and his own ego. I was just rather surprised to find I had expressed that opinion so fruitily without apparently realising it.
And incidentally, I fully expect him to stay FM for at least another three years.
I do not know a lot about Welsh politics. However there seemed to be an extreme reaction on here by many to the Welsh lockdown. Which seemed a bit over the top , when 2 weeks later England announced a similar one. Many of them critical of the Welsh and supportive of the English one.
What I don’t understand is what anyone expects the current English lockdown to achieve given its limitations. But then, I said that of Drakeford’s lockdown as well given the massive holes he left in it, and there was always more than a suspicion in my mind that the key reason was to annoy English people who wanted to visit Wales than any epidemiology. I would also add his attempt to force border police services in England to take his orders was pretty outrageous, and should have earned him a slap down from the Home Office.
I hope you are keeping well, btw. Haven’t seen you in here too much recently since your problems getting food in at the start of lockdown. I trust that’s now all sorted.
Agreed totally re: these "lockdowns". The UK Government has chosen to massively advance the levels of restrictions on businesses in particular, at devastating cost to those businesses themselves and the wider economy, all the more so by switching from a localised to a nationwide policy - but has left holes so wide in the restrictions (some of which ie. schools represent a far larger risk than many of the activities that have been shut down) that the "lockdown" is not really a lockdown at all, just another "tier" on a spectrum between free for all and welding everyone in their houses.
There is no particular reason to think that the current restrictions will be any more effective in bringing down cases than the ones they replaced - which is not to say that they won't be effective, merely that the existing restrictions could well have been sufficient anyway - or at least some alternative formulation eg. Tier 2 or Tier 3 across the country.
We’ve got some pretty smart people on this board. We come from many parts of the UK, and abroad. We represent a wide variety of professions, and we come together, mostly anonymously, because of our shared love of politics and interest in gambling or probability.
From what we can see in our professions and our towns - and realising that with a couple of exceptions we are speaking without knowledge of epidemiology - do we think that we are going to have a a second full fat lockdown this winter?
I’ll go first. I think in education the odds of getting through to Christmas are no better than even. Large numbers of cases are spreading in schools, and it’s going to become increasingly difficult to cover staffing gaps as they open up. And the ‘no better than even,’ incidentally, assumes that about 25% of students will be isolated or otherwise sent home at some point.
I don't want to be unhelpful, but can you define 'full fat lockdown'? I think there will be lots of shades of grey in restrictions for the next few months, so my answer for now is 'It depends'.
Good question. As in, leave the house only to take exercise and all non-essential economic activity shut down.
I don't think we'll go back to economic shutdown - the evidence seems to be that, of itself, does't drop R that much.
The issue seems to be that the big factors in R, are education and socialisation.
We’ve got some pretty smart people on this board. We come from many parts of the UK, and abroad. We represent a wide variety of professions, and we come together, mostly anonymously, because of our shared love of politics and interest in gambling or probability.
From what we can see in our professions and our towns - and realising that with a couple of exceptions we are speaking without knowledge of epidemiology - do we think that we are going to have a a second full fat lockdown this winter?
I’ll go first. I think in education the odds of getting through to Christmas are no better than even. Large numbers of cases are spreading in schools, and it’s going to become increasingly difficult to cover staffing gaps as they open up. And the ‘no better than even,’ incidentally, assumes that about 25% of students will be isolated or otherwise sent home at some point.
I don't want to be unhelpful, but can you define 'full fat lockdown'? I think there will be lots of shades of grey in restrictions for the next few months, so my answer for now is 'It depends'.
Good question. As in, leave the house only to take exercise and all non-essential economic activity shut down.
I don't think we'll go back to economic shutdown - the evidence seems to be that, of itself, does't drop R that much.
The issue seems to be that the big factors in R, are education and socialisation.
The first of which is continuing at the government’s behest and the second of which will undoubtedly continue anyway whether the government wants it to or not.
Hard to see many other things having more importance. Biden has somewhat played the Irish card, but Ireland is totally stuffed if the UK has issues.
Covid, the economy, orderly transition, building consensus in the US, racial tensions... these things and others might have considerably more importance to Biden than any US-UK trade deal.
We’ve got some pretty smart people on this board. We come from many parts of the UK, and abroad. We represent a wide variety of professions, and we come together, mostly anonymously, because of our shared love of politics and interest in gambling or probability.
From what we can see in our professions and our towns - and realising that with a couple of exceptions we are speaking without knowledge of epidemiology - do we think that we are going to have a a second full fat lockdown this winter?
I’ll go first. I think in education the odds of getting through to Christmas are no better than even. Large numbers of cases are spreading in schools, and it’s going to become increasingly difficult to cover staffing gaps as they open up. And the ‘no better than even,’ incidentally, assumes that about 25% of students will be isolated or otherwise sent home at some point.
Personally I dont think we have a chance of avoiding ongoing lockdowns including over christmas and new year. This is while I supported the first lockdown I have switched to not supporting further lockdowns. Seems to me from the evidence yes it reduces cases but as soon as we try to unlock cases go up and lockdown is required again. We can't go on like this without running out of money. The toll in jobs, mental wellbeing is becoming a price not worth paying
Same. I think the first lockdown was essential to buy time, to better understand the virus and how to treat it. But we're now in a situation where it's either keep locking down until a vaccine is rolled out (with big questions about what will happen if it's ineffective against Covid 20 or Minky Corona or whatever comes next), or learn to live with it by shielding the vulnerable, rolling out wider testing, better track and trace, more severe penalties for not self isolating etc. The NHS won't be overwhelmed because we've never even used all those Nightingale hospitals. And the longer we go on, the more people will suffer through losing their jobs, turning to drink or drugs, missing vital cancer screenings etc.
What I think will happen is we will see deaths rise a bit throughout November and Boris will say sorry, we can't end the lockdown yet, but if you all really behave yourselves I will let you spend Christmas Day with up to 6 friends or family members before reviewing the lockdown again in January.
On the other hand if the lockdown does end in December I expect we will all be back in lockdown by mid to late Jan as people mingle at Christmas, students return home etc. Which is dangerous as I think with each successive lockdown compliance will get lower and lower.
But I don't think things will really change so long as Sunak keeps paying people to sit at home doing nothing. It's only when we're faced with the stark choice between saving every life and saving the economy that lockdown will lose majority support. It's not either / or, it's a balancing act between the two. But the longer this rumbles on, the more the economy goes down the toilet.
Woke is just a term used to be racist or sexist, or generally horrible that is still acceptable.
No, it really isn't although that's what its defenders (almost always) say in its defence.
Woke is a warped Marxist theory that's transmuted from academia into the real world and views everyone through a complex hierarchical and intersectional power dynamic where we are all classified by race, gender and sexuality and bracketed (and treated) as relative oppressors or victims accordingly. It uses this as a starting point to undercut some of the established values and historical foundations of our society in the hope that by breaking it down something better (Marxist utopia) that they believe will take its place. It cleverly condemns its opponents as racists and sexists to enforce its dogma and silence dissent. It's a big reason why they say "don't expect minorities to educate you on racism" - because they fear they wouldn't be on message; just look at how they attack those who are not - and instead say, please read my favoured best-selling culturally marxist book and 'educate yourself'.
Example: an unWoke person would be concerned that some Black people still experience some racial discrimination in the UK and would want to talk to them about it to understand it and change it. They wouldn't take a knee, tear down statues, or talk about White Privilege. They would emphasis the common-bonds they have of shared Britishness, they would demonstrate empathy they would talk about fairness, and they would talk about opening up opportunities for them and increasing role models. They would try harder to think about things from their point of view in future and bring everyone of all backgrounds, races and politics along with them. They wouldn't plaster what they're doing all over social media out of insecurity narcissism.
A Woke person would say either you buy into the whole lot, or you're suspect.. or worse.
Great post CR.
I don't think it's a particularly great post to be honest and seems to contradict a lot of what he says when he just mindlessly calls others woke.
I don't think anyone here fits into that view of "wokeness" - and I am about 99% sure if you asked the average person what woke means, they would not say that.
For me what being woke is used for is just today's politically correct, it's saying something you know is offensive but you feel like this gives you cover to say it without being challenged. You have an opinion, air it and we will debate it. End of story.
Who's defending saying anything offensive?
I would challenge anyone who said something racist, but I won't go down on one knee, or label myself and others as having White Privilege.
That might get some initial attention, or make sense in an academic thesis, but, when translated into the real world, divides far more people than it unites.
It's been said before that challenging the disgraceful comments Johnson has made about Islam, or Obama, makes you "woke" and "PC". I am not saying that's you, I am saying your definition is not shared by most/many, especially and including the MSM at large who people look to for their definition.
I think that the problem is that Johnson is was journalist with a live of colourful phrases.
The comment about Muslim women in full burkas looting like “letterboxes” was in an article defending their right to do so.
But people have chosen to focus on his perceived insult to Muslim people rather than his defence of their rights.
And yet they idolise Macron who had banned the things.
Funny old world isn’t it when what people say matters more than what they do
This - "saying" vs "doing" - is the false distinction typically rolled out to downplay the toxic real world impact of people like Donald Trump.
"I don't like what he says and how he says it sometimes but ..."
"He might come over as racist but black employment has gone up and that's far more important."
Nonsense, isn't it. Total nonsense. Strictly for the apologists. If I abuse somebody using only words have I not abused them?
Which is worse, clipping a child around the ear or destroying their confidence with a barrage of ridicule and putdowns?
The difference between an aside in an article written by a journalist and a President standing up using the authority of his office to make bullying remarks?
Mr. Pagan, it's worth noting that early views of evolution were what might be politely termed 'quaint' today. It was genuinely thought that the different races of humans were actually different races, and not just European and Indian, Chinese and Arab, but even that Englishmen and Frenchmen were different.
That's wrong, of course, genetically there's very little difference indeed, but that does help to explain why some felt certain peoples were superior/inferior.
Early views were wrong is not unusual and over time we understand it better and learn more and refine the theory. It doesn't change the profound change in human understanding that both Darwin and Mendel made even if they got some things wrong.
The quote "Standing on the shoulders of giants" is apt here. It is harder to make that first leap in understanding and I think we can forgive them for not getting it completely right
As someone who has been slowly making their way through a compilation of Marx's writings my two main takeaways are:
1. Most of it is tedious in the extreme; hundreds of pages to say that workers add more value than they get paid - well isn't that amazing. 2. He offers no solutions. Throw over the oppressors, then what? Get back to work, do what you're told and we are in charge now.
How this can form the basis of an ideology, or a means to motivate the masses baffles me. You can see right through it.
As the great man said: What's the point in saying destroy? I want a new life for everywhere.
I guess that's why I'm a Democratic Socialist, rather than a raving Commie.
I don't think you're quite doing justice to Marx here - there really is quite a lot more than this to his writings (yes, I have studied him). On politics, history, economics, and philosophy he covers a broad sweep of stuff. And, agree with him or not, he has had a huge influence on both intellectual thought and real-life politics (some will say wholly negative) over the last 150 years. Much more than any right-wing thinker or philosopher, I'd venture.
His thinking changed many people in the twentieth century. It changed a lot of people from being live people to dead people under Stalin,Mao and Pol pot etc
Given that Marx died in 1883, I'm not sure you can blame him for the atrocities you cite. But it is common to do so from those who don't understand (or have never read) Marx yet somehow deduce what he would have thought about various movements that used his name in vain.
Old Soviet joke:
Karl Marx returns from the dead, and visits Moscow. And he looks round and sees how his ideas have worked in practice. So he asks to go on radio and broadcast. Gorbachev is uneasy, so he limits Marx to one sentence.
The moment comes. The great man has the microphone. Out of his mouth come the words:
‘Proletarian alle lande - forgive me.’
Its always the excuse of the left communism/socialism wasn't tried properly and they weren't really socialist/communist. Imagine if someone came along and said mussolini's italy and hitlers germany weren't really fascist and proper fascism had never been tried. Quite rightly there would be huge outrage.
I have a sneaky feeling that we will soon be hearing more of the 'wrong type of Brexit' line but I hope I am wrong.
Woke is just a term used to be racist or sexist, or generally horrible that is still acceptable.
No, it really isn't although that's what its defenders (almost always) say in its defence.
Woke is a warped Marxist theory that's transmuted from academia into the real world and views everyone through a complex hierarchical and intersectional power dynamic where we are all classified by race, gender and sexuality and bracketed (and treated) as relative oppressors or victims accordingly. It uses this as a starting point to undercut some of the established values and historical foundations of our society in the hope that by breaking it down something better (Marxist utopia) that they believe will take its place. It cleverly condemns its opponents as racists and sexists to enforce its dogma and silence dissent. It's a big reason why they say "don't expect minorities to educate you on racism" - because they fear they wouldn't be on message; just look at how they attack those who are not - and instead say, please read my favoured best-selling culturally marxist book and 'educate yourself'.
Example: an unWoke person would be concerned that some Black people still experience some racial discrimination in the UK and would want to talk to them about it to understand it and change it. They wouldn't take a knee, tear down statues, or talk about White Privilege. They would emphasis the common-bonds they have of shared Britishness, they would demonstrate empathy they would talk about fairness, and they would talk about opening up opportunities for them and increasing role models. They would try harder to think about things from their point of view in future and bring everyone of all backgrounds, races and politics along with them. They wouldn't plaster what they're doing all over social media out of insecurity narcissism.
A Woke person would say either you buy into the whole lot, or you're suspect.. or worse.
Great post CR.
I don't think it's a particularly great post to be honest and seems to contradict a lot of what he says when he just mindlessly calls others woke.
I don't think anyone here fits into that view of "wokeness" - and I am about 99% sure if you asked the average person what woke means, they would not say that.
For me what being woke is used for is just today's politically correct, it's saying something you know is offensive but you feel like this gives you cover to say it without being challenged. You have an opinion, air it and we will debate it. End of story.
Who's defending saying anything offensive?
I would challenge anyone who said something racist, but I won't go down on one knee, or label myself and others as having White Privilege.
That might get some initial attention, or make sense in an academic thesis, but, when translated into the real world, divides far more people than it unites.
It's been said before that challenging the disgraceful comments Johnson has made about Islam, or Obama, makes you "woke" and "PC". I am not saying that's you, I am saying your definition is not shared by most/many, especially and including the MSM at large who people look to for their definition.
I think that the problem is that Johnson is was journalist with a live of colourful phrases.
The comment about Muslim women in full burkas looting like “letterboxes” was in an article defending their right to do so.
But people have chosen to focus on his perceived insult to Muslim people rather than his defence of their rights.
And yet they idolise Macron who had banned the things.
Funny old world isn’t it when what people say matters more than what they do
"Colourful phrases", I wonder if you'd use the same defence about a Labour MP, I bet not.
Yes I would. You see I believe in freedom of speech
He says racist things, I'll call them out.
Of course we could go over the other racist things he's said, like attacking Obama's heritage but it doesn't matter as the Democrats haven't forgotten.
Still not a defence of your position just an attack on someone else. This is very revealing
I believe calling out racist things that people have said is often said to be "woke" when in years gone by this would have "PC crowd gone mad".
Johnson can say what he wants but calling him out for racism is not "woke" or "PC", it's doing IMHO the right thing.
We clearly have different views of what racism is, you seem to think being racist is "using colourful phrases" whereas I think it's quite simply being racist, or saying racist things, of which Johnson has undoubtedly done.
Of course you're pretending to be somehow impartial when we know full well you're just as partisan as me.
You are taking a single line in an article that was intended (although failing) to be humorous.
And ignoring the content of the article that was standing up for the rights of Muslim women to wear the burqa.
(I am actually much more troubled by the burqa than Johnson seems to be, because I suspect that - in many cases - women are forced to wear it, or conditioned to believe that it is somehow right that men can do what they want while women must be modest in order to avoid inflaming men's passions.)
Woke is just a term used to be racist or sexist, or generally horrible that is still acceptable.
No, it really isn't although that's what its defenders (almost always) say in its defence.
Woke is a warped Marxist theory that's transmuted from academia into the real world and views everyone through a complex hierarchical and intersectional power dynamic where we are all classified by race, gender and sexuality and bracketed (and treated) as relative oppressors or victims accordingly. It uses this as a starting point to undercut some of the established values and historical foundations of our society in the hope that by breaking it down something better (Marxist utopia) that they believe will take its place. It cleverly condemns its opponents as racists and sexists to enforce its dogma and silence dissent. It's a big reason why they say "don't expect minorities to educate you on racism" - because they fear they wouldn't be on message; just look at how they attack those who are not - and instead say, please read my favoured best-selling culturally marxist book and 'educate yourself'.
Example: an unWoke person would be concerned that some Black people still experience some racial discrimination in the UK and would want to talk to them about it to understand it and change it. They wouldn't take a knee, tear down statues, or talk about White Privilege. They would emphasis the common-bonds they have of shared Britishness, they would demonstrate empathy they would talk about fairness, and they would talk about opening up opportunities for them and increasing role models. They would try harder to think about things from their point of view in future and bring everyone of all backgrounds, races and politics along with them. They wouldn't plaster what they're doing all over social media out of insecurity narcissism.
A Woke person would say either you buy into the whole lot, or you're suspect.. or worse.
Great post CR.
I don't think it's a particularly great post to be honest and seems to contradict a lot of what he says when he just mindlessly calls others woke.
I don't think anyone here fits into that view of "wokeness" - and I am about 99% sure if you asked the average person what woke means, they would not say that.
For me what being woke is used for is just today's politically correct, it's saying something you know is offensive but you feel like this gives you cover to say it without being challenged. You have an opinion, air it and we will debate it. End of story.
Who's defending saying anything offensive?
I would challenge anyone who said something racist, but I won't go down on one knee, or label myself and others as having White Privilege.
That might get some initial attention, or make sense in an academic thesis, but, when translated into the real world, divides far more people than it unites.
It's been said before that challenging the disgraceful comments Johnson has made about Islam, or Obama, makes you "woke" and "PC". I am not saying that's you, I am saying your definition is not shared by most/many, especially and including the MSM at large who people look to for their definition.
I think that the problem is that Johnson is was journalist with a live of colourful phrases.
The comment about Muslim women in full burkas looting like “letterboxes” was in an article defending their right to do so.
But people have chosen to focus on his perceived insult to Muslim people rather than his defence of their rights.
And yet they idolise Macron who had banned the things.
Funny old world isn’t it when what people say matters more than what they do
This - "saying" vs "doing" - is the false distinction typically rolled out to downplay the toxic real world impact of people like Donald Trump.
"I don't like what he says and how he says it sometimes but ..."
"He might come over as racist but black employment has gone up and that's far more important."
Nonsense, isn't it. Total nonsense. Strictly for the apologists. If I abuse somebody using only words have I not abused them?
Which is worse, clipping a child around the ear or destroying their confidence with a barrage of ridicule and putdowns?
The difference between an aside in an article written by a journalist and a President standing up using the authority of his office to make bullying remarks?
"Bullying" remarks, you mean racist remarks. You have a blindspot it seems.
I expect the current lockdown 2.0 to be released on 3 Dec and then a more relaxed framework to apply through to Christmas and New Year.
Cases will have fallen by early Dec - probably by quite a bit - but they will start to rise from early Jan.
I do expect a more substantive ie longer lockdown in Q1, it really depends when Boris makes the call to do it, the case numbers may on the face of it justify waiting until late Jan but Boris might go earlier. We do need to defeat this in Q1 so the government may say late Jan to say 31 Mar.
But I might be wrong! It's not unusual!
It would be political suicide for Boris Johnson, "Mr Optimistic", to be seen as the man who ruined Christmas. It's also quite clear any attempt to prevent families from meeting up over Christmas is going to be widely flouted.
IF the case numbers are moving in the right direction by December 2nd, I could envisage a resumption of the three-tier system with those areas with higher residual case numbers in Tier 2 and everyone else going to Tier 1. If the case numbers haven't fallen too much, I could envisage another week added.
By the 9th I envisage Boris having gone on national tv to thank us all for our forbearance and promising we can all enjoy Christmas.
Sting in the tail will come IF the festivities see a renewed spike in cases in late December/early January with a renewed phase of lockdown from mid January but that's open to how things go over the Christmas/New Year period. I expect large public events for New Year to be cancelled.
Then agin...
In my family we have already assumed cancelled Christmas, in terms of family gatherings.
Strangely, the scattered 80 somethings are not enthused by all being in the same place at the same time with everyone else.
We’ve got some pretty smart people on this board. We come from many parts of the UK, and abroad. We represent a wide variety of professions, and we come together, mostly anonymously, because of our shared love of politics and interest in gambling or probability.
From what we can see in our professions and our towns - and realising that with a couple of exceptions we are speaking without knowledge of epidemiology - do we think that we are going to have a a second full fat lockdown this winter?
I’ll go first. I think in education the odds of getting through to Christmas are no better than even. Large numbers of cases are spreading in schools, and it’s going to become increasingly difficult to cover staffing gaps as they open up. And the ‘no better than even,’ incidentally, assumes that about 25% of students will be isolated or otherwise sent home at some point.
I don't want to be unhelpful, but can you define 'full fat lockdown'? I think there will be lots of shades of grey in restrictions for the next few months, so my answer for now is 'It depends'.
Good question. As in, leave the house only to take exercise and all non-essential economic activity shut down.
I don't think we'll go back to economic shutdown - the evidence seems to be that, of itself, does't drop R that much.
The issue seems to be that the big factors in R, are education and socialisation.
The first of which is continuing at the government’s behest and the second of which will undoubtedly continue anyway whether the government wants it to or not.
And worth noting that the recent stabilisation of cases happened at the right time to match half term in most schools.
Welcome, but potentially fleeting and poising awkward questions...
Comments
The intellectual anchors of "Democratic Socialist" or all of the other tags are rather weak. 'Democracy' though has some good stuff behind it.
The ‘bastard’ in this case was the virus.
If you wish to say Mark Drakeford is comparable to Coronavirus, then even though I will cheerfully admit to not being a fan, I will suggest that perhaps you are not being entirely fair to him.
Edit - I am intrigued that you think that I believed an effective cure for Drakeford’s shortcomings would be to quarantine for two weeks in eight. But I am assuming you misunderstood and thought I lived in Wales, which I no longer do. So ‘we’ could hardly apply to the Welsh government as their actions seldom affect me directly.
Truthfully, I don’t like him much as I have indicated. I consider him a typical third rate machine politician out for himself and his own ego. I was just rather surprised to find I had expressed that opinion so fruitily without apparently realising it.
And incidentally, I fully expect him to stay FM for at least another three years.
Imagine Nietzsche discussing Marx discussing Hegel.......
Karl Marx returns from the dead, and visits Moscow. And he looks round and sees how his ideas have worked in practice. So he asks to go on radio and broadcast. Gorbachev is uneasy, so he limits Marx to one sentence.
The moment comes. The great man has the microphone. Out of his mouth come the words:
‘Proletarian alle lande - forgive me.’
Edit - this joke was later adopted by reform protestors in the dying days of the USSR, who marched under banners saying, ‘Workers of the world, we apologise.’
EDIT: I really am confused by this. If Biden loses AZ but wins GA (and loses NC) then he wins 295 to 243, a 52 EC gap. So he wins the -48.5 handicap market. Right?
However there seemed to be an extreme reaction on here by many to the Welsh lockdown.
Which seemed a bit over the top , when 2 weeks later England announced a similar one.
Many of them critical of the Welsh and supportive of the English one.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/nov/08/donald-trump-defeat-wonderful-for-world-trouble-for-boris-johnson
The slight flaw with that, is the humans and their constructs are fundamentally non-linear.
So Marx's disciples were faced with an ocean of proles not doing what they were supposed to do, according to The New Testament.
So, with solemn fervour, they set about fixing the problem. By applying the logic of Procrustes to the real world.
The idea that causation and responsibility do not survive death, is mistaken.
I'm on the -48.5 market and it's down at 1.1 - did you snap it all up?
Also, really stupid question (I've forgotten and am sleep lagged) how do you find the last matched price?
I can only see the depth of the market and back/lay prices.
Another stupid question.. presumably Biden wins all of these handicap markets up to the level he's achieved and not just the market for the bracket he's in?
In other words, if he won by over 110 ECVs, say, then you'd win on Biden on the 48.5, 63.5, 81.5 and the 100.5 markets all at once?
I hope you are keeping well, btw. Haven’t seen you in here too much recently since your problems getting food in at the start of lockdown. I trust that’s now all sorted.
Yes I did, I'm now the £5k waiting to be matched at 1.28
Click on the chart button, it has the last matched price as well as the high/low and amount matched at each price.
Yes, he wins all up to that bracket. Rules are clear.
It’s the one serious attempt Marx made to fit his theories to actual events.
And it’s absolutely hilarious how they keep not matching.
Nick is helping a charity to achieve a worthwhile aim and we shouldn't hold what he believed as a youth against a worthwhile cause
Shame that it doesn't seem to have worked
I eventually got on Sainsbury vulnerable list .They have been excellent with their on line deliveries.On time every occasion we have used them.
Reality - wrong since Plato....
We’ve got some pretty smart people on this board. We come from many parts of the UK, and abroad. We represent a wide variety of professions, and we come together, mostly anonymously, because of our shared love of politics and interest in gambling or probability.
From what we can see in our professions and our towns - and realising that with a couple of exceptions we are speaking without knowledge of epidemiology - do we think that we are going to have a a second full fat lockdown this winter?
I’ll go first. I think in education the odds of getting through to Christmas are no better than even. Large numbers of cases are spreading in schools, and it’s going to become increasingly difficult to cover staffing gaps as they open up. And the ‘no better than even,’ incidentally, assumes that about 25% of students will be isolated or otherwise sent home at some point.
This is just yet more conflation.
Indeed we are not bees.
Cases will have fallen by early Dec - probably by quite a bit - but they will start to rise from early Jan.
I do expect a more substantive ie longer lockdown in Q1, it really depends when Boris makes the call to do it, the case numbers may on the face of it justify waiting until late Jan but Boris might go earlier. We do need to defeat this in Q1 so the government may say late Jan to say 31 Mar.
But I might be wrong! It's not unusual!
I'm not confident enough to put the level of money you're putting into the market but best of luck with it.
https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/03/16/ivan-ilyin-putins-philosopher-of-russian-fascism/
I suspect that the current lockdown will end sometime in December, either right at the start or midway through. Regional restrictions will then continue, and given how long it took cases/hospitalisations/deaths to grow to critical levels after the first lockdown I expect we'll be in mid/late-spring before that situation recurs at worst.
I'm also quietly hopeful that either we'll be better at keeping cases low with less severe measures or that by the time things begin to get out of control again a vaccine rollout will have begun. We'll see.
It seems to be a universal get out clause for any social theory/political cause - "it hasn't been done right, yet"
I suggest we start again, in alphabetical order. So we begin with Absolute Monarchy, with myself as the monarch......
I knew you were referring to the Greek misogynist, but it set off a train of thought.
On Christmas, I'd be inclined to remember what the Starks said: Winter is coming.
There won't be the political will or public obedience for a proper lockdown but things may very well still be restricted.
IF the case numbers are moving in the right direction by December 2nd, I could envisage a resumption of the three-tier system with those areas with higher residual case numbers in Tier 2 and everyone else going to Tier 1. If the case numbers haven't fallen too much, I could envisage another week added.
By the 9th I envisage Boris having gone on national tv to thank us all for our forbearance and promising we can all enjoy Christmas.
Sting in the tail will come IF the festivities see a renewed spike in cases in late December/early January with a renewed phase of lockdown from mid January but that's open to how things go over the Christmas/New Year period. I expect large public events for New Year to be cancelled.
That is a point though that I hadn’t really considered about Trump. A lot of his supporters genuinely believed in conspiracy theories even before his election. So far, they seem comparatively restrained but how long will the likes of Brietbart and QAnon keep quiet before feeding a whole load of new rubbish to vulnerable people that might tip them over the edge?
That's wrong, of course, genetically there's very little difference indeed, but that does help to explain why some felt certain peoples were superior/inferior.
There is no particular reason to think that the current restrictions will be any more effective in bringing down cases than the ones they replaced - which is not to say that they won't be effective, merely that the existing restrictions could well have been sufficient anyway - or at least some alternative formulation eg. Tier 2 or Tier 3 across the country.
The issue seems to be that the big factors in R, are education and socialisation.
What I think will happen is we will see deaths rise a bit throughout November and Boris will say sorry, we can't end the lockdown yet, but if you all really behave yourselves I will let you spend Christmas Day with up to 6 friends or family members before reviewing the lockdown again in January.
On the other hand if the lockdown does end in December I expect we will all be back in lockdown by mid to late Jan as people mingle at Christmas, students return home etc. Which is dangerous as I think with each successive lockdown compliance will get lower and lower.
But I don't think things will really change so long as Sunak keeps paying people to sit at home doing nothing. It's only when we're faced with the stark choice between saving every life and saving the economy that lockdown will lose majority support. It's not either / or, it's a balancing act between the two. But the longer this rumbles on, the more the economy goes down the toilet.
A much more interesting question is whether the US seeks to reengage with the Trans Pacific Partnership.
The quote "Standing on the shoulders of giants" is apt here. It is harder to make that first leap in understanding and I think we can forgive them for not getting it completely right
And ignoring the content of the article that was standing up for the rights of Muslim women to wear the burqa.
(I am actually much more troubled by the burqa than Johnson seems to be, because I suspect that - in many cases - women are forced to wear it, or conditioned to believe that it is somehow right that men can do what they want while women must be modest in order to avoid inflaming men's passions.)
Any day now...
https://twitter.com/DavidDavisMP/status/1325476675551817729
In my family we have already assumed cancelled Christmas, in terms of family gatherings.
Strangely, the scattered 80 somethings are not enthused by all being in the same place at the same time with everyone else.
Presents will be sent to children.
Welcome, but potentially fleeting and poising awkward questions...