Re: Coronavirus cases rising. I don't think it's about "super spreader" events before the lockdown (although that may have had some contribution).
I think it's simply that people have expectations that the outcome of this "lockdown" will replicate March/April. It won't (or at best will take MUCH longer) for a number of reasons:
1) most obviously, schools remain open. A major vector spreader, allowed to just keep spreading 2) as importantly perhaps there may (according to polling) be public support for the "lockdown" but i don't think there is real public buy-in. It's support along the lines of "the scientists say we should, so i suppose we have to". - there is less personal fear, and with the best will in the world "protecting others" is never the same motivator - in March/April there was the novelty of Zoom etc for everyone to get excited about. Many people are fed up of that now, they crave real social contact. - obviously loss of trust in the government reduces compliance
With the result that the prevailing approach (particularly among the 'low risk' groups, whether misguided or not) is "what can i do/get away with?", much less erring on the side of caution, and that is what people are doing. The contrast between the volume of people in town centres then and now is stark. Practically the only enforceable restriction on activity is the non-essential businesses that are shut (which in itself may be counterproductive). Beyond that most people are just continuing life as normal, to the extent that they can. Pubs with public open spaces nearby are doing a reasonable trade.
We desperately need a vaccine programme to start, to give the Government a plausible excuse to move away from lockdowns as a matter of policy.
Lots of good points, but I don't think they explain why numbers are increasing again after plateauing for a couple of weeks. Hopefully FrancisUrquhart is right re the pre-lockdown effect, because that should be temporary. A more concerning alternative is that the plateau reflects the half term holidays and the increase reflects pupils going back to school and parents going back to work.
Could be. But there are also another couple of explanations.
1) a counterintuitive possibility that the lockdown has made things worse (particularly in higher tier 2/3 areas). The tier systems created incentives for people to behave, and the means to do so outside of their own home. The "lockdown" does not. I would guess that private home gatherings have increased since the restrictions were tightened.
2) a numbers game. Virus beginning to accelerate in some areas from a low level whilst falling in others. The acceleration being at a critical point where new cases in one area outnumber falling cases in another. So whereas one tends to consider the countrywide headline numbers as representing a single figure figure tracking the national progress of the virus, in reality you have 10s or hundreds of localised outbreaks all with the virus at a different stage of progression. It's like when people look at the global figures and ignore the impact of the virus taking off in India, or declining in China etc.
Re: Coronavirus cases rising. I don't think it's about "super spreader" events before the lockdown (although that may have had some contribution).
I think it's simply that people have expectations that the outcome of this "lockdown" will replicate March/April. It won't (or at best will take MUCH longer) for a number of reasons:
1) most obviously, schools remain open. A major vector spreader, allowed to just keep spreading 2) as importantly perhaps there may (according to polling) be public support for the "lockdown" but i don't think there is real public buy-in. It's support along the lines of "the scientists say we should, so i suppose we have to". - there is less personal fear, and with the best will in the world "protecting others" is never the same motivator - in March/April there was the novelty of Zoom etc for everyone to get excited about. Many people are fed up of that now, they crave real social contact. - obviously loss of trust in the government reduces compliance
With the result that the prevailing approach (particularly among the 'low risk' groups, whether misguided or not) is "what can i do/get away with?", much less erring on the side of caution, and that is what people are doing. The contrast between the volume of people in town centres then and now is stark. Practically the only enforceable restriction on activity is the non-essential businesses that are shut (which in itself may be counterproductive). Beyond that most people are just continuing life as normal, to the extent that they can. Pubs with public open spaces nearby are doing a reasonable trade.
We desperately need a vaccine programme to start, to give the Government a plausible excuse to move away from lockdowns as a matter of policy.
Lots of good points, but I don't think they explain why numbers are increasing again after plateauing for a couple of weeks. Hopefully FrancisUrquhart is right re the pre-lockdown effect, because that should be temporary. A more concerning alternative is that the plateau reflects the half term holidays and the increase reflects pupils going back to school and parents going back to work.
Could be. But there are also another couple of explanations.
1) a counterintuitive possibility that the lockdown has made things worse (particularly in higher tier 2/3 areas). The tier systems created incentives for people to behave, and the means to do so outside of their own home. The "lockdown" does not. I would guess that private home gatherings have increased since the restrictions were tightened.
2) a numbers game. Virus beginning to accelerate in some areas from a low level whilst falling in others. The acceleration being at a critical point where new cases in one area outnumber falling cases in another. So whereas one tends to consider the countrywide headline numbers as representing a single figure figure tracking the national progress of the virus, in reality you have 10s or hundreds of localised outbreaks all with the virus at a different stage of progression. It's like when people look at the global figures and ignore the impact of the virus taking off in India, or declining in China etc.
I wish we could get away from the reason covid 19 is around now is becasue people are not "behaving" . Its because its winter
Our stupid woke liberals are just 13% over here, in America it's probably a larger proportion and will be even more difficult to face down. Biden could do some real good by backing companies against the Twitter mob.
Nice to see Tiger Woods relaxed and smiling about his 10 at a par 3 in the post match interview . i think generally you chill out more as you get older
Imagine living in a country where that would exclude a person from holding such an office.
Imagine. Luckily our country is a constitutional monarchy so in practice, Heads of State will follow their family's religion, and no-one else is eligible to be Head of State regardless of faith.
Eh? Why would someone automatically follow their families religion? What if their parents have two different faiths?
Good question. Do the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh have two different faiths? If not, we can put off worrying about it for a few years.
I couldnt care less about the specific. I do find the presumptions of the lack of free will for the individuals involved very distasteful though.
For the most part, people follow the same religion as their parents, be that Christian or Jewish, Hindu or Muslim, Sikh or Atheist. The correlation is so high that free will rarely comes into it. The same is true to a lesser extent of politics.
If what you said was true we wouldnt have moved from god fearing Christians to largely secular whilst still enjoying some Christian traditions and festivals within a century.
They are essential. You can't have a democracy without a nation state and all a nation state is is a defined geographical entity with a common form of government and shared identity that accepts its authority.
You can argue that we haven't got the current 'cut' of nation states just right but, without it, you would need to create new ones.
I find it interesting that this was the most contentious point of my thread header.
I'm not wholly convinced - some of the purest forms of democracy have been much smaller units such as city-states.
Indeed, the nation state can be used to define any form of Government - if the people accept a dictatorship or a theocracy, that works as well.
The other side of that is that while there are common principles behind the democratic system, the theory and the practice vary widely across the world. The "British" system has its adherents but in many instances the evolution of the nation state in which it was originally implemented has led to a variation on the theme.
Democracy goes hand-in-hand with freedom of speech and has to be robust enough to accept those voices which aren't democratic and may even be violent. Suppressing those voices whether in the name of "tolerance" or not isn't a good path. The only way to confront and challenge the voices of darkness is to being them into the light.
Re: Coronavirus cases rising. I don't think it's about "super spreader" events before the lockdown (although that may have had some contribution).
I think it's simply that people have expectations that the outcome of this "lockdown" will replicate March/April. It won't (or at best will take MUCH longer) for a number of reasons:
1) most obviously, schools remain open. A major vector spreader, allowed to just keep spreading 2) as importantly perhaps there may (according to polling) be public support for the "lockdown" but i don't think there is real public buy-in. It's support along the lines of "the scientists say we should, so i suppose we have to". - there is less personal fear, and with the best will in the world "protecting others" is never the same motivator - in March/April there was the novelty of Zoom etc for everyone to get excited about. Many people are fed up of that now, they crave real social contact. - obviously loss of trust in the government reduces compliance
With the result that the prevailing approach (particularly among the 'low risk' groups, whether misguided or not) is "what can i do/get away with?", much less erring on the side of caution, and that is what people are doing. The contrast between the volume of people in town centres then and now is stark. Practically the only enforceable restriction on activity is the non-essential businesses that are shut (which in itself may be counterproductive). Beyond that most people are just continuing life as normal, to the extent that they can. Pubs with public open spaces nearby are doing a reasonable trade.
We desperately need a vaccine programme to start, to give the Government a plausible excuse to move away from lockdowns as a matter of policy.
Lots of good points, but I don't think they explain why numbers are increasing again after plateauing for a couple of weeks. Hopefully FrancisUrquhart is right re the pre-lockdown effect, because that should be temporary. A more concerning alternative is that the plateau reflects the half term holidays and the increase reflects pupils going back to school and parents going back to work.
Could be. But there are also another couple of explanations.
1) a counterintuitive possibility that the lockdown has made things worse (particularly in higher tier 2/3 areas). The tier systems created incentives for people to behave, and the means to do so outside of their own home. The "lockdown" does not. I would guess that private home gatherings have increased since the restrictions were tightened.
2) a numbers game. Virus beginning to accelerate in some areas from a low level whilst falling in others. The acceleration being at a critical point where new cases in one area outnumber falling cases in another. So whereas one tends to consider the countrywide headline numbers as representing a single figure figure tracking the national progress of the virus, in reality you have 10s or hundreds of localised outbreaks all with the virus at a different stage of progression. It's like when people look at the global figures and ignore the impact of the virus taking off in India, or declining in China etc.
I wish we could get away from the reason covid 19 is around now is becasue people are not "behaving" . Its because its winter
I don't mean to use "behave" in a perjorative sense. Just that they are doing things/socialising in a manner which are less optimum to contain spread of the virus. The example being that i think there are probably more gatherings in private households now (where there is little chance of enforcement) and less in "socially distanced" public areas or open spaces. Partly that is because it is winter. Partly because the other options aren't available to them.
I find cultural attachment to currency absolutely bizarre. I mean, I haven’t touched a tenner in months, possibly years. I never, ever use cash and presumably I’m not the only one.
Disappointingly, Wasserman is cherry-picking a bit there.
Trump won the 2016 EV by holding MI, PA and NE-2 with a total margin of only 61,530 votes.
Such arguments also have a lot greater resonance when the winner has not won the popular vote (however technically irrelevant) by a large margin. In 2016 the distribution of votes worked in Trump's favour, despite his overall national deficit. In 2020 Biden would have been extremely unlucky for the same thing to happen.
Of course if the aim is simply to paint a picture of how votes in different areas can change things... What if Biden had spread his California votes all over the country!
Re: Coronavirus cases rising. I don't think it's about "super spreader" events before the lockdown (although that may have had some contribution).
I think it's simply that people have expectations that the outcome of this "lockdown" will replicate March/April. It won't (or at best will take MUCH longer) for a number of reasons:
1) most obviously, schools remain open. A major vector spreader, allowed to just keep spreading 2) as importantly perhaps there may (according to polling) be public support for the "lockdown" but i don't think there is real public buy-in. It's support along the lines of "the scientists say we should, so i suppose we have to". - there is less personal fear, and with the best will in the world "protecting others" is never the same motivator - in March/April there was the novelty of Zoom etc for everyone to get excited about. Many people are fed up of that now, they crave real social contact. - obviously loss of trust in the government reduces compliance
With the result that the prevailing approach (particularly among the 'low risk' groups, whether misguided or not) is "what can i do/get away with?", much less erring on the side of caution, and that is what people are doing. The contrast between the volume of people in town centres then and now is stark. Practically the only enforceable restriction on activity is the non-essential businesses that are shut (which in itself may be counterproductive). Beyond that most people are just continuing life as normal, to the extent that they can. Pubs with public open spaces nearby are doing a reasonable trade.
We desperately need a vaccine programme to start, to give the Government a plausible excuse to move away from lockdowns as a matter of policy.
Lots of good points, but I don't think they explain why numbers are increasing again after plateauing for a couple of weeks. Hopefully FrancisUrquhart is right re the pre-lockdown effect, because that should be temporary. A more concerning alternative is that the plateau reflects the half term holidays and the increase reflects pupils going back to school and parents going back to work.
Could be. But there are also another couple of explanations.
1) a counterintuitive possibility that the lockdown has made things worse (particularly in higher tier 2/3 areas). The tier systems created incentives for people to behave, and the means to do so outside of their own home. The "lockdown" does not. I would guess that private home gatherings have increased since the restrictions were tightened.
2) a numbers game. Virus beginning to accelerate in some areas from a low level whilst falling in others. The acceleration being at a critical point where new cases in one area outnumber falling cases in another. So whereas one tends to consider the countrywide headline numbers as representing a single figure figure tracking the national progress of the virus, in reality you have 10s or hundreds of localised outbreaks all with the virus at a different stage of progression. It's like when people look at the global figures and ignore the impact of the virus taking off in India, or declining in China etc.
I wish we could get away from the reason covid 19 is around now is becasue people are not "behaving" . Its because its winter
I don't mean to use "behave" in a perjorative sense. Just that they are doing things/socialising in a manner which are less optimum to contain spread of the virus. The example being that i think there are probably more gatherings in private households now (where there is little chance of enforcement) and less in "socially distanced" public areas or open spaces. Partly that is because it is winter. Partly because the other options aren't available to them.
Ultimately policy needs to be designed to work with expected human behaviour. Not in defiance of it. Unless you really are going to make serious efforts at enforcement. Which doesn't appear to be happening.
I find cultural attachment to currency absolutely bizarre. I mean, I haven’t touched a tenner in months, possibly years. I never, ever use cash and presumably I’m not the only one.
Monetary attachment to currency, however, is completely understandable.
Personal Covid news, my Dads brother went in to the Royal Free 10 days ago to have his kidney removed. His, and my Dad's, other brother gave him a lift there in the morning, said he had a bit of a cough but nothing to worry about... turns out it's Covid, and the other passenger, my Uncle's girlfriend, has caught it off him. Luckily enough the Uncle who had the op feels fine and doesn't seem to have it (9 days later) Would have been in a lot of trouble had he caught it too.
But what has belief in the nation state got to do with democracy? Nations are entirely arbitary. As a native of southern England I have no more in common with someone from Yorkshire than I do someone from California, Australia or Denmark (to pick a few examples).
(Not that I have anything against Yorkshire folk - it's just an example.)
They are essential. You can't have a democracy without a nation state and all a nation state is is a defined geographical entity with a common form of government and shared identity that accepts its authority.
You can argue that we haven't got the current 'cut' of nation states just right but, without it, you would need to create new ones.
I find it interesting that this was the most contentious point of my thread header.
Why couldn't we have a global democracy?
Its a hard one to get right but I think nations are ok as long as people can effectively choose which one to live in - ie free immigration - The EU had its faults but it was a step to this. A one global democracy sounds good but would soon limit individual choice and congregate power in too small a group of people
The European Parliament is more democratic than the UK Parliament.
Another weird paragraph: "We also need to demonstrate our democratic system can manage crises better than everywhere else. Therefore, it is concerning that the West has struggled to escape the cycle of lockdowns over Covid, whilst life in Asia has largely gone back to normal. Things like this further undermine confidence in the system and weaken our ability to provide global leadership to deliver a democratic future."
The West is not synonymous with democracy. Some of the Asian countries that have coped better with Covid-19 are as democratic as Western countries that have struggled. The USA is no more a democracy than South Korea. Ditto Belgium and Singapore.
Yes, there are different forms of democracy but Japan, Taiwan and South Korea were only able to become democracies because of the American umbrella, which has both a hard and soft edge to it. And, it should be noted, that they have slightly different views on individual liberty to European or Anglosphere democracies - ones that allowed them to take far stronger action on Covid than our population would have accepted here.
They could easily slip back, keeping "the bits that work", and ditching the democratic aspects, particularly if the Western model is seen to fail, and America turns in on itself and withdraws from the region, and so it is therefore essential that it does not.
I would have said in the case of Taiwan and South Korea that they became democracies *despite* the American umbrella.
After all, for many years American policy was to support dictators amenable to US interests in those countries - Syngman Rhee and Chiang Kai-Shek.
I don't agree with that. Taiwan would have been taken by China well over 20 years ago without American support, and South Korea would be part of a unified People's Republic of Korea nearly 70 years ago.
Yes, but being defended from Communist takeovers and being made safe for democracy are two very different things. Rhee, for example, was put in place and kept in place because he had a thing for shooting Communists. Diem and Marcos spring to mind as other examples of that approach in that part of the world, or Suharto.
It isn’t any coincidence that Taiwan and South Korea began moving towards democracy in a serious way only after the Cold War had started winding down.
Re: Coronavirus cases rising. I don't think it's about "super spreader" events before the lockdown (although that may have had some contribution).
I think it's simply that people have expectations that the outcome of this "lockdown" will replicate March/April. It won't (or at best will take MUCH longer) for a number of reasons:
1) most obviously, schools remain open. A major vector spreader, allowed to just keep spreading 2) as importantly perhaps there may (according to polling) be public support for the "lockdown" but i don't think there is real public buy-in. It's support along the lines of "the scientists say we should, so i suppose we have to". - there is less personal fear, and with the best will in the world "protecting others" is never the same motivator - in March/April there was the novelty of Zoom etc for everyone to get excited about. Many people are fed up of that now, they crave real social contact. - obviously loss of trust in the government reduces compliance
With the result that the prevailing approach (particularly among the 'low risk' groups, whether misguided or not) is "what can i do/get away with?", much less erring on the side of caution, and that is what people are doing. The contrast between the volume of people in town centres then and now is stark. Practically the only enforceable restriction on activity is the non-essential businesses that are shut (which in itself may be counterproductive). Beyond that most people are just continuing life as normal, to the extent that they can. Pubs with public open spaces nearby are doing a reasonable trade.
We desperately need a vaccine programme to start, to give the Government a plausible excuse to move away from lockdowns as a matter of policy.
Lots of good points, but I don't think they explain why numbers are increasing again after plateauing for a couple of weeks. Hopefully FrancisUrquhart is right re the pre-lockdown effect, because that should be temporary. A more concerning alternative is that the plateau reflects the half term holidays and the increase reflects pupils going back to school and parents going back to work.
Could be. But there are also another couple of explanations.
1) a counterintuitive possibility that the lockdown has made things worse (particularly in higher tier 2/3 areas). The tier systems created incentives for people to behave, and the means to do so outside of their own home. The "lockdown" does not. I would guess that private home gatherings have increased since the restrictions were tightened.
2) a numbers game. Virus beginning to accelerate in some areas from a low level whilst falling in others. The acceleration being at a critical point where new cases in one area outnumber falling cases in another. So whereas one tends to consider the countrywide headline numbers as representing a single figure figure tracking the national progress of the virus, in reality you have 10s or hundreds of localised outbreaks all with the virus at a different stage of progression. It's like when people look at the global figures and ignore the impact of the virus taking off in India, or declining in China etc.
I wish we could get away from the reason covid 19 is around now is becasue people are not "behaving" . Its because its winter
I find cultural attachment to currency absolutely bizarre. I mean, I haven’t touched a tenner in months, possibly years. I never, ever use cash and presumably I’m not the only one.
I’m very attracted to money. Sadly, it seems to be less firmly attached to me.
I find cultural attachment to currency absolutely bizarre. I mean, I haven’t touched a tenner in months, possibly years. I never, ever use cash and presumably I’m not the only one.
Nor me, apart from cab fares.
I was speaking to someone last week who has had her first credit card application refused. She has no choice but to use cash. None of us is typical.
Another weird paragraph: "We also need to demonstrate our democratic system can manage crises better than everywhere else. Therefore, it is concerning that the West has struggled to escape the cycle of lockdowns over Covid, whilst life in Asia has largely gone back to normal. Things like this further undermine confidence in the system and weaken our ability to provide global leadership to deliver a democratic future."
The West is not synonymous with democracy. Some of the Asian countries that have coped better with Covid-19 are as democratic as Western countries that have struggled. The USA is no more a democracy than South Korea. Ditto Belgium and Singapore.
Yes, there are different forms of democracy but Japan, Taiwan and South Korea were only able to become democracies because of the American umbrella, which has both a hard and soft edge to it. And, it should be noted, that they have slightly different views on individual liberty to European or Anglosphere democracies - ones that allowed them to take far stronger action on Covid than our population would have accepted here.
They could easily slip back, keeping "the bits that work", and ditching the democratic aspects, particularly if the Western model is seen to fail, and America turns in on itself and withdraws from the region, and so it is therefore essential that it does not.
I would have said in the case of Taiwan and South Korea that they became democracies *despite* the American umbrella.
After all, for many years American policy was to support dictators amenable to US interests in those countries - Syngman Rhee and Chiang Kai-Shek.
I don't agree with that. Taiwan would have been taken by China well over 20 years ago without American support, and South Korea would be part of a unified People's Republic of Korea nearly 70 years ago.
Yes, but being defended from Communist takeovers and being made safe for democracy are two very different things. Rhee, for example, was put in place and kept in place because he had a thing for shooting Communists. Diem and Marcos spring to mind as other examples of that approach in that part of the world, or Suharto.
It isn’t any coincidence that Taiwan and South Korea began moving towards democracy in a serious way only after the Cold War had started winding down.
Same with South Africa.
Or Chile. And I suspect the junta in Argentina might have survived a while longer had it asked the Americans for a nice loan instead of going mad and invading the Falklands.
I find cultural attachment to currency absolutely bizarre. I mean, I haven’t touched a tenner in months, possibly years. I never, ever use cash and presumably I’m not the only one.
Nor me, apart from cab fares.
I was speaking to someone last week who has had her first credit card application refused. She has no choice but to use cash. None of us is typical.
But what has belief in the nation state got to do with democracy? Nations are entirely arbitary. As a native of southern England I have no more in common with someone from Yorkshire than I do someone from California, Australia or Denmark (to pick a few examples).
(Not that I have anything against Yorkshire folk - it's just an example.)
They are essential. You can't have a democracy without a nation state and all a nation state is is a defined geographical entity with a common form of government and shared identity that accepts its authority.
You can argue that we haven't got the current 'cut' of nation states just right but, without it, you would need to create new ones.
I find it interesting that this was the most contentious point of my thread header.
Why couldn't we have a global democracy?
Its a hard one to get right but I think nations are ok as long as people can effectively choose which one to live in - ie free immigration - The EU had its faults but it was a step to this. A one global democracy sounds good but would soon limit individual choice and congregate power in too small a group of people
In an alternate historical timeline, the British Empire could have been a democratic federation with an "Imperial Senate" (hat-tip Star Wars!).
Must be doubly frustrating for him given he’s already had it.
What will ultimately make schools impossible to keep open without dramatic change is the number of people self-isolating. It was getting alarmingly large on Friday and I’ve been bombarded with fresh information about cover all weekend.
I find cultural attachment to currency absolutely bizarre. I mean, I haven’t touched a tenner in months, possibly years. I never, ever use cash and presumably I’m not the only one.
Monetary attachment to currency, however, is completely understandable.
Sure, but some people seem to have a romantic attachment to tenners: as I say, I haven’t so much as touched one in months. I never use cash at all. Never.
Must be doubly frustrating for him given he’s already had it.
What will ultimately make schools impossible to keep open without dramatic change is the number of people self-isolating. It was getting alarmingly large on Friday and I’ve been bombarded with fresh information about cover all weekend.
Perhaps they could use it as an excuse for a Brexit extension...
Who does he meet on a lengthy basis of exposure that wouldn't have taken out half the Govt?
I find cultural attachment to currency absolutely bizarre. I mean, I haven’t touched a tenner in months, possibly years. I never, ever use cash and presumably I’m not the only one.
Nor me, apart from cab fares.
I was speaking to someone last week who has had her first credit card application refused. She has no choice but to use cash. None of us is typical.
Imagine living in a country where that would exclude a person from holding such an office.
Imagine. Luckily our country is a constitutional monarchy so in practice, Heads of State will follow their family's religion, and no-one else is eligible to be Head of State regardless of faith.
If my understanding of the rules is right, if the heir chose to become catholic, they would not be allowed to become the monarch.
The Succession to the Crown Act 2013 removes any specifically anti-Catholic prejudice. Monarchs can't be Catholic, Buddhist, Jain, Methodist or Muslim or anything else because of the Head of the C of E thing.
Presumably then they cannot also be agnostic or athiest ? Which if you think about it is bonkers . The head of a mature (mainly sensible ) country has to believe ( or pretend to ) in a man in the sky that micro manages us earthlings and hates any dissenters
Okay, the Sovereign becoming a RC was a big thing in the 16th and 17th centuries - in England and Scotland (and Wales and Ireland had to put up wiht it). Marie Stuart and James VII and II got the chop, literally or metaphorically, for it. So we have the same issue 300+ years on?
You forgot Charles I as well.
Although it didn’t bother people when it came to Charles II, possibly because he may have been a total philanderer and erratic wastrel but was at least not a total knobhead.
Charles I? Was he a RC too? Or am I missing something?
He was very heavily leaning that way, hence the falling out over the new liturgy of Archbishop Laud, particularly with the Scottish Covenantors and English Calvinists.
Worth noting that while these disputes appear to be obscure theological issues to modern eyes, they were class warfare expressed in theological language. Episcopelianism reinforced the powers of the Aristocracy and their Bishops to enforce teachings, while Presbyterians and Congregationalists believed that the power to interpret the Gospels was via direct study, rather than second hand. Hence the importance of education, self study and an individual relationship with God.
It went on into the 19th century, come to thinkj of it - the Disruption of the Kirk of Scotland was in part about thje parishioners' demand to choose their ministers rather than have the lairds do it for them. It ended up also on class warfare lines, with the Highland peasants and Lowlands middle classes in the new Free Kirk and the lairds and their employees in the Auld Kirk (when the lairds weren't Piskies, of course). And the Liberal/Tory vote split followed much the same division. Hence Gladstone's care to sort out the crofting system. Though by then the FC minister mannies had mostly reverted to their class politics. So Charles Kennedy and Alister Carmichael owed their MP's seats to a now obscure question of parish administration ...
Absolutely. My Scottish Ancestors were Free Kirk Presbyterian ministers, and the Great Disruption was their reason to go minister in Australia, New Zealand and Fiji, as they were no longer welcome in the ministry in Scotland.
Though the Kirks reunited in the Twentieth Century (apart from the Wee Frees) when the issue became obsolete.
Another weird paragraph: "We also need to demonstrate our democratic system can manage crises better than everywhere else. Therefore, it is concerning that the West has struggled to escape the cycle of lockdowns over Covid, whilst life in Asia has largely gone back to normal. Things like this further undermine confidence in the system and weaken our ability to provide global leadership to deliver a democratic future."
The West is not synonymous with democracy. Some of the Asian countries that have coped better with Covid-19 are as democratic as Western countries that have struggled. The USA is no more a democracy than South Korea. Ditto Belgium and Singapore.
Yes, there are different forms of democracy but Japan, Taiwan and South Korea were only able to become democracies because of the American umbrella, which has both a hard and soft edge to it. And, it should be noted, that they have slightly different views on individual liberty to European or Anglosphere democracies - ones that allowed them to take far stronger action on Covid than our population would have accepted here.
They could easily slip back, keeping "the bits that work", and ditching the democratic aspects, particularly if the Western model is seen to fail, and America turns in on itself and withdraws from the region, and so it is therefore essential that it does not.
You're right about American power acting as a bulwark for other democracies -- which is why it's so worrying to watch the Republicans indulge Donald Trump's dying thrashes. But none of that really makes a difference to the strength of their internal systems. We can see in Europe a range of policy responses and their relative efficacy which America's influence does not explain. If Western countries "learned the lessons" of Asian democracies and adopted a less liberal approach to governance, that would be a policy choice that some would mourn, probably including me, but not from a democracy point of view. I think the important thing is that none of us mistake our own preferred flavour of governance for the only acceptable form of democracy. I'm a liberal, and I can live with conservative or social-democratic flavours of government. I thoroughly dislike some of the things this government does, and I would be feeling the same with aspects of a Corbyn government had the election gone differently last year. I don't think anyone should fear us becoming more South Korean, or more Danish, or more German. They are all acceptable flavours. We need to clearly demarcate the personally suboptimal from the democratically unacceptable. Becoming like Japan is something we could live with. Becoming like Russia is a massive no-no.
Th problem comes with the claim that all cultures must be respected.
Which is, of course, a lie.
The people who promote it have no respect for a number of cultures.
I'm not at all sure where you think that claim is, or whether you think I made it.
I wasn't claiming you made it - the problem is the inherent contradiction between liberal democracy and the cultural values of various groups.
As to the "all cultures should be respected" thing - well, hands up anyone who thinks the sensibilities of Confederate flag waving, Southern US racists should be show anything other than.... the finger?
Well, the same applies for quite a few cultural "norms" around the world. It comes down to a choice - which do you want, liberal democracy or "sympathy and understanding" for bigots, who can dress their shite as "Exotic Foreign Culture".
I find cultural attachment to currency absolutely bizarre. I mean, I haven’t touched a tenner in months, possibly years. I never, ever use cash and presumably I’m not the only one.
Nor me, apart from cab fares.
I was speaking to someone last week who has had her first credit card application refused. She has no choice but to use cash. None of us is typical.
Who uses cash for cabs nowadays? Really?
I’m just surprised to learn people are using cabs right now.
They are essential. You can't have a democracy without a nation state and all a nation state is is a defined geographical entity with a common form of government and shared identity that accepts its authority.
You can argue that we haven't got the current 'cut' of nation states just right but, without it, you would need to create new ones.
I find it interesting that this was the most contentious point of my thread header.
I'm not wholly convinced - some of the purest forms of democracy have been much smaller units such as city-states.
Indeed, the nation state can be used to define any form of Government - if the people accept a dictatorship or a theocracy, that works as well.
The other side of that is that while there are common principles behind the democratic system, the theory and the practice vary widely across the world. The "British" system has its adherents but in many instances the evolution of the nation state in which it was originally implemented has led to a variation on the theme.
Democracy goes hand-in-hand with freedom of speech and has to be robust enough to accept those voices which aren't democratic and may even be violent. Suppressing those voices whether in the name of "tolerance" or not isn't a good path. The only way to confront and challenge the voices of darkness is to being them into the light.
CR does seem to like his nation states for some reason. The village council is more democratic than the House of Lords.
Must be doubly frustrating for him given he’s already had it.
What will ultimately make schools impossible to keep open without dramatic change is the number of people self-isolating. It was getting alarmingly large on Friday and I’ve been bombarded with fresh information about cover all weekend.
Yes, my mum who works at a school part time got an email about a bubble having to isolate for 14 days, 4 staff and 28 children. I don't understand why, given testing capacity, all 32 aren't tested in 3 days and then allowed to return. This 14 days isolation for contacts is completely unacceptable and unnecessary.
I find cultural attachment to currency absolutely bizarre. I mean, I haven’t touched a tenner in months, possibly years. I never, ever use cash and presumably I’m not the only one.
Monetary attachment to currency, however, is completely understandable.
Sure, but some people seem to have a romantic attachment to tenners: as I say, I haven’t so much as touched one in months. I never use cash at all. Never.
I think it's a generational thing, my dad and uncles can't imagine a life without cash in their pockets, I'll leave my flat with just my phone, keys and a credit card in my pockets most times.
I find cultural attachment to currency absolutely bizarre. I mean, I haven’t touched a tenner in months, possibly years. I never, ever use cash and presumably I’m not the only one.
It is electronic transactions that will make national currencies obsolete. A few years ago I was in Sweden and really struggled to spend Kroner, as nearly everywhere I went was electronic only. It no longer really mattered whether the transaction was in SEK, Euro or Sterling.
Re: Coronavirus cases rising. I don't think it's about "super spreader" events before the lockdown (although that may have had some contribution).
I think it's simply that people have expectations that the outcome of this "lockdown" will replicate March/April. It won't (or at best will take MUCH longer) for a number of reasons:
1) most obviously, schools remain open. A major vector spreader, allowed to just keep spreading 2) as importantly perhaps there may (according to polling) be public support for the "lockdown" but i don't think there is real public buy-in. It's support along the lines of "the scientists say we should, so i suppose we have to". - there is less personal fear, and with the best will in the world "protecting others" is never the same motivator - in March/April there was the novelty of Zoom etc for everyone to get excited about. Many people are fed up of that now, they crave real social contact. - obviously loss of trust in the government reduces compliance
With the result that the prevailing approach (particularly among the 'low risk' groups, whether misguided or not) is "what can i do/get away with?", much less erring on the side of caution, and that is what people are doing. The contrast between the volume of people in town centres then and now is stark. Practically the only enforceable restriction on activity is the non-essential businesses that are shut (which in itself may be counterproductive). Beyond that most people are just continuing life as normal, to the extent that they can. Pubs with public open spaces nearby are doing a reasonable trade.
We desperately need a vaccine programme to start, to give the Government a plausible excuse to move away from lockdowns as a matter of policy.
Lots of good points, but I don't think they explain why numbers are increasing again after plateauing for a couple of weeks. Hopefully FrancisUrquhart is right re the pre-lockdown effect, because that should be temporary. A more concerning alternative is that the plateau reflects the half term holidays and the increase reflects pupils going back to school and parents going back to work.
Could be. But there are also another couple of explanations.
1) a counterintuitive possibility that the lockdown has made things worse (particularly in higher tier 2/3 areas). The tier systems created incentives for people to behave, and the means to do so outside of their own home. The "lockdown" does not. I would guess that private home gatherings have increased since the restrictions were tightened.
2) a numbers game. Virus beginning to accelerate in some areas from a low level whilst falling in others. The acceleration being at a critical point where new cases in one area outnumber falling cases in another. So whereas one tends to consider the countrywide headline numbers as representing a single figure figure tracking the national progress of the virus, in reality you have 10s or hundreds of localised outbreaks all with the virus at a different stage of progression. It's like when people look at the global figures and ignore the impact of the virus taking off in India, or declining in China etc.
I wish we could get away from the reason covid 19 is around now is becasue people are not "behaving" . Its because its winter
I don't mean to use "behave" in a perjorative sense. Just that they are doing things/socialising in a manner which are less optimum to contain spread of the virus. The example being that i think there are probably more gatherings in private households now (where there is little chance of enforcement) and less in "socially distanced" public areas or open spaces. Partly that is because it is winter. Partly because the other options aren't available to them.
Ultimately policy needs to be designed to work with expected human behaviour. Not in defiance of it. Unless you really are going to make serious efforts at enforcement. Which doesn't appear to be happening.
It is almost as if the experts on human behaviour who said that a strict lockdown would have a lifespan due to people getting weary/blase about it, were right.
First two episodes of The Crown are incredible. Gillian Anderson is as good as the hype too. @Casino_Royale it's an absolute must watch!
I am two episodes into season one!
< spoiler alert > She sticks around for a lot more episodes
I'm about to start series three of The Crown, so we'll find out. I've just watched Brexit but have decided against All the President's Men; it seems unlikely that after Nixon the Americans will ever elect another President who conspires to undermine democratic norms.
Imagine living in a country where that would exclude a person from holding such an office.
Imagine. Luckily our country is a constitutional monarchy so in practice, Heads of State will follow their family's religion, and no-one else is eligible to be Head of State regardless of faith.
If my understanding of the rules is right, if the heir chose to become catholic, they would not be allowed to become the monarch.
The Succession to the Crown Act 2013 removes any specifically anti-Catholic prejudice. Monarchs can't be Catholic, Buddhist, Jain, Methodist or Muslim or anything else because of the Head of the C of E thing.
Presumably then they cannot also be agnostic or athiest ? Which if you think about it is bonkers . The head of a mature (mainly sensible ) country has to believe ( or pretend to ) in a man in the sky that micro manages us earthlings and hates any dissenters
Okay, the Sovereign becoming a RC was a big thing in the 16th and 17th centuries - in England and Scotland (and Wales and Ireland had to put up wiht it). Marie Stuart and James VII and II got the chop, literally or metaphorically, for it. So we have the same issue 300+ years on?
You forgot Charles I as well.
Although it didn’t bother people when it came to Charles II, possibly because he may have been a total philanderer and erratic wastrel but was at least not a total knobhead.
Charles I? Was he a RC too? Or am I missing something?
He was very heavily leaning that way, hence the falling out over the new liturgy of Archbishop Laud, particularly with the Scottish Covenantors and English Calvinists.
Worth noting that while these disputes appear to be obscure theological issues to modern eyes, they were class warfare expressed in theological language. Episcopelianism reinforced the powers of the Aristocracy and their Bishops to enforce teachings, while Presbyterians and Congregationalists believed that the power to interpret the Gospels was via direct study, rather than second hand. Hence the importance of education, self study and an individual relationship with God.
It went on into the 19th century, come to thinkj of it - the Disruption of the Kirk of Scotland was in part about thje parishioners' demand to choose their ministers rather than have the lairds do it for them. It ended up also on class warfare lines, with the Highland peasants and Lowlands middle classes in the new Free Kirk and the lairds and their employees in the Auld Kirk (when the lairds weren't Piskies, of course). And the Liberal/Tory vote split followed much the same division. Hence Gladstone's care to sort out the crofting system. Though by then the FC minister mannies had mostly reverted to their class politics. So Charles Kennedy and Alister Carmichael owed their MP's seats to a now obscure question of parish administration ...
Absolutely. My Scottish Ancestors were Free Kirk Presbyterian ministers, and the Great Disruption was their reason to go minister in Australia, New Zealand and Fiji, as they were no longer welcome in the ministry in Scotland.
Though the Kirks reunited in the Twentieth Century (apart from the Wee Frees) when the issue became obsolete.
Indeed! My granddad was a United Presbyterian elder ...
I find cultural attachment to currency absolutely bizarre. I mean, I haven’t touched a tenner in months, possibly years. I never, ever use cash and presumably I’m not the only one.
Nor me, apart from cab fares.
I was speaking to someone last week who has had her first credit card application refused. She has no choice but to use cash. None of us is typical.
Who uses cash for cabs nowadays? Really?
I’m just surprised to learn people are using cabs right now.
I find cultural attachment to currency absolutely bizarre. I mean, I haven’t touched a tenner in months, possibly years. I never, ever use cash and presumably I’m not the only one.
Monetary attachment to currency, however, is completely understandable.
Sure, but some people seem to have a romantic attachment to tenners: as I say, I haven’t so much as touched one in months. I never use cash at all. Never.
I think it's a generational thing, my dad and uncles can't imagine a life without cash in their pockets, I'll leave my flat with just my phone, keys and a credit card in my pockets most times.
Our local shop has a £5 minimum spend for card transactions. So if you just need some milk, cash it is.
Mind, a visit there has been my only cash purchase in 8 months.
But what has belief in the nation state got to do with democracy? Nations are entirely arbitary. As a native of southern England I have no more in common with someone from Yorkshire than I do someone from California, Australia or Denmark (to pick a few examples).
(Not that I have anything against Yorkshire folk - it's just an example.)
They are essential. You can't have a democracy without a nation state and all a nation state is is a defined geographical entity with a common form of government and shared identity that accepts its authority.
You can argue that we haven't got the current 'cut' of nation states just right but, without it, you would need to create new ones.
I find it interesting that this was the most contentious point of my thread header.
Why couldn't we have a global democracy?
Its a hard one to get right but I think nations are ok as long as people can effectively choose which one to live in - ie free immigration - The EU had its faults but it was a step to this. A one global democracy sounds good but would soon limit individual choice and congregate power in too small a group of people
In an alternate historical timeline, the British Empire could have been a democratic federation with an "Imperial Senate" (hat-tip Star Wars!).
Freedom, Fraternity, Federation!
Hmm, the entire point of Empire was for us to impose our will on foreign lands and peoples. Equality in Empire is an oxymoron.
I find cultural attachment to currency absolutely bizarre. I mean, I haven’t touched a tenner in months, possibly years. I never, ever use cash and presumably I’m not the only one.
It is electronic transactions that will make national currencies obsolete. A few years ago I was in Sweden and really struggled to spend Kroner, as nearly everywhere I went was electronic only. It no longer really mattered whether the transaction was in SEK, Euro or Sterling.
Some economists have suggested that such transparent, low-to-zero cost exchange systems would make having *more* currencies a viable - maybe even sensible option.
Instead of trying to have a Euro, imagine currencies at a regional level or below. Instead of complex fiscal transfers, the exchange rates would handle the burden of regional poilicies automatically.
Another weird paragraph: "We also need to demonstrate our democratic system can manage crises better than everywhere else. Therefore, it is concerning that the West has struggled to escape the cycle of lockdowns over Covid, whilst life in Asia has largely gone back to normal. Things like this further undermine confidence in the system and weaken our ability to provide global leadership to deliver a democratic future."
The West is not synonymous with democracy. Some of the Asian countries that have coped better with Covid-19 are as democratic as Western countries that have struggled. The USA is no more a democracy than South Korea. Ditto Belgium and Singapore.
Yes, there are different forms of democracy but Japan, Taiwan and South Korea were only able to become democracies because of the American umbrella, which has both a hard and soft edge to it. And, it should be noted, that they have slightly different views on individual liberty to European or Anglosphere democracies - ones that allowed them to take far stronger action on Covid than our population would have accepted here.
They could easily slip back, keeping "the bits that work", and ditching the democratic aspects, particularly if the Western model is seen to fail, and America turns in on itself and withdraws from the region, and so it is therefore essential that it does not.
I would have said in the case of Taiwan and South Korea that they became democracies *despite* the American umbrella.
After all, for many years American policy was to support dictators amenable to US interests in those countries - Syngman Rhee and Chiang Kai-Shek.
I don't agree with that. Taiwan would have been taken by China well over 20 years ago without American support, and South Korea would be part of a unified People's Republic of Korea nearly 70 years ago.
Yes, but being defended from Communist takeovers and being made safe for democracy are two very different things. Rhee, for example, was put in place and kept in place because he had a thing for shooting Communists. Diem and Marcos spring to mind as other examples of that approach in that part of the world, or Suharto.
It isn’t any coincidence that Taiwan and South Korea began moving towards democracy in a serious way only after the Cold War had started winding down.
It started with anti-communism, yes, but that provided the space for democracy to develop subsequently.
I find cultural attachment to currency absolutely bizarre. I mean, I haven’t touched a tenner in months, possibly years. I never, ever use cash and presumably I’m not the only one.
Monetary attachment to currency, however, is completely understandable.
Sure, but some people seem to have a romantic attachment to tenners: as I say, I haven’t so much as touched one in months. I never use cash at all. Never.
I think it's a generational thing, my dad and uncles can't imagine a life without cash in their pockets, I'll leave my flat with just my phone, keys and a credit card in my pockets most times.
Our local shop has a £5 minimum spend for card transactions. So if you just need some milk, cash it is.
Mind, a visit there has been my only cash purchase in 8 months.
Fair enough, all of the smaller shops around here all take card now, but it's pretty difficult not to in inner London, it's just a way to lose business. I walked past a florist a few weeks ago and thought it might be nice to buy my wife some flowers because it had been a shitty few weeks for both of us but the florist was cash only and there's no ATM nearby. In the end I went with a candle-lit dinner but that's £20-30 the florist lost out on.
Just seen this, initial study of blood samples for a lung cancer trial, implies that Covid19 may have been present in Italy in September 2019. Though later tweets are critical of the methodology and the findings.
But what has belief in the nation state got to do with democracy? Nations are entirely arbitary. As a native of southern England I have no more in common with someone from Yorkshire than I do someone from California, Australia or Denmark (to pick a few examples).
(Not that I have anything against Yorkshire folk - it's just an example.)
They are essential. You can't have a democracy without a nation state and all a nation state is is a defined geographical entity with a common form of government and shared identity that accepts its authority.
You can argue that we haven't got the current 'cut' of nation states just right but, without it, you would need to create new ones.
I find it interesting that this was the most contentious point of my thread header.
Why couldn't we have a global democracy?
Because it wouldn't work. To be a state you have people who are members of it, yes, but also people who are *not* members of it or it doesn't have an identity. It's the identity that gives it cohesiveness and identity is about who you are and who you are not.
A global democracy for 9 billion people would be so big and so large, and common to everyone, that it wouldn't be able to bind everyone together culturally, socially or politically and it would rapidly be subject to all sorts of separatist movements. It's an idealistic dream.
The only scenario in which I could see a global democracy and government emerging is if the Earth was threatened by, or in dialogue, one or more external alien races such that they providing a "binding" identity to all humanity to unite behind, and a new dimension of policy (intergalactic space foreign affairs, trade, and defence) that would provide the framework for the governance. And you'd still need a complex web of federalised or closely collaborating nation states beneath it.
Similarly, if humans settled on Mars in very large numbers and "terraformed" it over time I'd expect new nations and identities to form over time there too.
Just seen this, initial study of blood samples for a lung cancer trial, implies that Covid19 may have been present in Italy in September 2019. Though later tweets are critical of the methodology and the findings.
They are essential. You can't have a democracy without a nation state and all a nation state is is a defined geographical entity with a common form of government and shared identity that accepts its authority.
You can argue that we haven't got the current 'cut' of nation states just right but, without it, you would need to create new ones.
I find it interesting that this was the most contentious point of my thread header.
I'm not wholly convinced - some of the purest forms of democracy have been much smaller units such as city-states.
Indeed, the nation state can be used to define any form of Government - if the people accept a dictatorship or a theocracy, that works as well.
The other side of that is that while there are common principles behind the democratic system, the theory and the practice vary widely across the world. The "British" system has its adherents but in many instances the evolution of the nation state in which it was originally implemented has led to a variation on the theme.
Democracy goes hand-in-hand with freedom of speech and has to be robust enough to accept those voices which aren't democratic and may even be violent. Suppressing those voices whether in the name of "tolerance" or not isn't a good path. The only way to confront and challenge the voices of darkness is to being them into the light.
You could do it with city states, yes, Liechtenstein, Singapore, Andorra and Monaco are effective modern examples, but they share a common identity too.
I find cultural attachment to currency absolutely bizarre. I mean, I haven’t touched a tenner in months, possibly years. I never, ever use cash and presumably I’m not the only one.
It is electronic transactions that will make national currencies obsolete. A few years ago I was in Sweden and really struggled to spend Kroner, as nearly everywhere I went was electronic only. It no longer really mattered whether the transaction was in SEK, Euro or Sterling.
Some economists have suggested that such transparent, low-to-zero cost exchange systems would make having *more* currencies a viable - maybe even sensible option.
Instead of trying to have a Euro, imagine currencies at a regional level or below. Instead of complex fiscal transfers, the exchange rates would handle the burden of regional poilicies automatically.
Yes, and I can see too how national boundaries breakdown into smaller units as well as larger.
Similarly with media. Benedict Anderson saw media, in the form of newspapers, as an essential component of forming national consciousness. Now though I can read The Atlantic more easily than The Times, watch Nollywood films on Netflix as easily as watching a British one.
That is me as a native Brit, obviously expats can watch their domestic media too, whether a Gujerati in Leicester, or a Brit in Dubai. We see on here how easy it is for Californian or Japanese residents to debate British politics. National boundaries and identity are becoming more inconsequential as a result. I have more in common with my colleagues in Greece, or Lagos than I do with many other Britons.
Just seen this, initial study of blood samples for a lung cancer trial, implies that Covid19 may have been present in Italy in September 2019. Though later tweets are critical of the methodology and the findings.
Maybe it didn't come vvvhhhinaaa after all? Remember Spanish Flu wasn't from Spain.
No scientist but this sort of stuff really doesn't fit, does it? Unless there was a serious mutation in the virus at some point. I know there was anecdotal reports of high pneumonia levels last winter, but really something must have shown up earlier, shouldn't it?
They are essential. You can't have a democracy without a nation state and all a nation state is is a defined geographical entity with a common form of government and shared identity that accepts its authority.
You can argue that we haven't got the current 'cut' of nation states just right but, without it, you would need to create new ones.
I find it interesting that this was the most contentious point of my thread header.
I'm not wholly convinced - some of the purest forms of democracy have been much smaller units such as city-states.
Indeed, the nation state can be used to define any form of Government - if the people accept a dictatorship or a theocracy, that works as well.
The other side of that is that while there are common principles behind the democratic system, the theory and the practice vary widely across the world. The "British" system has its adherents but in many instances the evolution of the nation state in which it was originally implemented has led to a variation on the theme.
Democracy goes hand-in-hand with freedom of speech and has to be robust enough to accept those voices which aren't democratic and may even be violent. Suppressing those voices whether in the name of "tolerance" or not isn't a good path. The only way to confront and challenge the voices of darkness is to being them into the light.
CR does seem to like his nation states for some reason. The village council is more democratic than the House of Lords.
I've explained my reasons on here. I think they're non-controversial and obvious ones.
For some reason you're keen to detect or probe for some level of partisanship in them - there is none.
I find cultural attachment to currency absolutely bizarre. I mean, I haven’t touched a tenner in months, possibly years. I never, ever use cash and presumably I’m not the only one.
It is electronic transactions that will make national currencies obsolete. A few years ago I was in Sweden and really struggled to spend Kroner, as nearly everywhere I went was electronic only. It no longer really mattered whether the transaction was in SEK, Euro or Sterling.
I find cultural attachment to currency absolutely bizarre. I mean, I haven’t touched a tenner in months, possibly years. I never, ever use cash and presumably I’m not the only one.
Monetary attachment to currency, however, is completely understandable.
Sure, but some people seem to have a romantic attachment to tenners: as I say, I haven’t so much as touched one in months. I never use cash at all. Never.
I think it's a generational thing, my dad and uncles can't imagine a life without cash in their pockets, I'll leave my flat with just my phone, keys and a credit card in my pockets most times.
Our local shop has a £5 minimum spend for card transactions. So if you just need some milk, cash it is.
Mind, a visit there has been my only cash purchase in 8 months.
Insane. Handling that cash is more costly than the tiny cost of charging a card. And it will mean they lose business. Cash is (almost) dead. Even my local ice cream van takes cards now.
But what has belief in the nation state got to do with democracy? Nations are entirely arbitary. As a native of southern England I have no more in common with someone from Yorkshire than I do someone from California, Australia or Denmark (to pick a few examples).
(Not that I have anything against Yorkshire folk - it's just an example.)
They are essential. You can't have a democracy without a nation state and all a nation state is is a defined geographical entity with a common form of government and shared identity that accepts its authority.
You can argue that we haven't got the current 'cut' of nation states just right but, without it, you would need to create new ones.
I find it interesting that this was the most contentious point of my thread header.
Why couldn't we have a global democracy?
Because it wouldn't work. To be a state you have people who are members of it, yes, but also people who are *not* members of it or it doesn't have an identity. It's the identity that gives it cohesiveness and identity is about who you are and who you are not.
A global democracy for 9 billion people would be so big and so large, and common to everyone, that it wouldn't be able to bind everyone together culturally, socially or politically and it would rapidly be subject to all sorts of separatist movements. It's an idealistic dream.
The only scenario in which I could see a global democracy and government emerging is if the Earth was threatened by, or in dialogue, one or more external alien races such that they providing a "binding" identity to all humanity to unite behind, and a new dimension of policy (intergalactic space foreign affairs, trade, and defence) that would provide the framework for the governance. And you'd still need a complex web of federalised or closely collaborating nation states beneath it.
Similarly, if humans settled on Mars in very large numbers and "terraformed" it over time I'd expect new nations and identities to form over time there too.
No, it doesn't need to be a single centralised government. A world government would be highly federal, with considerable powers reserved to the States. Because we have no experience of federalism in the UK, we struggle to comprehend how it works.
If Trump had had to self isolate everytime he was at an event with somebody tested positive for covid, i don't think he would have left the white house for the past 6 months.
"One Conservative Party insider told me last night that Boris and Rishi spent the evening phoning close allies of the party in the business world claiming he was buffaloed into Lockdown 2.0 with bogus data and it wasn’t going to happen again."
I find cultural attachment to currency absolutely bizarre. I mean, I haven’t touched a tenner in months, possibly years. I never, ever use cash and presumably I’m not the only one.
Monetary attachment to currency, however, is completely understandable.
Sure, but some people seem to have a romantic attachment to tenners: as I say, I haven’t so much as touched one in months. I never use cash at all. Never.
I think it's a generational thing, my dad and uncles can't imagine a life without cash in their pockets, I'll leave my flat with just my phone, keys and a credit card in my pockets most times.
Our local shop has a £5 minimum spend for card transactions. So if you just need some milk, cash it is.
Mind, a visit there has been my only cash purchase in 8 months.
Insane. Handling that cash is more costly than the tiny cost of charging a card. And it will mean they lose business. Cash is (almost) dead. Even my local ice cream van takes cards now.
Tiny? It is something like 35p per debit card transaction and 2% of the total of credit card transaction cost to the shop.
So you go to the shop and spend £1.25 for four pints, that turns into a loss maker for the shop if you buy just milk on your debit card.
Just seen this, initial study of blood samples for a lung cancer trial, implies that Covid19 may have been present in Italy in September 2019. Though later tweets are critical of the methodology and the findings.
Maybe it didn't come vvvhhhinaaa after all? Remember Spanish Flu wasn't from Spain.
No scientist but this sort of stuff really doesn't fit, does it? Unless there was a serious mutation in the virus at some point. I know there was anecdotal reports of high pneumonia levels last winter, but really something must have shown up earlier, shouldn't it?
I wasn't been serious...the timeline that fits the wider body of work is this.
On topic, thanks for this Casino Royale, the best praise I can give this is that I didn't recognise this as your contribution on democracy even though you'd said such a header was in the pipeline - I thought until the byline it was Cyclefree at her best covering a wide sweep topic.
It stands that there are things we should vehemently oppose in standing for democracy, but I do think in wokeism, critical race theory and the like, an area which for sure does have some adherents planted in anti-democratic corners, you have somewhat taken a blunderbuss to proceedings in recent weeks. I can take my dose of what white privilege is, thank you, even if I wouldn't want to sell it in those terms in Mansfield, but rather bundle it as one of more shocking of the many, many power imbalances and unfairnesses that have dotted history and which,to me, form part of a broad unified progressive campaign for societal fairness. I get you come at it from a different angle, and I too prefer the testimonies that bring these things home on an individual level, but I'm not sure why your descent into absolutism on this topic rather than managed disagreement?
They are essential. You can't have a democracy without a nation state and all a nation state is is a defined geographical entity with a common form of government and shared identity that accepts its authority.
You can argue that we haven't got the current 'cut' of nation states just right but, without it, you would need to create new ones.
I find it interesting that this was the most contentious point of my thread header.
I'm not wholly convinced - some of the purest forms of democracy have been much smaller units such as city-states.
Indeed, the nation state can be used to define any form of Government - if the people accept a dictatorship or a theocracy, that works as well.
The other side of that is that while there are common principles behind the democratic system, the theory and the practice vary widely across the world. The "British" system has its adherents but in many instances the evolution of the nation state in which it was originally implemented has led to a variation on the theme.
Democracy goes hand-in-hand with freedom of speech and has to be robust enough to accept those voices which aren't democratic and may even be violent. Suppressing those voices whether in the name of "tolerance" or not isn't a good path. The only way to confront and challenge the voices of darkness is to being them into the light.
CR does seem to like his nation states for some reason. The village council is more democratic than the House of Lords.
I've explained my reasons on here. I think they're non-controversial and obvious ones.
For some reason you're keen to detect or probe for some level of partisanship in them - there is none.
You've made your point @Casino_Royale and you are fully entitled to that view but you must accept that there are many on here who do not agree that democracy does not depend on nation states.
(Very good thread header for provoking discussion though!)
Another weird paragraph: "We also need to demonstrate our democratic system can manage crises better than everywhere else. Therefore, it is concerning that the West has struggled to escape the cycle of lockdowns over Covid, whilst life in Asia has largely gone back to normal. Things like this further undermine confidence in the system and weaken our ability to provide global leadership to deliver a democratic future."
The West is not synonymous with democracy. Some of the Asian countries that have coped better with Covid-19 are as democratic as Western countries that have struggled. The USA is no more a democracy than South Korea. Ditto Belgium and Singapore.
Yes, there are different forms of democracy but Japan, Taiwan and South Korea were only able to become democracies because of the American umbrella, which has both a hard and soft edge to it. And, it should be noted, that they have slightly different views on individual liberty to European or Anglosphere democracies - ones that allowed them to take far stronger action on Covid than our population would have accepted here.
They could easily slip back, keeping "the bits that work", and ditching the democratic aspects, particularly if the Western model is seen to fail, and America turns in on itself and withdraws from the region, and so it is therefore essential that it does not.
I would have said in the case of Taiwan and South Korea that they became democracies *despite* the American umbrella.
After all, for many years American policy was to support dictators amenable to US interests in those countries - Syngman Rhee and Chiang Kai-Shek.
The US military umbrella certainly preserved up the independence of the republic, but had pretty well nothing to do with the overthrow of dictatorship and establishment of genuine democracy in the 1980s.
Paradoxically, South Korea’s most successful dictator, Park Chung Hee, is still widely regarded as their greatest president.
A really excellent header in defence of democracy. One or two bits I disagree with, but it would be churlish to cavil.
I note the author's repeated pleas for tolerance and respect for others' views. For example: All the issues we face are valid: concerns over climate change, generational and racial inequality, personal identity, national identity, sovereignty, mass migration, border control, and global stability. We need solutions for all of them, and to treat one another with respect, and several other similar sentiments.
So I take it that the author will now desist from some of his more lurid full-frontal assaults on those who don't share his views, and perhaps will show a bit more tolerance of 'wokeness'?
A really excellent header in defence of democracy. One or two bits I disagree with, but it would be churlish to cavil.
I note the author's repeated pleas for tolerance and respect for others' views. For example: All the issues we face are valid: concerns over climate change, generational and racial inequality, personal identity, national identity, sovereignty, mass migration, border control, and global stability. We need solutions for all of them, and to treat one another with respect, and several other similar sentiments.
So I take it that the author will now desist from some of his more lurid full-frontal assaults on those who don't share his views, and perhaps will show a bit more tolerance of 'wokeness'?
Yes on the first bit, and on the second I support equality and fairness to all - my objection to "Wokeness" is precisely because I think it's (largely) well-meaning people not seeing how political and divisive their approach to that can be, particularly in responding to criticism toward it.
I will try, though, to be more measured with my own criticisms.
I think it helps to consider 'wokeness' (and political correctness that preceeded it) as 'informed politeness'.
nah - virtue signalling
Here's the thing. I have been a paraplegic for forty years. If someone refers to me as a cripple, handicapped or a 'wheelchair' (as in 'here's another wheelchair'), I find it offensive.
Some will say avoiding such terms is just political corectness. I say it's simply politeness.
If you feel people who avoid terms the recipients will find offensive are 'virtue signalling' I can't help you, but I say it's just being polite.
political correctness is much more than that though . Its stifles different thought processes and ideas
Example?
Loads - the one fairly topical now is the trans gender in sport events issue -
Sorry? There's a debate being had, it's complex, people have different views. How is 'political correctness' stifling the debate?
Can't remember who it was, but I'd like to applaud whoever said, earlier, that we need to stop on the line of people 'misbehaving'. Most people will catch Covid at home or at work, and more people will be inside more of the time because it is winter. It is why closing 'non essential' shops is a nonsense, really....
It helped them win the match, like taking the ball to the corner.
He goes in for the score (plus the point after) thats 10 up with less than a minute i.e. requires 2 scores. Its like taking it towards the corner, get fouled in the box and rather than score the penalty, you pass it towards the corner again.
They are essential. You can't have a democracy without a nation state and all a nation state is is a defined geographical entity with a common form of government and shared identity that accepts its authority.
You can argue that we haven't got the current 'cut' of nation states just right but, without it, you would need to create new ones.
I find it interesting that this was the most contentious point of my thread header.
I'm not wholly convinced - some of the purest forms of democracy have been much smaller units such as city-states.
Indeed, the nation state can be used to define any form of Government - if the people accept a dictatorship or a theocracy, that works as well.
The other side of that is that while there are common principles behind the democratic system, the theory and the practice vary widely across the world. The "British" system has its adherents but in many instances the evolution of the nation state in which it was originally implemented has led to a variation on the theme.
Democracy goes hand-in-hand with freedom of speech and has to be robust enough to accept those voices which aren't democratic and may even be violent. Suppressing those voices whether in the name of "tolerance" or not isn't a good path. The only way to confront and challenge the voices of darkness is to being them into the light.
CR does seem to like his nation states for some reason. The village council is more democratic than the House of Lords.
I've explained my reasons on here. I think they're non-controversial and obvious ones.
For some reason you're keen to detect or probe for some level of partisanship in them - there is none.
It’s not partisanship, just concern that we’re unlearning important lessons. If C20 tells us anything it is the risks of nationalism and nations.
In any case, shops that don’t take cards or have limits are in a tiny minority now - and rightly so. Cash is a dumb idea. You don’t need it.
Cash (and cheques!) still pretty mainstream in my business. I always have a reserve in case of card machine failures (happens more regularly than you'd think, especially in the sticks).
Comments
1) a counterintuitive possibility that the lockdown has made things worse (particularly in higher tier 2/3 areas). The tier systems created incentives for people to behave, and the means to do so outside of their own home. The "lockdown" does not. I would guess that private home gatherings have increased since the restrictions were tightened.
2) a numbers game. Virus beginning to accelerate in some areas from a low level whilst falling in others. The acceleration being at a critical point where new cases in one area outnumber falling cases in another. So whereas one tends to consider the countrywide headline numbers as representing a single figure figure tracking the national progress of the virus, in reality you have 10s or hundreds of localised outbreaks all with the virus at a different stage of progression. It's like when people look at the global figures and ignore the impact of the virus taking off in India, or declining in China etc.
Trump won the 2016 EV by holding MI, PA and NE-2 with a total margin of only 61,530 votes.
Indeed, the nation state can be used to define any form of Government - if the people accept a dictatorship or a theocracy, that works as well.
The other side of that is that while there are common principles behind the democratic system, the theory and the practice vary widely across the world. The "British" system has its adherents but in many instances the evolution of the nation state in which it was originally implemented has led to a variation on the theme.
Democracy goes hand-in-hand with freedom of speech and has to be robust enough to accept those voices which aren't democratic and may even be violent. Suppressing those voices whether in the name of "tolerance" or not isn't a good path. The only way to confront and challenge the voices of darkness is to being them into the light.
Of course if the aim is simply to paint a picture of how votes in different areas can change things... What if Biden had spread his California votes all over the country!
The problem with the EU was the other bits.
I was speaking to someone last week who has had her first credit card application refused. She has no choice but to use cash. None of us is typical.
Freedom, Fraternity, Federation!
What will ultimately make schools impossible to keep open without dramatic change is the number of people self-isolating. It was getting alarmingly large on Friday and I’ve been bombarded with fresh information about cover all weekend.
Who does he meet on a lengthy basis of exposure that wouldn't have taken out half the Govt?
Though the Kirks reunited in the Twentieth Century (apart from the Wee Frees) when the issue became obsolete.
As to the "all cultures should be respected" thing - well, hands up anyone who thinks the sensibilities of Confederate flag waving, Southern US racists should be show anything other than.... the finger?
Well, the same applies for quite a few cultural "norms" around the world. It comes down to a choice - which do you want, liberal democracy or "sympathy and understanding" for bigots, who can dress their shite as "Exotic Foreign Culture".
The Moggster has decreed that people can't partake remotely. Tracey Crouch not allowed to speak in a debate on cancer FFS
https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/1328074042595799040
Mind, a visit there has been my only cash purchase in 8 months.
Instead of trying to have a Euro, imagine currencies at a regional level or below. Instead of complex fiscal transfers, the exchange rates would handle the burden of regional poilicies automatically.
Biden 1.05
Democrats 1.05
Biden PV 1.03
Biden PV 49-51.9% 1.04
Trump PV 46-48.9% 1.05
Trump ECV 210-239 1.08
Biden ECV 300-329 1.08
Biden ECV Hcap -48.5 1.03
Biden ECV Hcap -63.5 1.05
Trump ECV Hcap +81.5 1.01
AZ Dem 1.04
GA Dem 1.06
MI Dem 1.04
NV Dem 1.04
PA Dem 1.05
WI Dem 1.06
Without it there would have been none.
https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1328077422277832704
https://twitter.com/BallouxFrancois/status/1328058398517190656/photo/1
A global democracy for 9 billion people would be so big and so large, and common to everyone, that it wouldn't be able to bind everyone together culturally, socially or politically and it would rapidly be subject to all sorts of separatist movements. It's an idealistic dream.
The only scenario in which I could see a global democracy and government emerging is if the Earth was threatened by, or in dialogue, one or more external alien races such that they providing a "binding" identity to all humanity to unite behind, and a new dimension of policy (intergalactic space foreign affairs, trade, and defence) that would provide the framework for the governance. And you'd still need a complex web of federalised or closely collaborating nation states beneath it.
Similarly, if humans settled on Mars in very large numbers and "terraformed" it over time I'd expect new nations and identities to form over time there too.
https://twitter.com/AlexofBrown/status/1328078919690489856
https://twitter.com/AlexofBrown/status/1328079625428332544
We do know of historical cases in France appearing to show there in late 2019.
That's the common - and essential - thread.
Similarly with media. Benedict Anderson saw media, in the form of newspapers, as an essential component of forming national consciousness. Now though I can read The Atlantic more easily than The Times, watch Nollywood films on Netflix as easily as watching a British one.
That is me as a native Brit, obviously expats can watch their domestic media too, whether a Gujerati in Leicester, or a Brit in Dubai. We see on here how easy it is for Californian or Japanese residents to debate British politics. National boundaries and identity are becoming more inconsequential as a result. I have more in common with my colleagues in Greece, or Lagos than I do with many other Britons.
For some reason you're keen to detect or probe for some level of partisanship in them - there is none.
Toby on Lockdownsceptics
So you go to the shop and spend £1.25 for four pints, that turns into a loss maker for the shop if you buy just milk on your debit card.
https://twitter.com/BallouxFrancois/status/1328058415101468676?s=19
It stands that there are things we should vehemently oppose in standing for democracy, but I do think in wokeism, critical race theory and the like, an area which for sure does have some adherents planted in anti-democratic corners, you have somewhat taken a blunderbuss to proceedings in recent weeks. I can take my dose of what white privilege is, thank you, even if I wouldn't want to sell it in those terms in Mansfield, but rather bundle it as one of more shocking of the many, many power imbalances and unfairnesses that have dotted history and which,to me, form part of a broad unified progressive campaign for societal fairness. I get you come at it from a different angle, and I too prefer the testimonies that bring these things home on an individual level, but I'm not sure why your descent into absolutism on this topic rather than managed disagreement?
(Very good thread header for provoking discussion though!)
https://twitter.com/PFF/status/1328083896089649158?s=19
The origins of the democratic constitution go back to 1919, and the provisional government in exile in China.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Government_of_the_Republic_of_Korea
The US military umbrella certainly preserved up the independence of the republic, but had pretty well nothing to do with the overthrow of dictatorship and establishment of genuine democracy in the 1980s.
Paradoxically, South Korea’s most successful dictator, Park Chung Hee, is still widely regarded as their greatest president.