Gawd this is bliss. They just gone and given me a glass of super-Tuscan red. Three yards from my table the fish leap from the glittering river Reuss, right under the graceful volutes of the Jesuit church. The reflected alpine sunshine dapples the painted medieval ceiling; rich old ladies snooze, and dream of furtive bank accounts
I see a Blair quote which Matt Singh retweeted about the 'cultural axis' which I thought was pretty on the ball.
[Blair] urged Sir Keir Starmer not to be defensive on cultural matters. "Keir will be smart enough not to engage in the culture war, but I don't think that's going to be enough for that vote[traditional voters], they're going to want him to engage on the right side of it. And that is not, by the way, 'We don't care about black lives', it's 'We can support the sentiment of these movements, but we're not subcontracting policy to them'. So whether it's Black Lives Matter, Extinction Rebellion, MeToo, trans rights, if you look as if you're in a negotiation with those groups over policy, you're not going to get those people back."
I've often felt there is a common tendency, not confined to the left but sometimes it feels particularly so, to go 'If X say Y about issue Z, that's that', so treating campaigning groups, whose agenda may be good, as the sole voice for a community or only important voice on a particular issue. Interestingly Stonewall felt until recently like one of those groups that it was not felt ok to criticise or pay obeisance to, but in the last few years that seems to have changed.
But regardless of the group, even if their views should be sought and carry a lot of weight for policy makers, we should always avoid subcontracting our views to another completely. Hence why it's normal for people to naturally incline to support things proposed by their own party, but they should never just mouth whatever it decides.
Isn't there also an element of subcontracting policy to 'traditional voters' implied in this?
I don't think so. It is saying listen to them and do...things generally that show you are on their side, but like any group of public it will be uncoordinated and vague in its responses and demands. Specific campaigning groups are much more focused in their policy demands. The 'Red Wall' such as it even exists responds to the mood music of policy that Keir or others will seek, XR and others will put out press releases saying 'Do X, don't do Y'. The emphasis seems to be whether Keir (or indeed the governemnt) attempts its own ideas taking account of what others say, or just seems to parrot what they are told.
Modern politics is pretty much a morass for parties, stumbling about between often conflicting voter blocs and pressure groups, but from my pov Labour seems stuck in it more firmly than others. I'd say SKS's flirtation (& tbf previous Labour leaders') with the Union flag has very much a whiff of parroting what they are told, in that case by focus groups and brand consultants.
The flaggery was indeed focus-grouped, is what I hear. It's an attempt to slay the notion that we (Labour) don't "love Britain". One must hope it works and it's a quick death so that we can stop it.
Labour does love Britain, it's about time it is more proud of the very good things it has done for it.
Exactly. Eg every progressive reform of the last 100 years.
Gawd this is bliss. They just gone and given me a glass of super-Tuscan red. Three yards from my table the fish leap from the glittering river Reuss, right under the graceful volutes of the Jesuit church. The reflected alpine sunshine dapples the painted medieval ceiling; rich old ladies snooze, and dream of furtive bank accounts
This nuanced abortion debate shows how ultimately futile stoking Culture Wars is. Most people are not fanatics, but fall somewhere in the middle. Sadly. The loonies and professional activists make most noise. And attempt to force everyone else to choose a side. I refuse to join a team. On this, and several other hot button CW issues.
The problem is that the pro-choice side present themselves as morally right. They talk in absolute terms. Once someone agrees that there should be a time limit on it, then you’re not all that different to the other side. Your just arguing about where to draw the line.
I don’t approve of what’s proposed I’m Texas (though, to be honest, I couldn’t give a shot what happens in the US any more than anywhere else that isn’t England), but the opposition shouldn’t present their views as being moral absolutes that shouldn’t be open to debate.
The right-to-life side also present themselves as morally right. Rather more dogmatically and without caveat, in fact. The pressure to move from "reasonable limits" to "ban" is greater than that to move from "reasonable limits" to "no limits". But, yes, agreed, the debate for most people is what constitutes "reasonable", and America is (as per usual) more polarized and heated on this than we are.
Has anywhere banned abortion after its been legalised ?
Its easy to take the extreme purity position and regard yourself as righteous in the safe knowledge that its not going to happen in reality.
So what about Texas ? Well I'm rather struck by the notice that Texas expected the Supreme Court to overturn their law thereby allowing them to wallow in glorious 'repression' but are now going to be stuck with its consequences.
If they didn't want the consequences, they should have thought of that earlier and been more careful.
Indeed.
Less a case of 'be careful what you wish for' then 'be careful what you posture about but do not actually want'.
I see Spurs are trying to out do Arsenal in the embarrassment factor. I bet Harry Kane is real looking forward to the prospect of yet another season not winning anything, despite being flogged like some cart horse....
I heard a stat to some incredible number of players, who have left Spurs since Kane has been first choice, have gone on to win trophies elsewhere.
Personally, I am ambivalent about abortion, but do think my opinion on this is not very much matter as a male who will never be in that situation. I would be happy if we had female only votes on the issue.
There is an interesting and nuanced article in the Atlantic about mother and daughter in Wade vs Roe. The case took so long that the pregnancy went to term.
Sorry, but that’s rubbish. Men have a right to a say on when we decide a child is a child.
Agree. And, if it let solely a woman’s choice, then scrap financial obligations on the father to support the child. After all, men have no role (if you take the view abortion is a women-only issue)
Bollocks.
It is the woman's body, it is the woman who needs to be responsible for her own body during the term.
Post labour, the child is the child of both parents and has their own body, they're no longer in either parents body anymore.
If like Schwarzenegger in Junior a man were to be pregnant it would be their body, their choice.
Wrong, on several levels.
The argument is that, it’s my body, my choice (which, by the way, you don’t seem to extend to anti-vacc people like @contrarian) and therefore men have no say in the process. If that’s the case - and men are excluded from the process because they are not carrying the child - then the flip side occurs when they are asked for money. You can’t bang on being all your choice and telling men to keep out of it when you want one course but then come with the begging bowl when you are looking for support and the father won’t provide it.
I see Spurs are trying to out do Arsenal in the embarrassment factor. I bet Harry Kane is real looking forward to the prospect of yet another season not winning anything, despite being flogged like some cart horse....
I heard a stat to some incredible number of players, who have left Spurs since Kane has been first choice, have gone on to win trophies elsewhere.
I think abortion has the potential to confound the prediction in the thread header. As far as I can tell from a brief google, political opinion on abortion is best described as, "Using the terms ‘pro-choice’ and ‘pro-life' is almost a party ID term"
However, the biggest challenge for the Democrats, particularly in the mid-terms, has often been in driving turnout. This surely has to be an issue with the potential to boost Democrat turnout.
If the Supreme Court doesn’t overturn the law when they eventually get around to hearing a case on the issue (as opposed to their current blind eye stance), then I can see it becoming very unpopular indeed with all but the most ideologically committed. Whether that happens before next year’s election is another matter.
In the longer term I think the state will flip. Next year feels too soon, though - which is why O’Rourke, despite being the Democrats best candidate by a distance, is very reluctant to commit.
In the long run neither 'on demand' or 'never' are sustainable positions from a humanistic, liberal point of view. One day we will look back on both positions as we do slavery now. The dialogue of the deaf between these two untenable positions is deeply depressing.
False equivalence. I support time limits but 'on demand' is far less repugnant than never. In practice, women by and large being not entirely devoid of intelligence and humanity, 'on demand' doesn't equate to casually aborting on a whim, or to loads of virtually full grown babies being terminated just prior to birth. A "woman's right to choose" means a "woman's right to make this difficult decision if she feels she has to".
Never, otoh, means that once a woman falls pregnant her status as a human being is degraded to that of carrier of the unborn child within her. Regardless of her own feelings on the matter she must carry it in her womb and expanding belly for 9 months and deliver it into the world. Imagine being in that position if you don't wish to become its mother. Brutal. And think about what it means and represents. It means the state owns her body. It's an overt (ie in law) statement that women matter less than men. It's indefensible and it's no surprise that so many of those who seek to defend it are in thrall to backward patriarchal religions.
Thanks. I am not suggesting equivalence. I am saying that the two positions are both extreme ones, and both fail to balance rights and realities in a truly humanist way. Both sides are in denial about this.
If your argument was sound then of course in a liberal, free contraception society in which most men are not rapists abortion on demand would be reasonably uncommon but by no means unknown, and I think that is the major flaw in your case.
Ok. It just sounded like a dodgy equivalence to me. One of those "wokeness is as big a threat as a putative fascist coup" type deals. You know what I mean. And sorry, I don't follow the logic of your 2nd point. Abortion on demand is obviously common because it only takes place when a woman asks for it. This is my point. It should be neither compulsory nor forbidden. It's the woman's decision within certain parameters. As we have it here. I think our law is about right - ie some limits but closer to no limits than to prohibition. The grisly Texas variation being the opposite, of course.
If 'always allowed' and 'never allowed' are not the two extremes it is hard to see what could count as the extreme opposite of 'never allowed'.
The logic of my second point is so clear I don't known how to put it more clearly. My position is that abortion should be, in Clinton's words, 'safe legal and rare'.
BTW the gender imbalance caused in some cultures by the availability of gender based abortion would suggest to any feminist that straight 'demand led' abortion leads to unacceptable discrimination against unborn girls. That alone shows it is an 'extreme' position.
Incidentally, the whole debate is damaged by religious bigotry. There are few clear specifically religious principles involved. The mainstream argument should be a humanist, liberal and rights based one.
1,500 hospitalizations per day is absolutely nowhere near overwhelming the NHS. Not even a little bit close. That's only one hospitalization per day per hospital, with each hospital averaging ~100 beds. Just a ridiculous number to suggest.
I can guarantee that there are not 1,500 hospitals with Covid inpatients.
That would be an average of more than two hospitals per Westminster constituency, which is clearly absurd.
Why can't people do even the simplest of sense checks when it comes to numbers?
When the NHS adds a new cancer or whatever unit to an existing hospital, Johnson calls it a "new hospital". So maybe that is where there is confusion.
Again, in fairness to Lilico, he is basing his post on the only available number. PBers often protest this number, but AFAIK fail to produce any other reliable quantification.
There are c. 100,000 general and acute beds in the English NHS. An average of 765 admissions per day over the past week or so has led to 6,400 beds with covid patients. Doubling the intake would lead to about 12,500-13,000 covid patients. This is about one in eight of all general and acute beds in the English NHS.
When covid beds are occupied, it takes more than 1:1 in terms of beds, as distancing and protective measures are taken. A 12-13% covid loading would equate to an effective loading of 15-20% in terms of beds no longer available.
The NHS usually runs at over 90% loading of general and acute beds. Accordingly, we’re looking at problems.
I’d have said up to 500 admissions per day would be not too much a problem and within capacity. 500-1000 would be running hot and putting increasing pressure on. 1000-1500 would be unsustainable beyond the short term, and 1500+ a real problem.
Having Delta seep through the country during summer will, I think, be shown to have been very fortunate.
Personally, I am ambivalent about abortion, but do think my opinion on this is not very much matter as a male who will never be in that situation. I would be happy if we had female only votes on the issue.
There is an interesting and nuanced article in the Atlantic about mother and daughter in Wade vs Roe. The case took so long that the pregnancy went to term.
Sorry, but that’s rubbish. Men have a right to a say on when we decide a child is a child.
Agree. And, if it let solely a woman’s choice, then scrap financial obligations on the father to support the child. After all, men have no role (if you take the view abortion is a women-only issue)
Bollocks.
It is the woman's body, it is the woman who needs to be responsible for her own body during the term.
Post labour, the child is the child of both parents and has their own body, they're no longer in either parents body anymore.
If like Schwarzenegger in Junior a man were to be pregnant it would be their body, their choice.
Wrong, on several levels.
The argument is that, it’s my body, my choice (which, by the way, you don’t seem to extend to anti-vacc people like @contrarian) and therefore men have no say in the process. If that’s the case - and men are excluded from the process because they are not carrying the child - then the flip side occurs when they are asked for money. You can’t bang on being all your choice and telling men to keep out of it when you want one course but then come with the begging bowl when you are looking for support and the father won’t provide it.
Of course you can.
Firstly I do think its contrarian's choice as to whether he has the vaccine or not. Choices can of course have consequences. If a woman chooses to carry a child she's told not to go on rollercoasters etc while pregnant, while if she has an abortion she can go on a rollercoaster. If someone says to a heavily pregnant woman "I'm sorry you can't do this, we're not insured to have you do this" then that's entirely reasonable and doesn't violate the woman's right to choose.
But if a child is born, then the child has two parents and both are responsible for paying for it. The fact that it was the woman's body only lasts until the child is born, once the child is born then its no longer the woman's body that's involved its the newborn child's body from then on.
The flip side of men being required to pay to support their own kids is that they should have just as much right to bring up the kids too. Its not that they get to control the pregnant individuals body while they're pregnant.
Personally, I am ambivalent about abortion, but do think my opinion on this is not very much matter as a male who will never be in that situation. I would be happy if we had female only votes on the issue.
There is an interesting and nuanced article in the Atlantic about mother and daughter in Wade vs Roe. The case took so long that the pregnancy went to term.
Sorry, but that’s rubbish. Men have a right to a say on when we decide a child is a child.
Abortion should be allowed up to 4 months if the fœtus is female, and up to 6 months if male.
I’m guessing you think this because of the temptation to abort a girl? My biology isn’t very good - when is the sex knowable? This is in the same bracket it as the Down’s argument.
’The food shortages being reported by a growing number of household names are likely to last forever, a leading industry figure has said in a stark warning to the government.
Ian Wright, CEO of the Food & Drink Federation, said the system that for decades had meant British consumers could expect a full range of food or drink items in their supermarkets and restaurants was "over" and probably not coming back.
A shortage of lorry drivers and workers elsewhere in supply chains, compounded by Brexit and the Covid pandemic, has triggered shortages of food and other items in recent weeks…’
That 'compounded by Brexit' line really makes me laugh. Even if we were still in the EU we would be in exactly the same position.
Why? Because according to the latest briefing from Transport Intelligence there is a current shortage across Europe of 400,000 drivers. Poland is short a staggering 124,000 drivers and Germany and France between 45,000 and 60,000 each. The idea that allowing drivers to come and work here would make any difference when there are no drivers to come in the first place is laughable. (Though as an aside I still maintain we should let anyone work here who wants to but that is a different matter).
Poor working conditions and poor pay are the main causes with many drivers leaving the profession and few wanting to join. Companies driving pay down and the Just in Time system have brought the whole edifice to breaking point. They can't even honestly blame covid given that these problems were already developing in 2019.
There's a very simple way to test this proposition, which, as mentioned a few times earlier on here, is to see whether our north-western neighbours in Europe are having similar levels of shortages of supply. So far they aren't, as far as has been reported, so that would seem to suggest Brexit is indeed a major factor.
Except that is bollocks as I have already shown because they are having exactly the same issues with lack of hauliers as we are. Try again.
’The food shortages being reported by a growing number of household names are likely to last forever, a leading industry figure has said in a stark warning to the government.
Ian Wright, CEO of the Food & Drink Federation, said the system that for decades had meant British consumers could expect a full range of food or drink items in their supermarkets and restaurants was "over" and probably not coming back.
A shortage of lorry drivers and workers elsewhere in supply chains, compounded by Brexit and the Covid pandemic, has triggered shortages of food and other items in recent weeks…’
That 'compounded by Brexit' line really makes me laugh. Even if we were still in the EU we would be in exactly the same position.
Why? Because according to the latest briefing from Transport Intelligence there is a current shortage across Europe of 400,000 drivers. Poland is short a staggering 124,000 drivers and Germany and France between 45,000 and 60,000 each. The idea that allowing drivers to come and work here would make any difference when there are no drivers to come in the first place is laughable. (Though as an aside I still maintain we should let anyone work here who wants to but that is a different matter).
Poor working conditions and poor pay are the main causes with many drivers leaving the profession and few wanting to join. Companies driving pay down and the Just in Time system have brought the whole edifice to breaking point. They can't even honestly blame covid given that these problems were already developing in 2019.
There's a very simple way to test this proposition, which, as mentioned a few times earlier on here, is to see whether our north-western neighbours in Europe are having similar levels of shortages of supply. So far they aren't, as far as has been reported, so that would seem to suggest Brexit is indeed a major factor.
Except there have been anecdotal reports of issues across Europe and the USA. Just as there have been anecdotal reports of issues in the UK.
The difference is that in the UK there's a whole bunch of obsessives especially on FBPE Twitter who'll cry and share others years if their local Waitrose is out of their favourite bottled water.
Whereas in any normal country consumers would think "oh that's sold out. I'll get this instead."
The only scraps of anecdata I've heard on this so far on here are from Southern Europe. If you can point me to any similar officially confirmed shortages to the ones here, in the rest of northern and western europe over the last six-to-eight weeks or so, I'm genuinely all ears.
Personally, I am ambivalent about abortion, but do think my opinion on this is not very much matter as a male who will never be in that situation. I would be happy if we had female only votes on the issue.
There is an interesting and nuanced article in the Atlantic about mother and daughter in Wade vs Roe. The case took so long that the pregnancy went to term.
Sorry, but that’s rubbish. Men have a right to a say on when we decide a child is a child.
Abortion should be allowed up to 4 months if the fœtus is female, and up to 6 months if male.
I’m guessing you think this because of the temptation to abort a girl? My biology isn’t very good - when is the sex knowable? This is in the same bracket it as the Down’s argument.
No, for the avoidance of doubt it was a joke that was intended to be provocative, but nobody truly bit.
I see a Blair quote which Matt Singh retweeted about the 'cultural axis' which I thought was pretty on the ball.
[Blair] urged Sir Keir Starmer not to be defensive on cultural matters. "Keir will be smart enough not to engage in the culture war, but I don't think that's going to be enough for that vote[traditional voters], they're going to want him to engage on the right side of it. And that is not, by the way, 'We don't care about black lives', it's 'We can support the sentiment of these movements, but we're not subcontracting policy to them'. So whether it's Black Lives Matter, Extinction Rebellion, MeToo, trans rights, if you look as if you're in a negotiation with those groups over policy, you're not going to get those people back."
I've often felt there is a common tendency, not confined to the left but sometimes it feels particularly so, to go 'If X say Y about issue Z, that's that', so treating campaigning groups, whose agenda may be good, as the sole voice for a community or only important voice on a particular issue. Interestingly Stonewall felt until recently like one of those groups that it was not felt ok to criticise or pay obeisance to, but in the last few years that seems to have changed.
But regardless of the group, even if their views should be sought and carry a lot of weight for policy makers, we should always avoid subcontracting our views to another completely. Hence why it's normal for people to naturally incline to support things proposed by their own party, but they should never just mouth whatever it decides.
Isn't there also an element of subcontracting policy to 'traditional voters' implied in this?
I don't think so. It is saying listen to them and do...things generally that show you are on their side, but like any group of public it will be uncoordinated and vague in its responses and demands. Specific campaigning groups are much more focused in their policy demands. The 'Red Wall' such as it even exists responds to the mood music of policy that Keir or others will seek, XR and others will put out press releases saying 'Do X, don't do Y'. The emphasis seems to be whether Keir (or indeed the governemnt) attempts its own ideas taking account of what others say, or just seems to parrot what they are told.
Modern politics is pretty much a morass for parties, stumbling about between often conflicting voter blocs and pressure groups, but from my pov Labour seems stuck in it more firmly than others. I'd say SKS's flirtation (& tbf previous Labour leaders') with the Union flag has very much a whiff of parroting what they are told, in that case by focus groups and brand consultants.
The flaggery was indeed focus-grouped, is what I hear. It's an attempt to slay the notion that we (Labour) don't "love Britain". One must hope it works and it's a quick death so that we can stop it.
My approximate rule is that if you don’t have real conviction over a subject or can’t successfully fake it, stay away from it. I know that’s difficult if you’re the leader of HMG’s opposition, but the great wobbling jelly of moral vacancy gets away with it all the time. No one seems to know or care what BJ’s view on trans rights are, or even seem curious about them.
It can’t be beyond the wit of man or ppb director to sit SKS down and find out what is the authentic Keir and why he loves the place in which he lives: 5 a side with your mates, a pint in your favourite pub, a stretch of countryside. Schmaltzy maybe but no fcuking flags.
Yep, I hope we see this and that it starts to get across. The 'it' being 3D Keir (as it were). And that's a good point re Johnson. He benefits from being considered unserious since it gives him a pass on complex issues. It's fine, Boris, don't you worry about all that. Just put a silly hat on and go cheer up the natives. Galling. But anyway, congrats on "great wobbling jelly of moral vacancy".
’The food shortages being reported by a growing number of household names are likely to last forever, a leading industry figure has said in a stark warning to the government.
Ian Wright, CEO of the Food & Drink Federation, said the system that for decades had meant British consumers could expect a full range of food or drink items in their supermarkets and restaurants was "over" and probably not coming back.
A shortage of lorry drivers and workers elsewhere in supply chains, compounded by Brexit and the Covid pandemic, has triggered shortages of food and other items in recent weeks…’
That 'compounded by Brexit' line really makes me laugh. Even if we were still in the EU we would be in exactly the same position.
Why? Because according to the latest briefing from Transport Intelligence there is a current shortage across Europe of 400,000 drivers. Poland is short a staggering 124,000 drivers and Germany and France between 45,000 and 60,000 each. The idea that allowing drivers to come and work here would make any difference when there are no drivers to come in the first place is laughable. (Though as an aside I still maintain we should let anyone work here who wants to but that is a different matter).
Poor working conditions and poor pay are the main causes with many drivers leaving the profession and few wanting to join. Companies driving pay down and the Just in Time system have brought the whole edifice to breaking point. They can't even honestly blame covid given that these problems were already developing in 2019.
There's a very simple way to test this proposition, which, as mentioned a few times earlier on here, is to see whether our north-western neighbours in Europe are having similar levels of shortages of supply. So far they aren't, as far as has been reported, so that would seem to suggest Brexit is indeed a major factor.
Except that is bollocks as I have already shown because they are having exactly the same issues with lack of hauliers as we are. Try again.
Lack of hauliers isn't the same as recorded shortages. Facts please, and then I would be happy to accede to your point.
’The food shortages being reported by a growing number of household names are likely to last forever, a leading industry figure has said in a stark warning to the government.
Ian Wright, CEO of the Food & Drink Federation, said the system that for decades had meant British consumers could expect a full range of food or drink items in their supermarkets and restaurants was "over" and probably not coming back.
A shortage of lorry drivers and workers elsewhere in supply chains, compounded by Brexit and the Covid pandemic, has triggered shortages of food and other items in recent weeks…’
That 'compounded by Brexit' line really makes me laugh. Even if we were still in the EU we would be in exactly the same position.
Why? Because according to the latest briefing from Transport Intelligence there is a current shortage across Europe of 400,000 drivers. Poland is short a staggering 124,000 drivers and Germany and France between 45,000 and 60,000 each. The idea that allowing drivers to come and work here would make any difference when there are no drivers to come in the first place is laughable. (Though as an aside I still maintain we should let anyone work here who wants to but that is a different matter).
Poor working conditions and poor pay are the main causes with many drivers leaving the profession and few wanting to join. Companies driving pay down and the Just in Time system have brought the whole edifice to breaking point. They can't even honestly blame covid given that these problems were already developing in 2019.
There's a very simple way to test this proposition, which, as mentioned a few times earlier on here, is to see whether our north-western neighbours in Europe are having similar levels of shortages of supply. So far they aren't, as far as has been reported, so that would seem to suggest Brexit is indeed a major factor.
Except there have been anecdotal reports of issues across Europe and the USA. Just as there have been anecdotal reports of issues in the UK.
The difference is that in the UK there's a whole bunch of obsessives especially on FBPE Twitter who'll cry and share others years if their local Waitrose is out of their favourite bottled water.
Whereas in any normal country consumers would think "oh that's sold out. I'll get this instead."
The only scraps of anecdata I've heard on this so far on here are from Southern Europe. If you can point me to any similar officially confirmed shortages to the ones here, in the rest of northern and western europe over the last six-to-eight weeks or so, I'm genuinely all ears.
I can't be bothered to be frank. There's been reports but I'm not going to scrape trying to search for them again - the only reason there's a noticeable issue here is people are sharing it because it suits their agenda to do so.
Gawd this is bliss. They just gone and given me a glass of super-Tuscan red. Three yards from my table the fish leap from the glittering river Reuss, right under the graceful volutes of the Jesuit church. The reflected alpine sunshine dapples the painted medieval ceiling; rich old ladies snooze, and dream of furtive bank accounts
’The food shortages being reported by a growing number of household names are likely to last forever, a leading industry figure has said in a stark warning to the government.
Ian Wright, CEO of the Food & Drink Federation, said the system that for decades had meant British consumers could expect a full range of food or drink items in their supermarkets and restaurants was "over" and probably not coming back.
A shortage of lorry drivers and workers elsewhere in supply chains, compounded by Brexit and the Covid pandemic, has triggered shortages of food and other items in recent weeks…’
That 'compounded by Brexit' line really makes me laugh. Even if we were still in the EU we would be in exactly the same position.
Why? Because according to the latest briefing from Transport Intelligence there is a current shortage across Europe of 400,000 drivers. Poland is short a staggering 124,000 drivers and Germany and France between 45,000 and 60,000 each. The idea that allowing drivers to come and work here would make any difference when there are no drivers to come in the first place is laughable. (Though as an aside I still maintain we should let anyone work here who wants to but that is a different matter).
Poor working conditions and poor pay are the main causes with many drivers leaving the profession and few wanting to join. Companies driving pay down and the Just in Time system have brought the whole edifice to breaking point. They can't even honestly blame covid given that these problems were already developing in 2019.
There's a very simple way to test this proposition, which, as mentioned a few times earlier on here, is to see whether our north-western neighbours in Europe are having similar levels of shortages of supply. So far they aren't, as far as has been reported, so that would seem to suggest Brexit is indeed a major factor.
Except that is bollocks as I have already shown because they are having exactly the same issues with lack of hauliers as we are. Try again.
Lack of hauliers isn't the same as recorded shortages. Facts please, and then I would be happy to accede to your point.
What are the facts about theses 'recorded shortages' ?
Can you provide some data as to what proportion of supermarket shelves are empty compared with previous years ?
A supermarket by supermarket comparison would be ideal.
’The food shortages being reported by a growing number of household names are likely to last forever, a leading industry figure has said in a stark warning to the government.
Ian Wright, CEO of the Food & Drink Federation, said the system that for decades had meant British consumers could expect a full range of food or drink items in their supermarkets and restaurants was "over" and probably not coming back.
A shortage of lorry drivers and workers elsewhere in supply chains, compounded by Brexit and the Covid pandemic, has triggered shortages of food and other items in recent weeks…’
That 'compounded by Brexit' line really makes me laugh. Even if we were still in the EU we would be in exactly the same position.
Why? Because according to the latest briefing from Transport Intelligence there is a current shortage across Europe of 400,000 drivers. Poland is short a staggering 124,000 drivers and Germany and France between 45,000 and 60,000 each. The idea that allowing drivers to come and work here would make any difference when there are no drivers to come in the first place is laughable. (Though as an aside I still maintain we should let anyone work here who wants to but that is a different matter).
Poor working conditions and poor pay are the main causes with many drivers leaving the profession and few wanting to join. Companies driving pay down and the Just in Time system have brought the whole edifice to breaking point. They can't even honestly blame covid given that these problems were already developing in 2019.
There's a very simple way to test this proposition, which, as mentioned a few times earlier on here, is to see whether our north-western neighbours in Europe are having similar levels of shortages of supply. So far they aren't, as far as has been reported, so that would seem to suggest Brexit is indeed a major factor.
Except that is bollocks as I have already shown because they are having exactly the same issues with lack of hauliers as we are. Try again.
Lack of hauliers isn't the same as recorded shortages. Facts please, and then I would be happy to accede to your point.
What are the facts about theses 'recorded shortages' ?
Can you provide some data as to what proportion of supermarket shelves are empty compared with previous years ?
A supermarket by supermarket comparison would be ideal.
The UK Food and Drink Federation efffectively started this discussion yesterday, rather than myself, so their website might have the full details. They say there are new shortages in multiple food supply areas, and in their own words they blame covid and brexit. What I would be looking for for some of the claims on here to be convincing, would be similar statements from European trade bodies of a change in supply, in the same the last few months' timeframe specifically, and obviously minus the mentions of Brexit.
And just a rider on abortion that to me is crucial:
"I believe that to take the life of an unborn child is morally wrong and I'd think ill of anybody involved in such an enterprise."
"Abortion should be illegal."
These are very different positions. The 1st is a statement of your views. The 2nd is imposing your views on everybody else.
Is that not the price of democracy? Some people’s views get imposed on others.
Yes, but with boundaries. Eg, a majority might wish to make it illegal for girls to go to university. Nevertheless this ought not to happen since there is something embedded in a higher authority - the constitution or the ECHR or the Supreme Court or whatever - which prevents the enactment of legislation which degrades people on account of their identity. This is essential in order to keep "democracy" in check. Democracy is a tool not a god. It's a means not an end. This concept is at the heart of Roe v Wade. Should a women's ownership of her own body be something protected at that higher level? I say it should.
If you succeed in setting your current morals in stone via this sort of mechanism, you eventually you either get a revolution, or a way is found to change the law.
Imagine if for some reason the US constitution had included the death penalty for gay sex, hardcoded in, because that was felt to be moral when it was written? Are you saying that this should also have that higher authority status?
A big problem is the US is that making law by judicial activism is a really bad idea - Roe may have pleased the abortion lobby at the time, but it was a terrible thing for the USA because of the *way* it was done, leaving aside what it was about. It's resulted in the politicisation of the judiciary in a way that's truly horrible.
It was a decision which should have been left to state legislators in the first place - and then people would have voted and got laws reflecting their votes. And, yes, that probably means today abortion would be legal in California, and illegal in Texas, and therefore people on both sides of the issue would be unhappy - but we wouldn't see presidential elections where the reason half the voters have for backing their candidate is because they are trying to change the balance of power in the Supreme Court, rather than anything else.
I think abortion has the potential to confound the prediction in the thread header. As far as I can tell from a brief google, political opinion on abortion is best described as, "Using the terms ‘pro-choice’ and ‘pro-life' is almost a party ID term"
However, the biggest challenge for the Democrats, particularly in the mid-terms, has often been in driving turnout. This surely has to be an issue with the potential to boost Democrat turnout.
If the Supreme Court doesn’t overturn the law when they eventually get around to hearing a case on the issue (as opposed to their current blind eye stance), then I can see it becoming very unpopular indeed with all but the most ideologically committed. Whether that happens before next year’s election is another matter.
In the longer term I think the state will flip. Next year feels too soon, though - which is why O’Rourke, despite being the Democrats best candidate by a distance, is very reluctant to commit.
In the long run neither 'on demand' or 'never' are sustainable positions from a humanistic, liberal point of view. One day we will look back on both positions as we do slavery now. The dialogue of the deaf between these two untenable positions is deeply depressing.
False equivalence. I support time limits but 'on demand' is far less repugnant than never. In practice, women by and large being not entirely devoid of intelligence and humanity, 'on demand' doesn't equate to casually aborting on a whim, or to loads of virtually full grown babies being terminated just prior to birth. A "woman's right to choose" means a "woman's right to make this difficult decision if she feels she has to".
Never, otoh, means that once a woman falls pregnant her status as a human being is degraded to that of carrier of the unborn child within her. Regardless of her own feelings on the matter she must carry it in her womb and expanding belly for 9 months and deliver it into the world. Imagine being in that position if you don't wish to become its mother. Brutal. And think about what it means and represents. It means the state owns her body. It's an overt (ie in law) statement that women matter less than men. It's indefensible and it's no surprise that so many of those who seek to defend it are in thrall to backward patriarchal religions.
Thanks. I am not suggesting equivalence. I am saying that the two positions are both extreme ones, and both fail to balance rights and realities in a truly humanist way. Both sides are in denial about this.
If your argument was sound then of course in a liberal, free contraception society in which most men are not rapists abortion on demand would be reasonably uncommon but by no means unknown, and I think that is the major flaw in your case.
Ok. It just sounded like a dodgy equivalence to me. One of those "wokeness is as big a threat as a putative fascist coup" type deals. You know what I mean. And sorry, I don't follow the logic of your 2nd point. Abortion on demand is obviously common because it only takes place when a woman asks for it. This is my point. It should be neither compulsory nor forbidden. It's the woman's decision within certain parameters. As we have it here. I think our law is about right - ie some limits but closer to no limits than to prohibition. The grisly Texas variation being the opposite, of course.
If 'always allowed' and 'never allowed' are not the two extremes it is hard to see what could count as the extreme opposite of 'never allowed'.
The logic of my second point is so clear I don't known how to put it more clearly. My position is that abortion should be, in Clinton's words, 'safe legal and rare'.
BTW the gender imbalance caused in some cultures by the availability of gender based abortion would suggest to any feminist that straight 'demand led' abortion leads to unacceptable discrimination against unborn girls. That alone shows it is an 'extreme' position.
Incidentally, the whole debate is damaged by religious bigotry. There are few clear specifically religious principles involved. The mainstream argument should be a humanist, liberal and rights based one.
Safe, legal and rare. Well almost all bar abolitionists would agree with that. I certainly do. Re your other point, ok, but you offered it in rebuttal to what I was saying and I don't see how it relates.
’The food shortages being reported by a growing number of household names are likely to last forever, a leading industry figure has said in a stark warning to the government.
Ian Wright, CEO of the Food & Drink Federation, said the system that for decades had meant British consumers could expect a full range of food or drink items in their supermarkets and restaurants was "over" and probably not coming back.
A shortage of lorry drivers and workers elsewhere in supply chains, compounded by Brexit and the Covid pandemic, has triggered shortages of food and other items in recent weeks…’
That 'compounded by Brexit' line really makes me laugh. Even if we were still in the EU we would be in exactly the same position.
Why? Because according to the latest briefing from Transport Intelligence there is a current shortage across Europe of 400,000 drivers. Poland is short a staggering 124,000 drivers and Germany and France between 45,000 and 60,000 each. The idea that allowing drivers to come and work here would make any difference when there are no drivers to come in the first place is laughable. (Though as an aside I still maintain we should let anyone work here who wants to but that is a different matter).
Poor working conditions and poor pay are the main causes with many drivers leaving the profession and few wanting to join. Companies driving pay down and the Just in Time system have brought the whole edifice to breaking point. They can't even honestly blame covid given that these problems were already developing in 2019.
There's a very simple way to test this proposition, which, as mentioned a few times earlier on here, is to see whether our north-western neighbours in Europe are having similar levels of shortages of supply. So far they aren't, as far as has been reported, so that would seem to suggest Brexit is indeed a major factor.
Except that is bollocks as I have already shown because they are having exactly the same issues with lack of hauliers as we are. Try again.
Lack of hauliers isn't the same as recorded shortages. Facts please, and then I would be happy to accede to your point.
What are the facts about theses 'recorded shortages' ?
Can you provide some data as to what proportion of supermarket shelves are empty compared with previous years ?
A supermarket by supermarket comparison would be ideal.
The UK Food and Drink Federation efffectively started this discussion yesterday, rather than myself, so their website might have the full details. They say there are new shortages in multiple food supply areas, and in their own words they blame covid and brexit. What I would be looking for for some of the claims on here to be convincing, would be similar statements from European trade bodies of a change in supply, in the same the last few months' timeframe specifically, and obviously minus the mentions of Brexit.
So a whine from a vested interest trade body rather than actual data.
The problem with these claims is that they relate to something ie supermarkets which people go to themselves.
So when they see full shelves in Tesco and ASDA, as I do, then they don't believe in these 'shortages'.
Especially as the 'evidence' that is presented for them is a photo of a individual brand of water sold out in Waitrose.
@HYUFD commented yesterday evening re a proposal to seek grater tax from landlords. It was too late for me to respond but do we have an accurate view of the profile of "landlords"? Yes, I suspect many have one property but I have local knowledge of one individual who owns and lets out 90 properties. Now, he is his own Letting Agent as I understand it but he has applied to Newham for grants for loft conversions and extensions to get even more people into his property.
The HMO situation is even murkier - we know there are 3-bedroom semis where twenty or more (usually men) sleep all round London. We also know there's a big market in illegal sub-letting so if you want to go after the landlord/private rental market be aware it's a complicated Pandora's Can of worms.
That last sentence is my early nomination for Mixed Metaphor Award which is like Mixed Martial Arts only slightly less violent.
This merits a serious response.
The number of landlords in the PRS with one property is currently about 45%. With 2-4 is a further 38%. So 83% hold 4 or fewer properties. Which gives context to Phil's skewed misrepresentation the other day about 'a landlord earning 49,000' as a suitable typical example.
G Osborne has sought to professionalise it by ultra-regulation and targeted rather skewed tax increases. For example, a property company or a big beast like L&G can count their financing expenses against tax; a self-employed LL with a house cannot.
On the LL owning 90 properties. So what? LL is running a successful business providing housing services to people. If it is following the law, and is properly licensed etc then that is fine. If 'getting more people in' is being done safely, legitimately and legally then what is the problem? Are those people better off homeless?
Councils make grants available to all kinds of organisations all the time to support the Council objectives. Building Regulations on loft conversions require high standards. Again, what is the problem?
Newham are notorious for their enthusiasm for massive and rather badly targeted regulation, and previously have been notorious for their lack of competence. I hope they have improved.
If the "big 3 bed semis" are not properly licensed etc, then the people running them are criminals, not legitimate landlords. And there is a duty on all of us to report the crimes - either to the police or the relevant council enforcement team.
In this type of case an association with serious crime - such as people trafficking, and exploitation crimes - is likely. Another reason to report it.
If the Council properly regulated the 'HMO situation', then it would be less 'murky'.
Running decent-sized HMOs (6 or more rooms) is something for professional management, not amateurs or self-management. The rules are fearsomely complex.
’The food shortages being reported by a growing number of household names are likely to last forever, a leading industry figure has said in a stark warning to the government.
Ian Wright, CEO of the Food & Drink Federation, said the system that for decades had meant British consumers could expect a full range of food or drink items in their supermarkets and restaurants was "over" and probably not coming back.
A shortage of lorry drivers and workers elsewhere in supply chains, compounded by Brexit and the Covid pandemic, has triggered shortages of food and other items in recent weeks…’
@HYUFD commented yesterday evening re a proposal to seek grater tax from landlords. It was too late for me to respond but do we have an accurate view of the profile of "landlords"? Yes, I suspect many have one property but I have local knowledge of one individual who owns and lets out 90 properties. Now, he is his own Letting Agent as I understand it but he has applied to Newham for grants for loft conversions and extensions to get even more people into his property.
The HMO situation is even murkier - we know there are 3-bedroom semis where twenty or more (usually men) sleep all round London. We also know there's a big market in illegal sub-letting so if you want to go after the landlord/private rental market be aware it's a complicated Pandora's Can of worms.
That last sentence is my early nomination for Mixed Metaphor Award which is like Mixed Martial Arts only slightly less violent.
This merits a serious response.
The number of landlords in the PRS with one property is currently about 45%. With 2-4 is a further 38%. So 83% hold 4 or fewer properties. Which gives context to Phil's skewed misrepresentation the other day about 'a landlord earning 49,000' as a suitable typical example.
G Osborne has sought to professionalise it by ultra-regulation and targeted rather skewed tax increases. For example, a property company or a big beast like L&G can count their financing expenses against tax; a self-employed LL with a house cannot.
On the LL owning 90 properties. So what? LL is running a successful business providing housing services to people. If it is following the law, and is properly licensed etc then that is fine. If 'getting more people in' is being done safely, legitimately and legally then what is the problem? Are those people better off homeless?
Councils make grants available to all kinds of organisations all the time to support the Council objectives. Building Regulations on loft conversions require high standards. Again, what is the problem?
Newham are notorious for their enthusiasm for massive and rather badly targeted regulation, and previously have been notorious for their lack of competence. I hope they have improved.
If the "big 3 bed semis" are not properly licensed etc, then the people running them are criminals, not legitimate landlords. And there is a duty on all of us to report the crimes - either to the police or the relevant council enforcement team.
In this type of case an association with serious crime - such as people trafficking, and exploitation crimes - is likely. Another reason to report it.
If the Council properly regulated the 'HMO situation', then it would be less 'murky'.
Running decent-sized HMOs (6 or more rooms) is something for professional management, not amateurs or self-management. The rules are fearsomely complex.
Clear enough?
L&G being able to get tax relief on their financing costs is an advantage not available to home buyers.
Owning somebody else's home creates a negative externality. It is something that should be subject to taxation (like tobacco etc) to deal with the negative externalities, it should not be getting tax advantages.
That's the same whether it's a solo landlord or a major corporation.
Regression poll by Electoral Calculus and FindoutnowUK for Property Chronicle shows where the Nimbys are in Britain. Some areas (green) want more property development locally, and others (red) don't.
How odd! @justin124 was telling us yesterday that Scottish Labour VI will follow English Labour VI as night follows day. Cos the two countries are identical and always mimic each other’s social trends and voting patterns. Or some such guff.
Comments
Did you see Pulteneytown, the Telford quarter on the south side of the harbour?
Less a case of 'be careful what you wish for' then 'be careful what you posture about but do not actually want'.
I heard a stat to some incredible number of players, who have left Spurs since Kane has been first choice, have gone on to win trophies elsewhere.
You were saying?
The logic of my second point is so clear I don't known how to put it more clearly. My position is that abortion should be, in Clinton's words, 'safe legal and rare'.
BTW the gender imbalance caused in some cultures by the availability of gender based abortion would suggest to any feminist that straight 'demand led' abortion leads to unacceptable discrimination against unborn girls. That alone shows it is an 'extreme' position.
Incidentally, the whole debate is damaged by religious bigotry. There are few clear specifically religious principles involved. The mainstream argument should be a humanist, liberal and rights based one.
Firstly I do think its contrarian's choice as to whether he has the vaccine or not. Choices can of course have consequences. If a woman chooses to carry a child she's told not to go on rollercoasters etc while pregnant, while if she has an abortion she can go on a rollercoaster. If someone says to a heavily pregnant woman "I'm sorry you can't do this, we're not insured to have you do this" then that's entirely reasonable and doesn't violate the woman's right to choose.
But if a child is born, then the child has two parents and both are responsible for paying for it. The fact that it was the woman's body only lasts until the child is born, once the child is born then its no longer the woman's body that's involved its the newborn child's body from then on.
The flip side of men being required to pay to support their own kids is that they should have just as much right to bring up the kids too. Its not that they get to control the pregnant individuals body while they're pregnant.
Can you provide some data as to what proportion of supermarket shelves are empty compared with previous years ?
A supermarket by supermarket comparison would be ideal.
Imagine if for some reason the US constitution had included the death penalty for gay sex, hardcoded in, because that was felt to be moral when it was written? Are you saying that this should also have that higher authority status?
A big problem is the US is that making law by judicial activism is a really bad idea - Roe may have pleased the abortion lobby at the time, but it was a terrible thing for the USA because of the *way* it was done, leaving aside what it was about. It's resulted in the politicisation of the judiciary in a way that's truly horrible.
It was a decision which should have been left to state legislators in the first place - and then people would have voted and got laws reflecting their votes. And, yes, that probably means today abortion would be legal in California, and illegal in Texas, and therefore people on both sides of the issue would be unhappy - but we wouldn't see presidential elections where the reason half the voters have for backing their candidate is because they are trying to change the balance of power in the Supreme Court, rather than anything else.
The problem with these claims is that they relate to something ie supermarkets which people go to themselves.
So when they see full shelves in Tesco and ASDA, as I do, then they don't believe in these 'shortages'.
Especially as the 'evidence' that is presented for them is a photo of a individual brand of water sold out in Waitrose.
The number of landlords in the PRS with one property is currently about 45%. With 2-4 is a further 38%. So 83% hold 4 or fewer properties. Which gives context to Phil's skewed misrepresentation the other day about 'a landlord earning 49,000' as a suitable typical example.
G Osborne has sought to professionalise it by ultra-regulation and targeted rather skewed tax increases. For example, a property company or a big beast like L&G can count their financing expenses against tax; a self-employed LL with a house cannot.
On the LL owning 90 properties. So what? LL is running a successful business providing housing services to people. If it is following the law, and is properly licensed etc then that is fine. If 'getting more people in' is being done safely, legitimately and legally then what is the problem? Are those people better off homeless?
Councils make grants available to all kinds of organisations all the time to support the Council objectives. Building Regulations on loft conversions require high standards. Again, what is the problem?
Newham are notorious for their enthusiasm for massive and rather badly targeted regulation, and previously have been notorious for their lack of competence. I hope they have improved.
If the "big 3 bed semis" are not properly licensed etc, then the people running them are criminals, not legitimate landlords. And there is a duty on all of us to report the crimes - either to the police or the relevant council enforcement team.
In this type of case an association with serious crime - such as people trafficking, and exploitation crimes - is likely. Another reason to report it.
If the Council properly regulated the 'HMO situation', then it would be less 'murky'.
Running decent-sized HMOs (6 or more rooms) is something for professional management, not amateurs or self-management. The rules are fearsomely complex.
Clear enough?
By a photo of empty shelves caused by heavy snow in Blyth in 2017:
Credible reporting from a credible source?
(Personally, I suggest that the FDF are bullshitters, and PoliticsHome are either being lazy or incompetent if they did not check.)
Owning somebody else's home creates a negative externality. It is something that should be subject to taxation (like tobacco etc) to deal with the negative externalities, it should not be getting tax advantages.
That's the same whether it's a solo landlord or a major corporation.