"at the moment there is no 5G coverage in your area"
Get two sims into your phone.
Are you on Vodafone or Three?
I have o2 and EE in my phone and between those two I get 5G coverage in most of the big towns and cities.
I have a dual device strategy
My main phone is Vodafone which gets an upgrade in a few weeks. This is my secondary device, which has just been upgraded to 5G and iPhone 13. But no 5G in my area
It's not exactly The Somme, as disasters go
Pointless, your iPhone 13 can take two SIMs, just use that rather than carrying two devices.
I broke my phone right at the start of lockdown, I was without my phone for 4 days, it felt like The Somme for me.
SKS should, in terms of objectivity and truth, of course make it clear what he would do about Ref2 (Scotland) if he needed SNP support to form a government. Which is exactly why he will run a mile away from doing so.
This next GE is going to be about brutal politics, not gentlemanly conduct.
Tax rises? How much will be needed to pay off the debt? What tax rise would make the NHS happy? I don't think we shall hear a lot of non-unicorn policies on those.
"at the moment there is no 5G coverage in your area"
Get two sims into your phone.
Are you on Vodafone or Three?
I have o2 and EE in my phone and between those two I get 5G coverage in most of the big towns and cities.
I have a dual device strategy
My main phone is Vodafone which gets an upgrade in a few weeks. This is my secondary device, which has just been upgraded to 5G and iPhone 13. But no 5G in my area
"at the moment there is no 5G coverage in your area"
Get two sims into your phone.
Are you on Vodafone or Three?
I have o2 and EE in my phone and between those two I get 5G coverage in most of the big towns and cities.
I have a dual device strategy
My main phone is Vodafone which gets an upgrade in a few weeks. This is my secondary device, which has just been upgraded to 5G and iPhone 13. But no 5G in my area
It's not exactly The Somme, as disasters go
Pointless, your iPhone 13 can take two SIMs, just use that rather than carrying two devices.
I broke my phone right at the start of lockdown, I was without my phone for 4 days, it felt like The Somme for me.
Well, you've just explained why I have two phones, two sims and two different networks.
It's a total backup if one phone fucks up. So not exactly "pointless"
"at the moment there is no 5G coverage in your area"
Get two sims into your phone.
Are you on Vodafone or Three?
I have o2 and EE in my phone and between those two I get 5G coverage in most of the big towns and cities.
I have a dual device strategy
My main phone is Vodafone which gets an upgrade in a few weeks. This is my secondary device, which has just been upgraded to 5G and iPhone 13. But no 5G in my area
It's not exactly The Somme, as disasters go
Pointless, your iPhone 13 can take two SIMs, just use that rather than carrying two devices.
I broke my phone right at the start of lockdown, I was without my phone for 4 days, it felt like The Somme for me.
But do the wife SIM and mistress SIM share info that way?
Re the article, in almost all the midlands and north of England there are exactly two relevant parties, except lots of them where there is only one. Leaving aside safe seats those two parties are Labour and Tory. When the government is having a hard time Labour is where you go. There is nowhere else.
Which is why while SKS has no chance of a Labour government in 2023/4, he has as good a chance as the Tories of forming an (alliance) government. As these polls show. I still put it at 40%, but current trends suggest it maybe should be higher.
Labour gain 35, LD gain 12. SNP gain 3. Done.
The SNP would not even give C&S to Labour in that situation. They'd just say to Starmer, OK laddie, off yer go to Downing Street. And then milk every possible amount they could, before slamming the door. The most unstable period in UK governing history would end with a clamour for the Scots to be booted out the Union. They hope.
Or else an election - and a strong new Government with a majority to consign them to oblivion.
To form a stable government Starmer certainly needs Labour to win most seats, agreed, even if not a majority. If Labour has more seats than the Tories he can afford to ignore the SNP as the SNP will not vote with the Tories on most legislation.
If the Tories lose their majority but still have most seats however then Starmer could become PM but the SNP would demand a high price for their support for a Labour minority government, including devomax and indyref2
You are a bright guy. Which of these two do you think the SNP would want from a minority Labour Govt:
a) calm, stable Government for the whole of the UK, such that Starmer can call an early election where he gets a working majority and hence no longer any need of the SNP - or of any further independence referendum: or
b) an absolute shit show?
They will want indyref2, which Starmer will have to give them as they will string him along until he does, unless there is a sudden shift in the polls he would be unlikely to get a working majority from a snap election anyway.
Though I would enjoy the sight of a Starmer government being as pitiful as the May government from 2017-2019 Labour did so much to destroy, poetic justice
In any case the SNP wouldn't vote on English-only matters, so Westminster would be a midden right from the start simply because of that abstention (compare UK vs English matters).
Yes it would be 2 governments, Starmer PM of the UK government but the Tories still effectively governing England and deciding English domestic policy.
The West Lothian question would come to the fore and on current polls it is very possible
Wrong way round. Clue: it'd not be the SNP majority in Scotland fouling up the Westminster Parliament right form the start.
Call it the West Epping Question and you would be getting warmer.
If Boris Johnson or Keir Starmer want my vote and thus a landslide at the next election then they will pass a law allowing drivers run over the insulate Britain types.
I just interviewed Roger Hallam, co-founder of Extinction Rebellion.
Discussing the incident of the Insulate Britain protesters blocking a woman in tears trying to get to a hospital - he says he’d do the same.
In a way I respect him for admitting that. If you only think a mild disruption that doesn't do more than annoy some people is enough then perhaps the issue is not all that serious. "I'm prepared to contribute to people dying as a result of my actions" at least shows he probably believes in what he says, even if he's nutty.
I don't. It shows fundamental delusion and illogic.
They do not even have a factual understanding of the issue over which they are willing to cause innocent and vulnerable people to die.
They belong behind bars, though there is a debate as to whether it should be a prison cell or a padded cell.
If Boris Johnson or Keir Starmer want my vote and thus a landslide at the next election then they will pass a law allowing drivers run over the insulate Britain types.
I just interviewed Roger Hallam, co-founder of Extinction Rebellion.
Discussing the incident of the Insulate Britain protesters blocking a woman in tears trying to get to a hospital - he says he’d do the same.
In a way I respect him for admitting that. If you only think a mild disruption that doesn't do more than annoy some people is enough then perhaps the issue is not all that serious. "I'm prepared to contribute to people dying as a result of my actions" at least shows he probably believes in what he says, even if he's nutty.
But the green lobby has won. Action is being taken. COP26 will speed that up. The govt does help to fund insulation. My walls had free cavity wall insulation thanks to the govt.
The vast majority accept we need action.
We are moving away from the petrol engine and the gas boiler. In ten years time these will be things of the past from the point of view of mass manufacture and purchase.
Never mind Whatsapp and the rest of FB being down, they are also overloading a lot of DNS servers as umpteen sites (including this one, presumably) link to FB. It is severely impacting my betting (or it was till I changed DNS servers).
"at the moment there is no 5G coverage in your area"
Get two sims into your phone.
Are you on Vodafone or Three?
I have o2 and EE in my phone and between those two I get 5G coverage in most of the big towns and cities.
I have a dual device strategy
My main phone is Vodafone which gets an upgrade in a few weeks. This is my secondary device, which has just been upgraded to 5G and iPhone 13. But no 5G in my area
It's not exactly The Somme, as disasters go
Why do you need two phones?
The question rather is how he manages with only two, given the number of identities he has to juggle?
If Boris Johnson or Keir Starmer want my vote and thus a landslide at the next election then they will pass a law allowing drivers run over the insulate Britain types.
I just interviewed Roger Hallam, co-founder of Extinction Rebellion.
Discussing the incident of the Insulate Britain protesters blocking a woman in tears trying to get to a hospital - he says he’d do the same.
In a way I respect him for admitting that. If you only think a mild disruption that doesn't do more than annoy some people is enough then perhaps the issue is not all that serious. "I'm prepared to contribute to people dying as a result of my actions" at least shows he probably believes in what he says, even if he's nutty.
But the green lobby has won. Action is being taken. COP26 will speed that up. The govt does help to fund insulation. My walls had free cavity wall insulation thanks to the govt.
The vast majority accept we need action.
We are moving away from the petrol engine and the gas boiler. In ten years time these will be things of the past from the point of view of mass manufacture and purchase.
XR are fanatics. You can never Appease fanatics.
No you cannot. And by admitting he would contribute to people's deaths in pursuit of his aims, rather than attempt to sugarcoat it or pretend he thinks otherwise, people can see just how fanatical he is.
Re the article, in almost all the midlands and north of England there are exactly two relevant parties, except lots of them where there is only one. Leaving aside safe seats those two parties are Labour and Tory. When the government is having a hard time Labour is where you go. There is nowhere else.
Which is why while SKS has no chance of a Labour government in 2023/4, he has as good a chance as the Tories of forming an (alliance) government. As these polls show. I still put it at 40%, but current trends suggest it maybe should be higher.
Labour gain 35, LD gain 12. SNP gain 3. Done.
The SNP would not even give C&S to Labour in that situation. They'd just say to Starmer, OK laddie, off yer go to Downing Street. And then milk every possible amount they could, before slamming the door. The most unstable period in UK governing history would end with a clamour for the Scots to be booted out the Union. They hope.
Or else an election - and a strong new Government with a majority to consign them to oblivion.
To form a stable government Starmer certainly needs Labour to win most seats, agreed, even if not a majority. If Labour has more seats than the Tories he can afford to ignore the SNP as the SNP will not vote with the Tories on most legislation.
If the Tories lose their majority but still have most seats however then Starmer could become PM but the SNP would demand a high price for their support for a Labour minority government, including devomax and indyref2
You are a bright guy. Which of these two do you think the SNP would want from a minority Labour Govt:
a) calm, stable Government for the whole of the UK, such that Starmer can call an early election where he gets a working majority and hence no longer any need of the SNP - or of any further independence referendum: or
b) an absolute shit show?
They will want indyref2, which Starmer will have to give them as they will string him along until he does, unless there is a sudden shift in the polls he would be unlikely to get a working majority from a snap election anyway.
Though I would enjoy the sight of a Starmer government being as pitiful as the May government from 2017-2019 Labour did so much to destroy, poetic justice
In any case the SNP wouldn't vote on English-only matters, so Westminster would be a midden right from the start simply because of that abstention (compare UK vs English matters).
Yes it would be 2 governments, Starmer PM of the UK government but the Tories still effectively governing England and deciding English domestic policy.
The West Lothian question would come to the fore and on current polls it is very possible
Wrong way round. Clue: it'd not be the SNP majority in Scotland fouling up the Westminster Parliament right form the start.
Call it the West Epping Question and you would be getting warmer.
Well given Blair never created an English Parliament when he gave the other 3 home nations their own Parliaments and Assemblies what did he expect would happen once there eventually ended up a scenario of a Tory majority in England but a Labour led government across the UK ?
"at the moment there is no 5G coverage in your area"
Get two sims into your phone.
Are you on Vodafone or Three?
I have o2 and EE in my phone and between those two I get 5G coverage in most of the big towns and cities.
I have a dual device strategy
My main phone is Vodafone which gets an upgrade in a few weeks. This is my secondary device, which has just been upgraded to 5G and iPhone 13. But no 5G in my area
It's not exactly The Somme, as disasters go
Why do you need two phones?
The question rather is how he manages with only two, given the number of identities he has to juggle?
The other identities may have their own phones too!
Re the article, in almost all the midlands and north of England there are exactly two relevant parties, except lots of them where there is only one. Leaving aside safe seats those two parties are Labour and Tory. When the government is having a hard time Labour is where you go. There is nowhere else.
Which is why while SKS has no chance of a Labour government in 2023/4, he has as good a chance as the Tories of forming an (alliance) government. As these polls show. I still put it at 40%, but current trends suggest it maybe should be higher.
Labour gain 35, LD gain 12. SNP gain 3. Done.
The SNP would not even give C&S to Labour in that situation. They'd just say to Starmer, OK laddie, off yer go to Downing Street. And then milk every possible amount they could, before slamming the door. The most unstable period in UK governing history would end with a clamour for the Scots to be booted out the Union. They hope.
Or else an election - and a strong new Government with a majority to consign them to oblivion.
To form a stable government Starmer certainly needs Labour to win most seats, agreed, even if not a majority. If Labour has more seats than the Tories he can afford to ignore the SNP as the SNP will not vote with the Tories on most legislation.
If the Tories lose their majority but still have most seats however then Starmer could become PM but the SNP would demand a high price for their support for a Labour minority government, including devomax and indyref2
You are a bright guy. Which of these two do you think the SNP would want from a minority Labour Govt:
a) calm, stable Government for the whole of the UK, such that Starmer can call an early election where he gets a working majority and hence no longer any need of the SNP - or of any further independence referendum: or
b) an absolute shit show?
They will want indyref2, which Starmer will have to give them, unless there is a sudden shift in the polls he would be unlikely to get a working majority from a snap election anyway
If Labour looked like they had left behind Corbyn and his nutty followers and were indeed something much more akin to Blair's New Labour, then I don't see why a majority would be at all unlikely. It would partly depend on whether the Tories went bat-shit crazy and booted Boris for Nadine, but Labour in power and looking sensible - I reckon folk would vote to continue that.
IndyRef 2 that sees Scotland depart might not be such a good look for Labour - especially if they then faced a Tory Party with a majority of seats. Labour therefore needs to win more seats than the Tories, IMHO.
If Labour had to give the SNP indyref2 as they were second on seats in a hung parliament and even despite a devomax offer etc then Scotland voted Yes then once SNP MPs left the Commons, the Tories would automatically return to government without a general election as they would almost certainly have a majority in rUK
Which is why I say Labour needs more seats than the Tories. Or else the SNP will know Labour won't deliver on indyref 2. To go back into Opposition???
Only if Labour lose indyref2, Starmer will believe he can win indyref2 with devomax, he will have to to get SNP support to become PM
Starmer might want to talk to Cameron about referendum unpredictability.....
"at the moment there is no 5G coverage in your area"
Get two sims into your phone.
Are you on Vodafone or Three?
I have o2 and EE in my phone and between those two I get 5G coverage in most of the big towns and cities.
I have a dual device strategy
My main phone is Vodafone which gets an upgrade in a few weeks. This is my secondary device, which has just been upgraded to 5G and iPhone 13. But no 5G in my area
It's not exactly The Somme, as disasters go
Pointless, your iPhone 13 can take two SIMs, just use that rather than carrying two devices.
I broke my phone right at the start of lockdown, I was without my phone for 4 days, it felt like The Somme for me.
But do the wife SIM and mistress SIM share info that way?
Re the article, in almost all the midlands and north of England there are exactly two relevant parties, except lots of them where there is only one. Leaving aside safe seats those two parties are Labour and Tory. When the government is having a hard time Labour is where you go. There is nowhere else.
Which is why while SKS has no chance of a Labour government in 2023/4, he has as good a chance as the Tories of forming an (alliance) government. As these polls show. I still put it at 40%, but current trends suggest it maybe should be higher.
Labour gain 35, LD gain 12. SNP gain 3. Done.
The SNP would not even give C&S to Labour in that situation. They'd just say to Starmer, OK laddie, off yer go to Downing Street. And then milk every possible amount they could, before slamming the door. The most unstable period in UK governing history would end with a clamour for the Scots to be booted out the Union. They hope.
Or else an election - and a strong new Government with a majority to consign them to oblivion.
To form a stable government Starmer certainly needs Labour to win most seats, agreed, even if not a majority. If Labour has more seats than the Tories he can afford to ignore the SNP as the SNP will not vote with the Tories on most legislation.
If the Tories lose their majority but still have most seats however then Starmer could become PM but the SNP would demand a high price for their support for a Labour minority government, including devomax and indyref2
You are a bright guy. Which of these two do you think the SNP would want from a minority Labour Govt:
a) calm, stable Government for the whole of the UK, such that Starmer can call an early election where he gets a working majority and hence no longer any need of the SNP - or of any further independence referendum: or
b) an absolute shit show?
They will want indyref2, which Starmer will have to give them as they will string him along until he does, unless there is a sudden shift in the polls he would be unlikely to get a working majority from a snap election anyway.
Though I would enjoy the sight of a Starmer government being as pitiful as the May government from 2017-2019 Labour did so much to destroy, poetic justice
In any case the SNP wouldn't vote on English-only matters, so Westminster would be a midden right from the start simply because of that abstention (compare UK vs English matters).
Yes it would be 2 governments, Starmer PM of the UK government but the Tories still effectively governing England and deciding English domestic policy.
The West Lothian question would come to the fore and on current polls it is very possible
Wrong way round. Clue: it'd not be the SNP majority in Scotland fouling up the Westminster Parliament right form the start.
Call it the West Epping Question and you would be getting warmer.
Well given Blair never created an English Parliament when he gave the other 3 home nations their own Parliaments and Assemblies what did he expect would happen once there eventually ended up a scenario of a Tory majority in England but a Labour led government across the UK ?
The English Tories should just obey the elected UK government?
"at the moment there is no 5G coverage in your area"
Get two sims into your phone.
Are you on Vodafone or Three?
I have o2 and EE in my phone and between those two I get 5G coverage in most of the big towns and cities.
I have a dual device strategy
My main phone is Vodafone which gets an upgrade in a few weeks. This is my secondary device, which has just been upgraded to 5G and iPhone 13. But no 5G in my area
It's not exactly The Somme, as disasters go
Pointless, your iPhone 13 can take two SIMs, just use that rather than carrying two devices.
I broke my phone right at the start of lockdown, I was without my phone for 4 days, it felt like The Somme for me.
Well, you've just explained why I have two phones, two sims and two different networks.
It's a total backup if one phone fucks up. So not exactly "pointless"
Do what I do.
Keep an old iPhone in a draw and back up to cloud on a regular basis.
Re the article, in almost all the midlands and north of England there are exactly two relevant parties, except lots of them where there is only one. Leaving aside safe seats those two parties are Labour and Tory. When the government is having a hard time Labour is where you go. There is nowhere else.
Which is why while SKS has no chance of a Labour government in 2023/4, he has as good a chance as the Tories of forming an (alliance) government. As these polls show. I still put it at 40%, but current trends suggest it maybe should be higher.
Labour gain 35, LD gain 12. SNP gain 3. Done.
The SNP would not even give C&S to Labour in that situation. They'd just say to Starmer, OK laddie, off yer go to Downing Street. And then milk every possible amount they could, before slamming the door. The most unstable period in UK governing history would end with a clamour for the Scots to be booted out the Union. They hope.
Or else an election - and a strong new Government with a majority to consign them to oblivion.
To form a stable government Starmer certainly needs Labour to win most seats, agreed, even if not a majority. If Labour has more seats than the Tories he can afford to ignore the SNP as the SNP will not vote with the Tories on most legislation.
If the Tories lose their majority but still have most seats however then Starmer could become PM but the SNP would demand a high price for their support for a Labour minority government, including devomax and indyref2
You are a bright guy. Which of these two do you think the SNP would want from a minority Labour Govt:
a) calm, stable Government for the whole of the UK, such that Starmer can call an early election where he gets a working majority and hence no longer any need of the SNP - or of any further independence referendum: or
b) an absolute shit show?
They will want indyref2, which Starmer will have to give them as they will string him along until he does, unless there is a sudden shift in the polls he would be unlikely to get a working majority from a snap election anyway.
Though I would enjoy the sight of a Starmer government being as pitiful as the May government from 2017-2019 Labour did so much to destroy, poetic justice
In any case the SNP wouldn't vote on English-only matters, so Westminster would be a midden right from the start simply because of that abstention (compare UK vs English matters).
Yes it would be 2 governments, Starmer PM of the UK government but the Tories still effectively governing England and deciding English domestic policy.
The West Lothian question would come to the fore and on current polls it is very possible
Wrong way round. Clue: it'd not be the SNP majority in Scotland fouling up the Westminster Parliament right form the start.
Call it the West Epping Question and you would be getting warmer.
Well given Blair never created an English Parliament when he gave the other 3 home nations their own Parliaments and Assemblies what did he expect would happen once there eventually ended up a scenario of a Tory majority in England but a Labour led government across the UK ?
I note that Brown, Cameron, May, and Johnson have also not created an English parliament.
FPT @Selebian. I think you're blind to the issue here - I'll highlight two main points the article makes:
(1) "In a recent report on academic freedom in the U.S., the U.K., and Canada for the Center for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology, I found that 40 percent of American academics would not hire a known Trump supporter, and 33 percent of British academics would avoid hiring a known Brexit supporter. When it comes to refereeing papers, grant bids, and promotion applications, my own work and that of others indicates that the likelihood of an academic’s discriminating against an openly conservative submission is as high as 45 percent. On a four-person panel, that makes discrimination a near certainty."
(2) "In the 1960s there were only one and a half journalists and academics on the left for every one on the right. Today that ratio is between four to one and six to one, and considerably higher among political journalists and social-science and humanities academics. In a report on academia for the Manhattan Institute, I noted that left-leaning social-science and humanities academics now outnumber those on the right in Britain by nine to one, and in the U.S. by 14 to one. Work by Mitchell Langbert using voter-registration data for the top liberal-arts colleges and universities (for five disciplines) also shows lopsided ratios. At Harvard, for instance, a recent inquiry reported a $250-to-$1 Democrat-to-Republican donation ratio among the staff."
It's not enough for there to be "legal" protections - hard to access, prove and leverage - because an institutional culture of intolerance creates an environment that is suffocating to those already employed and inhibits any future recruitment to correct it. This means even fewer conservatives apply in the first place and thus reinforces a monoculture.
Those that are employed (like my friend at the University of Bath, for example, or me at the Woke firm I've just left) "fear losing (their) job or missing out on job opportunities if (their) political views became known.” And so, as in authoritarian regimes, dissenters keep their views to themselves through preference falsification. This has been precisely my experience.
It's a problem for all of us because these institutions form a large part of our civic society - arbitrating between the citizen and the state - and thus contributes to polarisation within it.
It needs to be addressed.
The website would only let me read the opening few paragraphs of the article, sadly, but the overall tone struck me as dishonest. It started with this dramatic statistic from the dating site, then extrapolated this to discrimination in hiring, despite these being completely different and indeed unrelated things (for instance, I wouldn't date a man but I would hire one). In my own field of economics there is a range of political views. In academia there is a left wing skew, in markets there is a right wing skew. This seems entirely understandable when you think of the likely difference in motivations and values between the two industries. Academia has got more left wing over the years, but then it has also become much worse paid, in relative terms, and those facts are probably related (we might argue over the direction of causation!). As a left wing person working in the markets I don't complain about the dearth of ideological soulmates, I don't know why right wing academics are so snowflakey about it. I have collaborated in academic research with people of various political stripes including Conservative US Republicans. In my experience, research with a clear ideological skew, left or right, is most likely bad research. The goal should be uncovering the truth, not advancing an agenda. Of course, if I were an ideological hack flogging policy-based evidence-making I might feel like I was getting discriminated when my research got rejected by top journals - but the likelihood is that the research was just bad. I do recall attending a very right-leaning conference where there was a lot of moaning about the Liberal bias in US academia, but the conference was lavishly funded by Conservative benefactors and hosted at a top Ivy League school so the whole complaint rang a little hollow to me. It had a strong whiff of privileges being defended.
There's some good points in here - including your admirable acknowledgement that research with a clear ideological skew is poor research - but why is your first instinct to attack Eric Kauffman's honesty?
He's a respected Canadian Academic (of mixed Chinese, Hispanic and European ancestry) working in a British university. He cited a variety of studies in making his points, and they're all respectable ones.
We need to get past the ad hominum into the specifics. Far too many of the responses to articles like this run along the lines of "he's making it up" and "I don't see any of this, so it can't be true".
What I'm interested in is everyone feeling able and willing to discuss their views and differences openly. That has to start with less prejudgement, more listening, and more forgiveness, and it's that I'm interested in.
It's the only way to confine polarisation to the fringes where it belongs, rather than it being part of the mainstream, and we have to work harder and harder at it in the social media age, not less.
All great points but I think you cut too much slack to Trumpery. It shouldn't be viewed like, say, being a Tory, a Brexiter, a social democrat, a "classic liberal", a small state libertarian, or whatever. He's a hate monger and those who lap that up can't expect it not to be held against them by those who don't.
I would judge Trump very differently from one of his voters, who include plenty of ordinary Americans, and give them the benefit of the doubt.
Of course lots of decent people voted for him. This must be the case given the numbers. Nevertheless he has colonized the Republican party, which is both chastening and frightening to somebody like me who takes a broadly sunny-side-up view of humanity, so I'm afraid I'm the other way around to you in that I'd be a touch wary of a person who I know voted for him until I get some evidence they did it reluctantly and despite the hate he throws out and for want of (in their eyes) a viable alternative. Pls note I do NOT feel this way about Leavers and Tories etc. It's a Trump thing.
So, in your eyes they are guilty until proven innocent?
Charming.
The reason you might not feel that way about Leavers and Tories is because you've been engaging with so many of us on here for so long that you realise the world isn't that simple.
That's precisely my point.
From my point of view I can see rational reasons for voting Tory and although many who voted leave I think did so for irrational* reasons, there are clearly many who did for completely rational reasons.
It is difficult to see any rational reason for voting for Trump, which is why the scale of his vote is so scary.
* Two of my favourites from personal conversations were: There are too many 'coloureds' here already and the criminal gangs are all Albanian.
If you were living in small town Hicksville, Flyover State in 2016, and had seen either a) your wages remain static since the previous century while the millionaires on the coast became billionaires, and/or b) the only major employer in your town decamp elsewhere while more and more of the stuff you used to make get imported from China and/or c) the social fabric of your town fraying, do you vote for a) more of the same, in the person and party of a candidate who appears to view you and your ilk as at best something of an embarrassment, or b) Trump? I don't like the man. But I can see why people voted for him.
I actually understand voting for Trump more than voting for Brexit. In that the US in 2016 was clearly a broken society failing the majority of its citizens, as evident in phenomena like falling life expectancy and the opioid epidemic. I don't think the UK was experiencing the same level of political failure and social fracture before 2016. Although, interestingly, it seems to be now!
I can understand someone voting Trump or Brexit.
Doesn’t mean I want to employ, date, or consort with such.
It's interesting you say you wouldn't want to employ them, which is precisely the point I made on this thread and the previous thread that @Selebian said would never happen and I'd made up.
Re the article, in almost all the midlands and north of England there are exactly two relevant parties, except lots of them where there is only one. Leaving aside safe seats those two parties are Labour and Tory. When the government is having a hard time Labour is where you go. There is nowhere else.
Which is why while SKS has no chance of a Labour government in 2023/4, he has as good a chance as the Tories of forming an (alliance) government. As these polls show. I still put it at 40%, but current trends suggest it maybe should be higher.
Labour gain 35, LD gain 12. SNP gain 3. Done.
The SNP would not even give C&S to Labour in that situation. They'd just say to Starmer, OK laddie, off yer go to Downing Street. And then milk every possible amount they could, before slamming the door. The most unstable period in UK governing history would end with a clamour for the Scots to be booted out the Union. They hope.
Or else an election - and a strong new Government with a majority to consign them to oblivion.
To form a stable government Starmer certainly needs Labour to win most seats, agreed, even if not a majority. If Labour has more seats than the Tories he can afford to ignore the SNP as the SNP will not vote with the Tories on most legislation.
If the Tories lose their majority but still have most seats however then Starmer could become PM but the SNP would demand a high price for their support for a Labour minority government, including devomax and indyref2
You are a bright guy. Which of these two do you think the SNP would want from a minority Labour Govt:
a) calm, stable Government for the whole of the UK, such that Starmer can call an early election where he gets a working majority and hence no longer any need of the SNP - or of any further independence referendum: or
b) an absolute shit show?
They will want indyref2, which Starmer will have to give them as they will string him along until he does, unless there is a sudden shift in the polls he would be unlikely to get a working majority from a snap election anyway.
Though I would enjoy the sight of a Starmer government being as pitiful as the May government from 2017-2019 Labour did so much to destroy, poetic justice
In any case the SNP wouldn't vote on English-only matters, so Westminster would be a midden right from the start simply because of that abstention (compare UK vs English matters).
Yes it would be 2 governments, Starmer PM of the UK government but the Tories still effectively governing England and deciding English domestic policy.
The West Lothian question would come to the fore and on current polls it is very possible
Wrong way round. Clue: it'd not be the SNP majority in Scotland fouling up the Westminster Parliament right form the start.
Call it the West Epping Question and you would be getting warmer.
Well given Blair never created an English Parliament when he gave the other 3 home nations their own Parliaments and Assemblies what did he expect would happen once there eventually ended up a scenario of a Tory majority in England but a Labour led government across the UK ?
I note that Brown, Cameron, May, and Johnson have also not created an English parliament.
And Mr Clegg. In the Coalition. Which spent time faffing around with that northern assembly business.
FPT @Selebian. I think you're blind to the issue here - I'll highlight two main points the article makes:
(1) "In a recent report on academic freedom in the U.S., the U.K., and Canada for the Center for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology, I found that 40 percent of American academics would not hire a known Trump supporter, and 33 percent of British academics would avoid hiring a known Brexit supporter. When it comes to refereeing papers, grant bids, and promotion applications, my own work and that of others indicates that the likelihood of an academic’s discriminating against an openly conservative submission is as high as 45 percent. On a four-person panel, that makes discrimination a near certainty."
(2) "In the 1960s there were only one and a half journalists and academics on the left for every one on the right. Today that ratio is between four to one and six to one, and considerably higher among political journalists and social-science and humanities academics. In a report on academia for the Manhattan Institute, I noted that left-leaning social-science and humanities academics now outnumber those on the right in Britain by nine to one, and in the U.S. by 14 to one. Work by Mitchell Langbert using voter-registration data for the top liberal-arts colleges and universities (for five disciplines) also shows lopsided ratios. At Harvard, for instance, a recent inquiry reported a $250-to-$1 Democrat-to-Republican donation ratio among the staff."
It's not enough for there to be "legal" protections - hard to access, prove and leverage - because an institutional culture of intolerance creates an environment that is suffocating to those already employed and inhibits any future recruitment to correct it. This means even fewer conservatives apply in the first place and thus reinforces a monoculture.
Those that are employed (like my friend at the University of Bath, for example, or me at the Woke firm I've just left) "fear losing (their) job or missing out on job opportunities if (their) political views became known.” And so, as in authoritarian regimes, dissenters keep their views to themselves through preference falsification. This has been precisely my experience.
It's a problem for all of us because these institutions form a large part of our civic society - arbitrating between the citizen and the state - and thus contributes to polarisation within it.
It needs to be addressed.
The website would only let me read the opening few paragraphs of the article, sadly, but the overall tone struck me as dishonest. It started with this dramatic statistic from the dating site, then extrapolated this to discrimination in hiring, despite these being completely different and indeed unrelated things (for instance, I wouldn't date a man but I would hire one). In my own field of economics there is a range of political views. In academia there is a left wing skew, in markets there is a right wing skew. This seems entirely understandable when you think of the likely difference in motivations and values between the two industries. Academia has got more left wing over the years, but then it has also become much worse paid, in relative terms, and those facts are probably related (we might argue over the direction of causation!). As a left wing person working in the markets I don't complain about the dearth of ideological soulmates, I don't know why right wing academics are so snowflakey about it. I have collaborated in academic research with people of various political stripes including Conservative US Republicans. In my experience, research with a clear ideological skew, left or right, is most likely bad research. The goal should be uncovering the truth, not advancing an agenda. Of course, if I were an ideological hack flogging policy-based evidence-making I might feel like I was getting discriminated when my research got rejected by top journals - but the likelihood is that the research was just bad. I do recall attending a very right-leaning conference where there was a lot of moaning about the Liberal bias in US academia, but the conference was lavishly funded by Conservative benefactors and hosted at a top Ivy League school so the whole complaint rang a little hollow to me. It had a strong whiff of privileges being defended.
There's some good points in here - including your admirable acknowledgement that research with a clear ideological skew is poor research - but why is your first instinct to attack Eric Kauffman's honesty?
He's a respected Canadian Academic (of mixed Chinese, Hispanic and European ancestry) working in a British university. He cited a variety of studies in making his points, and they're all respectable ones.
We need to get past the ad hominum into the specifics. Far too many of the responses to articles like this run along the lines of "he's making it up" and "I don't see any of this, so it can't be true".
What I'm interested in is everyone feeling able and willing to discuss their views and differences openly. That has to start with less prejudgement, more listening, and more forgiveness, and it's that I'm interested in.
It's the only way to confine polarisation to the fringes where it belongs, rather than it being part of the mainstream, and we have to work harder and harder at it in the social media age, not less.
All great points but I think you cut too much slack to Trumpery. It shouldn't be viewed like, say, being a Tory, a Brexiter, a social democrat, a "classic liberal", a small state libertarian, or whatever. He's a hate monger and those who lap that up can't expect it not to be held against them by those who don't.
I would judge Trump very differently from one of his voters, who include plenty of ordinary Americans, and give them the benefit of the doubt.
Of course lots of decent people voted for him. This must be the case given the numbers. Nevertheless he has colonized the Republican party, which is both chastening and frightening to somebody like me who takes a broadly sunny-side-up view of humanity, so I'm afraid I'm the other way around to you in that I'd be a touch wary of a person who I know voted for him until I get some evidence they did it reluctantly and despite the hate he throws out and for want of (in their eyes) a viable alternative. Pls note I do NOT feel this way about Leavers and Tories etc. It's a Trump thing.
So, in your eyes they are guilty until proven innocent?
Charming.
The reason you might not feel that way about Leavers and Tories is because you've been engaging with so many of us on here for so long that you realise the world isn't that simple.
That's precisely my point.
I'm not sending them to jail or anything. All I'm doing is applying the evidence of my eyes & ears to a hypothetical real life situation. I've tracked Donald Trump closely for years. I see and hear what he puts out. I know the buttons he seeks to press, the fancies he seeks to tickle, and they are not my buttons, not my fancies. Worse, they are buttons and fancies I find abhorrent. It's not a matter of honest disagreement, it's a complete disconnect. So if I meet somebody who I know voted for Trump, I will deduce that it's likely they are (to put it mildly) not my cup of tea. I'll be going in with a negative expectation. That's rational. I've observed lots of Trumpers, seen the footage, the vox pops, the tv debates, read the articles and the social media posts, and they don't tend to surprise. But - key point - I am open to being surprised. If ever I do meet one in the flesh. I'll quiz them robustly but fairly on why they voted as they did and I'll come to a view.
But, that's your problem not theirs - you are projecting Trump's personality and character onto them rather than getting to know them and their motivations.
Re the article, in almost all the midlands and north of England there are exactly two relevant parties, except lots of them where there is only one. Leaving aside safe seats those two parties are Labour and Tory. When the government is having a hard time Labour is where you go. There is nowhere else.
Which is why while SKS has no chance of a Labour government in 2023/4, he has as good a chance as the Tories of forming an (alliance) government. As these polls show. I still put it at 40%, but current trends suggest it maybe should be higher.
Labour gain 35, LD gain 12. SNP gain 3. Done.
The SNP would not even give C&S to Labour in that situation. They'd just say to Starmer, OK laddie, off yer go to Downing Street. And then milk every possible amount they could, before slamming the door. The most unstable period in UK governing history would end with a clamour for the Scots to be booted out the Union. They hope.
Or else an election - and a strong new Government with a majority to consign them to oblivion.
To form a stable government Starmer certainly needs Labour to win most seats, agreed, even if not a majority. If Labour has more seats than the Tories he can afford to ignore the SNP as the SNP will not vote with the Tories on most legislation.
If the Tories lose their majority but still have most seats however then Starmer could become PM but the SNP would demand a high price for their support for a Labour minority government, including devomax and indyref2
You are a bright guy. Which of these two do you think the SNP would want from a minority Labour Govt:
a) calm, stable Government for the whole of the UK, such that Starmer can call an early election where he gets a working majority and hence no longer any need of the SNP - or of any further independence referendum: or
b) an absolute shit show?
They will want indyref2, which Starmer will have to give them as they will string him along until he does, unless there is a sudden shift in the polls he would be unlikely to get a working majority from a snap election anyway.
Though I would enjoy the sight of a Starmer government being as pitiful as the May government from 2017-2019 Labour did so much to destroy, poetic justice
In any case the SNP wouldn't vote on English-only matters, so Westminster would be a midden right from the start simply because of that abstention (compare UK vs English matters).
Yes it would be 2 governments, Starmer PM of the UK government but the Tories still effectively governing England and deciding English domestic policy.
The West Lothian question would come to the fore and on current polls it is very possible
Wrong way round. Clue: it'd not be the SNP majority in Scotland fouling up the Westminster Parliament right form the start.
Call it the West Epping Question and you would be getting warmer.
Well given Blair never created an English Parliament when he gave the other 3 home nations their own Parliaments and Assemblies what did he expect would happen once there eventually ended up a scenario of a Tory majority in England but a Labour led government across the UK ?
I note that Brown, Cameron, May, and Johnson have also not created an English parliament.
And Mr Clegg. In the Coalition. Which spent time faffing around with that northern assembly business.
That was Labour wasn't it? The Coalition faffed about with Mayoralties, even when places didn't want them.
@newtgingrich · 31s With China sending 145 war planes over Taiwan air space(52 in one day) both the United States and Japan should send military advisory groups to review what weapons and support Taiwan would need to defeat a Chinese invasion or blockade. Equipment should follow on a rush basis.
Re the article, in almost all the midlands and north of England there are exactly two relevant parties, except lots of them where there is only one. Leaving aside safe seats those two parties are Labour and Tory. When the government is having a hard time Labour is where you go. There is nowhere else.
Which is why while SKS has no chance of a Labour government in 2023/4, he has as good a chance as the Tories of forming an (alliance) government. As these polls show. I still put it at 40%, but current trends suggest it maybe should be higher.
Labour gain 35, LD gain 12. SNP gain 3. Done.
The SNP would not even give C&S to Labour in that situation. They'd just say to Starmer, OK laddie, off yer go to Downing Street. And then milk every possible amount they could, before slamming the door. The most unstable period in UK governing history would end with a clamour for the Scots to be booted out the Union. They hope.
Or else an election - and a strong new Government with a majority to consign them to oblivion.
To form a stable government Starmer certainly needs Labour to win most seats, agreed, even if not a majority. If Labour has more seats than the Tories he can afford to ignore the SNP as the SNP will not vote with the Tories on most legislation.
If the Tories lose their majority but still have most seats however then Starmer could become PM but the SNP would demand a high price for their support for a Labour minority government, including devomax and indyref2
You are a bright guy. Which of these two do you think the SNP would want from a minority Labour Govt:
a) calm, stable Government for the whole of the UK, such that Starmer can call an early election where he gets a working majority and hence no longer any need of the SNP - or of any further independence referendum: or
b) an absolute shit show?
They will want indyref2, which Starmer will have to give them as they will string him along until he does, unless there is a sudden shift in the polls he would be unlikely to get a working majority from a snap election anyway.
Though I would enjoy the sight of a Starmer government being as pitiful as the May government from 2017-2019 Labour did so much to destroy, poetic justice
In any case the SNP wouldn't vote on English-only matters, so Westminster would be a midden right from the start simply because of that abstention (compare UK vs English matters).
Yes it would be 2 governments, Starmer PM of the UK government but the Tories still effectively governing England and deciding English domestic policy.
The West Lothian question would come to the fore and on current polls it is very possible
Wrong way round. Clue: it'd not be the SNP majority in Scotland fouling up the Westminster Parliament right form the start.
Call it the West Epping Question and you would be getting warmer.
Well given Blair never created an English Parliament when he gave the other 3 home nations their own Parliaments and Assemblies what did he expect would happen once there eventually ended up a scenario of a Tory majority in England but a Labour led government across the UK ?
I note that Brown, Cameron, May, and Johnson have also not created an English parliament.
No and they should have done but it is Blair who gets most of the blame as he created the devolution arrangements we have now
Re the article, in almost all the midlands and north of England there are exactly two relevant parties, except lots of them where there is only one. Leaving aside safe seats those two parties are Labour and Tory. When the government is having a hard time Labour is where you go. There is nowhere else.
Which is why while SKS has no chance of a Labour government in 2023/4, he has as good a chance as the Tories of forming an (alliance) government. As these polls show. I still put it at 40%, but current trends suggest it maybe should be higher.
Labour gain 35, LD gain 12. SNP gain 3. Done.
The SNP would not even give C&S to Labour in that situation. They'd just say to Starmer, OK laddie, off yer go to Downing Street. And then milk every possible amount they could, before slamming the door. The most unstable period in UK governing history would end with a clamour for the Scots to be booted out the Union. They hope.
Or else an election - and a strong new Government with a majority to consign them to oblivion.
To form a stable government Starmer certainly needs Labour to win most seats, agreed, even if not a majority. If Labour has more seats than the Tories he can afford to ignore the SNP as the SNP will not vote with the Tories on most legislation.
If the Tories lose their majority but still have most seats however then Starmer could become PM but the SNP would demand a high price for their support for a Labour minority government, including devomax and indyref2
You are a bright guy. Which of these two do you think the SNP would want from a minority Labour Govt:
a) calm, stable Government for the whole of the UK, such that Starmer can call an early election where he gets a working majority and hence no longer any need of the SNP - or of any further independence referendum: or
b) an absolute shit show?
They will want indyref2, which Starmer will have to give them as they will string him along until he does, unless there is a sudden shift in the polls he would be unlikely to get a working majority from a snap election anyway.
Though I would enjoy the sight of a Starmer government being as pitiful as the May government from 2017-2019 Labour did so much to destroy, poetic justice
In any case the SNP wouldn't vote on English-only matters, so Westminster would be a midden right from the start simply because of that abstention (compare UK vs English matters).
Yes it would be 2 governments, Starmer PM of the UK government but the Tories still effectively governing England and deciding English domestic policy.
The West Lothian question would come to the fore and on current polls it is very possible
Wrong way round. Clue: it'd not be the SNP majority in Scotland fouling up the Westminster Parliament right form the start.
Call it the West Epping Question and you would be getting warmer.
Well given Blair never created an English Parliament when he gave the other 3 home nations their own Parliaments and Assemblies what did he expect would happen once there eventually ended up a scenario of a Tory majority in England but a Labour led government across the UK ?
I note that Brown, Cameron, May, and Johnson have also not created an English parliament.
And Mr Clegg. In the Coalition. Which spent time faffing around with that northern assembly business.
That was Labour wasn't it?
Yes, sorry! I was muddling dates with the AV referendum. But at least I recalled the LDs were messing around with ther constitution in coalition. Jus\t not the right bit ...
Re the article, in almost all the midlands and north of England there are exactly two relevant parties, except lots of them where there is only one. Leaving aside safe seats those two parties are Labour and Tory. When the government is having a hard time Labour is where you go. There is nowhere else.
Which is why while SKS has no chance of a Labour government in 2023/4, he has as good a chance as the Tories of forming an (alliance) government. As these polls show. I still put it at 40%, but current trends suggest it maybe should be higher.
Labour gain 35, LD gain 12. SNP gain 3. Done.
The SNP would not even give C&S to Labour in that situation. They'd just say to Starmer, OK laddie, off yer go to Downing Street. And then milk every possible amount they could, before slamming the door. The most unstable period in UK governing history would end with a clamour for the Scots to be booted out the Union. They hope.
Or else an election - and a strong new Government with a majority to consign them to oblivion.
To form a stable government Starmer certainly needs Labour to win most seats, agreed, even if not a majority. If Labour has more seats than the Tories he can afford to ignore the SNP as the SNP will not vote with the Tories on most legislation.
If the Tories lose their majority but still have most seats however then Starmer could become PM but the SNP would demand a high price for their support for a Labour minority government, including devomax and indyref2
You are a bright guy. Which of these two do you think the SNP would want from a minority Labour Govt:
a) calm, stable Government for the whole of the UK, such that Starmer can call an early election where he gets a working majority and hence no longer any need of the SNP - or of any further independence referendum: or
b) an absolute shit show?
They will want indyref2, which Starmer will have to give them as they will string him along until he does, unless there is a sudden shift in the polls he would be unlikely to get a working majority from a snap election anyway.
Though I would enjoy the sight of a Starmer government being as pitiful as the May government from 2017-2019 Labour did so much to destroy, poetic justice
In any case the SNP wouldn't vote on English-only matters, so Westminster would be a midden right from the start simply because of that abstention (compare UK vs English matters).
Yes it would be 2 governments, Starmer PM of the UK government but the Tories still effectively governing England and deciding English domestic policy.
The West Lothian question would come to the fore and on current polls it is very possible
Wrong way round. Clue: it'd not be the SNP majority in Scotland fouling up the Westminster Parliament right form the start.
Call it the West Epping Question and you would be getting warmer.
Well given Blair never created an English Parliament when he gave the other 3 home nations their own Parliaments and Assemblies what did he expect would happen once there eventually ended up a scenario of a Tory majority in England but a Labour led government across the UK ?
The English Tories should just obey the elected UK government?
They did in 1964 and 1974, rightly, as even though there was a Labour government across the UK and a Tory majority in England we were still one full union.
Now Scotland, Wales and NI decide their own domestic policies if we have a UK Tory government in their own Parliaments, so quite rightly Tory MPs in England will decide English domestic policy if there is a UK Labour PM without a majority in England
"at the moment there is no 5G coverage in your area"
Get two sims into your phone.
Are you on Vodafone or Three?
I have o2 and EE in my phone and between those two I get 5G coverage in most of the big towns and cities.
I have a dual device strategy
My main phone is Vodafone which gets an upgrade in a few weeks. This is my secondary device, which has just been upgraded to 5G and iPhone 13. But no 5G in my area
It's not exactly The Somme, as disasters go
Pointless, your iPhone 13 can take two SIMs, just use that rather than carrying two devices.
I broke my phone right at the start of lockdown, I was without my phone for 4 days, it felt like The Somme for me.
Well, you've just explained why I have two phones, two sims and two different networks.
It's a total backup if one phone fucks up. So not exactly "pointless"
Do what I do.
Keep an old iPhone in a draw and back up to cloud on a regular basis.
But I like having two phones, both up to date. My Vodafone phone is the best possible, and has all the bells and whistles with unlimited data, my 02 phone is on a very cheap tariff and I've been with them so long I get free upgrades anyway
It was also extremely useful when the kids were younger and they needed distracting, I could hand them my 2nd phone and still have MY phone to hand
And it is still useful if I want to lend someone my phone for a reason, but I don't want anyone to see any, say, recent pics on my main phone. You know. That kind of "sensitive" data
Re the article, in almost all the midlands and north of England there are exactly two relevant parties, except lots of them where there is only one. Leaving aside safe seats those two parties are Labour and Tory. When the government is having a hard time Labour is where you go. There is nowhere else.
Which is why while SKS has no chance of a Labour government in 2023/4, he has as good a chance as the Tories of forming an (alliance) government. As these polls show. I still put it at 40%, but current trends suggest it maybe should be higher.
Labour gain 35, LD gain 12. SNP gain 3. Done.
The SNP would not even give C&S to Labour in that situation. They'd just say to Starmer, OK laddie, off yer go to Downing Street. And then milk every possible amount they could, before slamming the door. The most unstable period in UK governing history would end with a clamour for the Scots to be booted out the Union. They hope.
Or else an election - and a strong new Government with a majority to consign them to oblivion.
To form a stable government Starmer certainly needs Labour to win most seats, agreed, even if not a majority. If Labour has more seats than the Tories he can afford to ignore the SNP as the SNP will not vote with the Tories on most legislation.
If the Tories lose their majority but still have most seats however then Starmer could become PM but the SNP would demand a high price for their support for a Labour minority government, including devomax and indyref2
You are a bright guy. Which of these two do you think the SNP would want from a minority Labour Govt:
a) calm, stable Government for the whole of the UK, such that Starmer can call an early election where he gets a working majority and hence no longer any need of the SNP - or of any further independence referendum: or
b) an absolute shit show?
They will want indyref2, which Starmer will have to give them as they will string him along until he does, unless there is a sudden shift in the polls he would be unlikely to get a working majority from a snap election anyway.
Though I would enjoy the sight of a Starmer government being as pitiful as the May government from 2017-2019 Labour did so much to destroy, poetic justice
In any case the SNP wouldn't vote on English-only matters, so Westminster would be a midden right from the start simply because of that abstention (compare UK vs English matters).
Yes it would be 2 governments, Starmer PM of the UK government but the Tories still effectively governing England and deciding English domestic policy.
The West Lothian question would come to the fore and on current polls it is very possible
Wrong way round. Clue: it'd not be the SNP majority in Scotland fouling up the Westminster Parliament right form the start.
Call it the West Epping Question and you would be getting warmer.
Well given Blair never created an English Parliament when he gave the other 3 home nations their own Parliaments and Assemblies what did he expect would happen once there eventually ended up a scenario of a Tory majority in England but a Labour led government across the UK ?
I note that Brown, Cameron, May, and Johnson have also not created an English parliament.
No and they should have done but it is Blair who gets most of the blame as he created the devolution arrangements we have now
The others had the hindsight of seeing all the problems that... wait, remind me of the problems again?
FPT @Selebian. I think you're blind to the issue here - I'll highlight two main points the article makes:
(1) "In a recent report on academic freedom in the U.S., the U.K., and Canada for the Center for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology, I found that 40 percent of American academics would not hire a known Trump supporter, and 33 percent of British academics would avoid hiring a known Brexit supporter. When it comes to refereeing papers, grant bids, and promotion applications, my own work and that of others indicates that the likelihood of an academic’s discriminating against an openly conservative submission is as high as 45 percent. On a four-person panel, that makes discrimination a near certainty."
(2) "In the 1960s there were only one and a half journalists and academics on the left for every one on the right. Today that ratio is between four to one and six to one, and considerably higher among political journalists and social-science and humanities academics. In a report on academia for the Manhattan Institute, I noted that left-leaning social-science and humanities academics now outnumber those on the right in Britain by nine to one, and in the U.S. by 14 to one. Work by Mitchell Langbert using voter-registration data for the top liberal-arts colleges and universities (for five disciplines) also shows lopsided ratios. At Harvard, for instance, a recent inquiry reported a $250-to-$1 Democrat-to-Republican donation ratio among the staff."
It's not enough for there to be "legal" protections - hard to access, prove and leverage - because an institutional culture of intolerance creates an environment that is suffocating to those already employed and inhibits any future recruitment to correct it. This means even fewer conservatives apply in the first place and thus reinforces a monoculture.
Those that are employed (like my friend at the University of Bath, for example, or me at the Woke firm I've just left) "fear losing (their) job or missing out on job opportunities if (their) political views became known.” And so, as in authoritarian regimes, dissenters keep their views to themselves through preference falsification. This has been precisely my experience.
It's a problem for all of us because these institutions form a large part of our civic society - arbitrating between the citizen and the state - and thus contributes to polarisation within it.
It needs to be addressed.
The website would only let me read the opening few paragraphs of the article, sadly, but the overall tone struck me as dishonest. It started with this dramatic statistic from the dating site, then extrapolated this to discrimination in hiring, despite these being completely different and indeed unrelated things (for instance, I wouldn't date a man but I would hire one). In my own field of economics there is a range of political views. In academia there is a left wing skew, in markets there is a right wing skew. This seems entirely understandable when you think of the likely difference in motivations and values between the two industries. Academia has got more left wing over the years, but then it has also become much worse paid, in relative terms, and those facts are probably related (we might argue over the direction of causation!). As a left wing person working in the markets I don't complain about the dearth of ideological soulmates, I don't know why right wing academics are so snowflakey about it. I have collaborated in academic research with people of various political stripes including Conservative US Republicans. In my experience, research with a clear ideological skew, left or right, is most likely bad research. The goal should be uncovering the truth, not advancing an agenda. Of course, if I were an ideological hack flogging policy-based evidence-making I might feel like I was getting discriminated when my research got rejected by top journals - but the likelihood is that the research was just bad. I do recall attending a very right-leaning conference where there was a lot of moaning about the Liberal bias in US academia, but the conference was lavishly funded by Conservative benefactors and hosted at a top Ivy League school so the whole complaint rang a little hollow to me. It had a strong whiff of privileges being defended.
There's some good points in here - including your admirable acknowledgement that research with a clear ideological skew is poor research - but why is your first instinct to attack Eric Kauffman's honesty?
He's a respected Canadian Academic (of mixed Chinese, Hispanic and European ancestry) working in a British university. He cited a variety of studies in making his points, and they're all respectable ones.
We need to get past the ad hominum into the specifics. Far too many of the responses to articles like this run along the lines of "he's making it up" and "I don't see any of this, so it can't be true".
What I'm interested in is everyone feeling able and willing to discuss their views and differences openly. That has to start with less prejudgement, more listening, and more forgiveness, and it's that I'm interested in.
It's the only way to confine polarisation to the fringes where it belongs, rather than it being part of the mainstream, and we have to work harder and harder at it in the social media age, not less.
All great points but I think you cut too much slack to Trumpery. It shouldn't be viewed like, say, being a Tory, a Brexiter, a social democrat, a "classic liberal", a small state libertarian, or whatever. He's a hate monger and those who lap that up can't expect it not to be held against them by those who don't.
I would judge Trump very differently from one of his voters, who include plenty of ordinary Americans, and give them the benefit of the doubt.
Of course lots of decent people voted for him. This must be the case given the numbers. Nevertheless he has colonized the Republican party, which is both chastening and frightening to somebody like me who takes a broadly sunny-side-up view of humanity, so I'm afraid I'm the other way around to you in that I'd be a touch wary of a person who I know voted for him until I get some evidence they did it reluctantly and despite the hate he throws out and for want of (in their eyes) a viable alternative. Pls note I do NOT feel this way about Leavers and Tories etc. It's a Trump thing.
So, in your eyes they are guilty until proven innocent?
Charming.
The reason you might not feel that way about Leavers and Tories is because you've been engaging with so many of us on here for so long that you realise the world isn't that simple.
That's precisely my point.
I'm not sending them to jail or anything. All I'm doing is applying the evidence of my eyes & ears to a hypothetical real life situation. I've tracked Donald Trump closely for years. I see and hear what he puts out. I know the buttons he seeks to press, the fancies he seeks to tickle, and they are not my buttons, not my fancies. Worse, they are buttons and fancies I find abhorrent. It's not a matter of honest disagreement, it's a complete disconnect. So if I meet somebody who I know voted for Trump, I will deduce that it's likely they are (to put it mildly) not my cup of tea. I'll be going in with a negative expectation. That's rational. I've observed lots of Trumpers, seen the footage, the vox pops, the tv debates, read the articles and the social media posts, and they don't tend to surprise. But - key point - I am open to being surprised. If ever I do meet one in the flesh. I'll quiz them robustly but fairly on why they voted as they did and I'll come to a view.
But, that's your problem not theirs - you are projecting Trump's personality and character onto them rather than getting to know them and their motivations.
If they put Trump on a dating profile it is them projecting his views, not the other person. I would have sympathy with someone who perhaps was dating for a few weeks, then got dumped because the new partner later found out they voted Trump, but if anyone thinks it is something to put on a profile, i.e. worthy of attracting a partner, then they will be judged for it just as people judge any other interests or habits.
Personally I would stay clear of anyone who expresses strong political views either way on a dating profile, and think this is common sense unless you share those particular views or like listening to long diatribes.
"at the moment there is no 5G coverage in your area"
Get two sims into your phone.
Are you on Vodafone or Three?
I have o2 and EE in my phone and between those two I get 5G coverage in most of the big towns and cities.
I have a dual device strategy
My main phone is Vodafone which gets an upgrade in a few weeks. This is my secondary device, which has just been upgraded to 5G and iPhone 13. But no 5G in my area
It's not exactly The Somme, as disasters go
Why do you need two phones?
Have you never lost or broken a phone?! Or had it stolen? Especially if you are away or abroad?
It's a nightmare, these days, because our entire lives are channelled through these devices
If you have a second phone on a different network, the worst of the nightmare is averted
If Boris Johnson or Keir Starmer want my vote and thus a landslide at the next election then they will pass a law allowing drivers run over the insulate Britain types.
I just interviewed Roger Hallam, co-founder of Extinction Rebellion.
Discussing the incident of the Insulate Britain protesters blocking a woman in tears trying to get to a hospital - he says he’d do the same.
In a way I respect him for admitting that. If you only think a mild disruption that doesn't do more than annoy some people is enough then perhaps the issue is not all that serious. "I'm prepared to contribute to people dying as a result of my actions" at least shows he probably believes in what he says, even if he's nutty.
But the green lobby has won. Action is being taken. COP26 will speed that up. The govt does help to fund insulation. My walls had free cavity wall insulation thanks to the govt.
The vast majority accept we need action.
We are moving away from the petrol engine and the gas boiler. In ten years time these will be things of the past from the point of view of mass manufacture and purchase.
XR are fanatics. You can never Appease fanatics.
I got defriended on Facebook by a Green/XR supporter four months ago for telling her they were loons and fanatics.
"at the moment there is no 5G coverage in your area"
Get two sims into your phone.
Are you on Vodafone or Three?
I have o2 and EE in my phone and between those two I get 5G coverage in most of the big towns and cities.
I have a dual device strategy
My main phone is Vodafone which gets an upgrade in a few weeks. This is my secondary device, which has just been upgraded to 5G and iPhone 13. But no 5G in my area
It's not exactly The Somme, as disasters go
Why do you need two phones?
It's a nightmare, these days, because our entire lives are channelled through these devices
"at the moment there is no 5G coverage in your area"
Get two sims into your phone.
Are you on Vodafone or Three?
I have o2 and EE in my phone and between those two I get 5G coverage in most of the big towns and cities.
I have a dual device strategy
My main phone is Vodafone which gets an upgrade in a few weeks. This is my secondary device, which has just been upgraded to 5G and iPhone 13. But no 5G in my area
It's not exactly The Somme, as disasters go
Pointless, your iPhone 13 can take two SIMs, just use that rather than carrying two devices.
I broke my phone right at the start of lockdown, I was without my phone for 4 days, it felt like The Somme for me.
Well, you've just explained why I have two phones, two sims and two different networks.
It's a total backup if one phone fucks up. So not exactly "pointless"
Do what I do.
Keep an old iPhone in a draw and back up to cloud on a regular basis.
But I like having two phones, both up to date. My Vodafone phone is the best possible, and has all the bells and whistles with unlimited data, my 02 phone is on a very cheap tariff and I've been with them so long I get free upgrades anyway
It was also extremely useful when the kids were younger and they needed distracting, I could hand them my 2nd phone and still have MY phone to hand
And it is still useful if I want to lend someone my phone for a reason, but I don't want anyone to see any, say, recent pics on my main phone. You know. That kind of "sensitive" data
@newtgingrich · 31s With China sending 145 war planes over Taiwan air space(52 in one day) both the United States and Japan should send military advisory groups to review what weapons and support Taiwan would need to defeat a Chinese invasion or blockade. Equipment should follow on a rush basis.
@newtgingrich · 31s With China sending 145 war planes over Taiwan air space(52 in one day) both the United States and Japan should send military advisory groups to review what weapons and support Taiwan would need to defeat a Chinese invasion or blockade. Equipment should follow on a rush basis.
"at the moment there is no 5G coverage in your area"
Get two sims into your phone.
Are you on Vodafone or Three?
I have o2 and EE in my phone and between those two I get 5G coverage in most of the big towns and cities.
I have a dual device strategy
My main phone is Vodafone which gets an upgrade in a few weeks. This is my secondary device, which has just been upgraded to 5G and iPhone 13. But no 5G in my area
If Boris Johnson or Keir Starmer want my vote and thus a landslide at the next election then they will pass a law allowing drivers run over the insulate Britain types.
I just interviewed Roger Hallam, co-founder of Extinction Rebellion.
Discussing the incident of the Insulate Britain protesters blocking a woman in tears trying to get to a hospital - he says he’d do the same.
In a way I respect him for admitting that. If you only think a mild disruption that doesn't do more than annoy some people is enough then perhaps the issue is not all that serious. "I'm prepared to contribute to people dying as a result of my actions" at least shows he probably believes in what he says, even if he's nutty.
But the green lobby has won. Action is being taken. COP26 will speed that up. The govt does help to fund insulation. My walls had free cavity wall insulation thanks to the govt.
The vast majority accept we need action.
We are moving away from the petrol engine and the gas boiler. In ten years time these will be things of the past from the point of view of mass manufacture and purchase.
XR are fanatics. You can never Appease fanatics.
I got defriended on Facebook by a Green/XR supporter four months ago for telling her they were loons and fanatics.
Not tried telling my friends they are loons, but would expect a similar response! This is not about woke, it is fairly basic common sense not to tell someone they a loon if you want a friendship with them.
"at the moment there is no 5G coverage in your area"
Get two sims into your phone.
Are you on Vodafone or Three?
I have o2 and EE in my phone and between those two I get 5G coverage in most of the big towns and cities.
I have a dual device strategy
My main phone is Vodafone which gets an upgrade in a few weeks. This is my secondary device, which has just been upgraded to 5G and iPhone 13. But no 5G in my area
It's not exactly The Somme, as disasters go
Pointless, your iPhone 13 can take two SIMs, just use that rather than carrying two devices.
I broke my phone right at the start of lockdown, I was without my phone for 4 days, it felt like The Somme for me.
Well, you've just explained why I have two phones, two sims and two different networks.
It's a total backup if one phone fucks up. So not exactly "pointless"
Do what I do.
Keep an old iPhone in a draw and back up to cloud on a regular basis.
But I like having two phones, both up to date. My Vodafone phone is the best possible, and has all the bells and whistles with unlimited data, my 02 phone is on a very cheap tariff and I've been with them so long I get free upgrades anyway
It was also extremely useful when the kids were younger and they needed distracting, I could hand them my 2nd phone and still have MY phone to hand
And it is still useful if I want to lend someone my phone for a reason, but I don't want anyone to see any, say, recent pics on my main phone. You know. That kind of "sensitive" data
When should the Vanguard-class captain start reading that letter?
Our IT boffins tell me that it isn't a hacking/DNS attack but someone has made a boo boo at Facebook which has ultimately made Facebook/Insta/WhatsApp disconnected from the rest of the internet.
"at the moment there is no 5G coverage in your area"
Get two sims into your phone.
Are you on Vodafone or Three?
I have o2 and EE in my phone and between those two I get 5G coverage in most of the big towns and cities.
I have a dual device strategy
My main phone is Vodafone which gets an upgrade in a few weeks. This is my secondary device, which has just been upgraded to 5G and iPhone 13. But no 5G in my area
It's not exactly The Somme, as disasters go
Why do you need two phones?
It's a nightmare, these days, because our entire lives are channelled through these devices
And therein lies the problem.
I detest how that's become the case.
I entirely agree. It's frightening how dependant we are on these objects, and how they have replaced normal human interaction. I am scrupulous about not looking at my phone when I am with friends. Turn them off, or mute them and place them screen down
However they are the prisms through which we now see the world, and they are indispensable. It is the case
"Mastermind behind Insulate Britain eco-mob says he would have refused to move for crying woman trying to get to mother, 81, in hospital and would block an ambulance with dying patient inside after activists brought three London routes to standstill "
If Boris Johnson or Keir Starmer want my vote and thus a landslide at the next election then they will pass a law allowing drivers run over the insulate Britain types.
I just interviewed Roger Hallam, co-founder of Extinction Rebellion.
Discussing the incident of the Insulate Britain protesters blocking a woman in tears trying to get to a hospital - he says he’d do the same.
In a way I respect him for admitting that. If you only think a mild disruption that doesn't do more than annoy some people is enough then perhaps the issue is not all that serious. "I'm prepared to contribute to people dying as a result of my actions" at least shows he probably believes in what he says, even if he's nutty.
But the green lobby has won. Action is being taken. COP26 will speed that up. The govt does help to fund insulation. My walls had free cavity wall insulation thanks to the govt.
The vast majority accept we need action.
We are moving away from the petrol engine and the gas boiler. In ten years time these will be things of the past from the point of view of mass manufacture and purchase.
XR are fanatics. You can never Appease fanatics.
I got defriended on Facebook by a Green/XR supporter four months ago for telling her they were loons and fanatics.
Not tried telling my friends they are loons, but would expect a similar response! This is not about woke, it is fairly basic common sense not to tell someone they a loon if you want a friendship with them.
I wasn't quite that undiplomatic. She was just sympathetic to them and had friends who did it.
I said I thought it was totally counterproductive and likely to work against them.
When should the Vanguard-class captain start reading that letter?
Our IT boffins tell me that it isn't a hacking/DNS attack but someone has made a boo boo at Facebook which has ultimately made Facebook/Insta/WhatsApp disconnected from the rest of the internet.
Yes and they've taken their primary DNS servers with them. Pity the poor sod writing that incident report tonight.
If Boris Johnson or Keir Starmer want my vote and thus a landslide at the next election then they will pass a law allowing drivers run over the insulate Britain types.
I just interviewed Roger Hallam, co-founder of Extinction Rebellion.
Discussing the incident of the Insulate Britain protesters blocking a woman in tears trying to get to a hospital - he says he’d do the same.
In a way I respect him for admitting that. If you only think a mild disruption that doesn't do more than annoy some people is enough then perhaps the issue is not all that serious. "I'm prepared to contribute to people dying as a result of my actions" at least shows he probably believes in what he says, even if he's nutty.
But the green lobby has won. Action is being taken. COP26 will speed that up. The govt does help to fund insulation. My walls had free cavity wall insulation thanks to the govt.
The vast majority accept we need action.
We are moving away from the petrol engine and the gas boiler. In ten years time these will be things of the past from the point of view of mass manufacture and purchase.
XR are fanatics. You can never Appease fanatics.
Incoherent. If you accept there is a problem at all, you cannot look at what is currently being done and say that in your inexpert opinion it is enough. It is so little in terms of difference to our lifestyles (zero, pretty much) and in terms of what it is intended to achieve (carbon output not only not decreasing, but rising heartily) that it seems unlikely it is. It is by no means impossible that halting all civilian aviation tomorrow means the difference between earth being habitable and not, in your grandchildren's lifetimes. There is no point in calling that claim fanatical: the facts of physics aren't moderate or extreme, or left- or right-wing. They just are.
And you haven't, with respect, thought about it very hard or long. For instance, cars don't just carbon cost in fuel, they carbon cost in road building too, so moving away from the petrol engine only addresses half a problem anyway.
It is impressive, how easy it is now to upgrade to a new phone
You just place your old phone physically next to your new phone, and everything transfers, no more backups and all that bollocks. It all goes over, in about 40 minutes.
You are absolutely right to flag these leadership ratings Big G. Leadership ratings, particularly for any sign of Starmer improvement, and the red wall polling in the header are the only two things to watch right now ahead of next springs General election. No doubt they are going for general election next spring before the Covid enquiry and pain of fixing the finances takes hold.
I know people on here like the headline voting figures and playing around with seat calcs and fantasy coalitions, but you shouldn’t waste your time, Labour could take lead in headline poll but stack them up where they don’t need them.
The red wall polling and leadership ratings only thing worth watching between now and the election.
PS message to Kinabalu about his Trumpers reference, can, as a group, we make a decision to call them Trumpettes?
When should the Vanguard-class captain start reading that letter?
Our IT boffins tell me that it isn't a hacking/DNS attack but someone has made a boo boo at Facebook which has ultimately made Facebook/Insta/WhatsApp disconnected from the rest of the internet.
Yes and they've taken their primary DNS servers with them. Pity the poor sod writing that incident report tonight.
I expect Nick Clegg, Facebook VP of Communications, will be earning his £2.7 million salary tonight
"at the moment there is no 5G coverage in your area"
Get two sims into your phone.
Are you on Vodafone or Three?
I have o2 and EE in my phone and between those two I get 5G coverage in most of the big towns and cities.
I have a dual device strategy
My main phone is Vodafone which gets an upgrade in a few weeks. This is my secondary device, which has just been upgraded to 5G and iPhone 13. But no 5G in my area
It's not exactly The Somme, as disasters go
Pointless, your iPhone 13 can take two SIMs, just use that rather than carrying two devices.
I broke my phone right at the start of lockdown, I was without my phone for 4 days, it felt like The Somme for me.
Well, you've just explained why I have two phones, two sims and two different networks.
It's a total backup if one phone fucks up. So not exactly "pointless"
Do what I do.
Keep an old iPhone in a draw and back up to cloud on a regular basis.
But I like having two phones, both up to date. My Vodafone phone is the best possible, and has all the bells and whistles with unlimited data, my 02 phone is on a very cheap tariff and I've been with them so long I get free upgrades anyway
It was also extremely useful when the kids were younger and they needed distracting, I could hand them my 2nd phone and still have MY phone to hand
And it is still useful if I want to lend someone my phone for a reason, but I don't want anyone to see any, say, recent pics on my main phone. You know. That kind of "sensitive" data
This has a dodgy feel to it. It sounds like an explanation but it actually isn't. Not to my ears anyway.
When should the Vanguard-class captain start reading that letter?
Our IT boffins tell me that it isn't a hacking/DNS attack but someone has made a boo boo at Facebook which has ultimately made Facebook/Insta/WhatsApp disconnected from the rest of the internet.
Yes and they've taken their primary DNS servers with them. Pity the poor sod writing that incident report tonight.
I expect Nick Clegg, Facebook VP of Communications, will be earning his £2.7 million salary tonight
The whole of Facebook appears to be down right now
"Mastermind behind Insulate Britain eco-mob says he would have refused to move for crying woman trying to get to mother, 81, in hospital and would block an ambulance with dying patient inside after activists brought three London routes to standstill "
"Mastermind behind Insulate Britain eco-mob says he would have refused to move for crying woman trying to get to mother, 81, in hospital and would block an ambulance with dying patient inside after activists brought three London routes to standstill "
It's interesting you say you wouldn't want to employ them, which is precisely the point I made on this thread and the previous thread that @Selebian said would never happen and I'd made up.
I do feel strongly about this. Perhaps because I used to be a communist, and knew people who were affected by the ridiculous Berufsverbot (which meant that they couldn't even be engine drivers or nurses), I'm very sensitive about not imposing employment restrictions regardless of opinion - I would unhesitatingly employ a fascist or a Trump supporter if they didn't let it get in the way of their work. Their private opinions are none of my business, and I owe it to whoever I work for to select the best people, not people who happen to agree with me. Society is divided enough without creating new artificial divisions.
For friendship, I would expect it to be a snag, but one that can be outweighed - my oldest friend has ranged from Tory to UKIP to BNP to (currently) Reform, but he's been a good friend for 50 years and we tolerate each others' views with amicable disagreement. There's so much more to people than their political opinions.
If Boris Johnson or Keir Starmer want my vote and thus a landslide at the next election then they will pass a law allowing drivers run over the insulate Britain types.
I just interviewed Roger Hallam, co-founder of Extinction Rebellion.
Discussing the incident of the Insulate Britain protesters blocking a woman in tears trying to get to a hospital - he says he’d do the same.
In a way I respect him for admitting that. If you only think a mild disruption that doesn't do more than annoy some people is enough then perhaps the issue is not all that serious. "I'm prepared to contribute to people dying as a result of my actions" at least shows he probably believes in what he says, even if he's nutty.
But the green lobby has won. Action is being taken. COP26 will speed that up. The govt does help to fund insulation. My walls had free cavity wall insulation thanks to the govt.
The vast majority accept we need action.
We are moving away from the petrol engine and the gas boiler. In ten years time these will be things of the past from the point of view of mass manufacture and purchase.
XR are fanatics. You can never Appease fanatics.
Incoherent. If you accept there is a problem at all, you cannot look at what is currently being done and say that in your inexpert opinion it is enough. It is so little in terms of difference to our lifestyles (zero, pretty much) and in terms of what it is intended to achieve (carbon output not only not decreasing, but rising heartily) that it seems unlikely it is. It is by no means impossible that halting all civilian aviation tomorrow means the difference between earth being habitable and not, in your grandchildren's lifetimes. There is no point in calling that claim fanatical: the facts of physics aren't moderate or extreme, or left- or right-wing. They just are.
And you haven't, with respect, thought about it very hard or long. For instance, cars don't just carbon cost in fuel, they carbon cost in road building too, so moving away from the petrol engine only addresses half a problem anyway.
I don't think the point is that it is "enough" (a moveable definition).
The point is that ER are placing lives at risk because they have no understanding about what the situation is, and are justifying actions that place vulnerable people at risk because they have believed the lies that they have told themselves.
It's interesting you say you wouldn't want to employ them, which is precisely the point I made on this thread and the previous thread that @Selebian said would never happen and I'd made up.
I do feel strongly about this. Perhaps because I used to be a communist, and knew people who were affected by the ridiculous Berufsverbot (which meant that they couldn't even be engine drivers or nurses), I'm very sensitive about not imposing employment restrictions regardless of opinion - I would unhesitatingly employ a fascist or a Trump supporter if they didn't let it get in the way of their work. Their private opinions are none of my business, and I owe it to whoever I work for to select the best people, not people who happen to agree with me. Society is divided enough without creating new artificial divisions.
For friendship, I would expect it to be a snag, but one that can be outweighed - my oldest friend has ranged from Tory to UKIP to BNP to (currently) Reform, but he's been a good friend for 50 years and we tolerate each others' views with amicable disagreement. There's so much more to people than their political opinions.
NEW: Farming Secretary George Eustice suggests at an @NFUtweets event the government *could* ease visa restrictions to allow more butchers into the UK to sort the pig crisis.
No signal yet of big university numbers. This time last year (30 Sep) fresher age group 15-19 yrs old was 25% of cases - this year 10%. 20-24 yrs old were 16% now 3%
I'm still on my Xiaomi Poco F1 (h/t Mike) bought for £220 a couple of years ago. Jettisoned Apple and embraced Android. It's fantastic.
Fast plenty of storage I was actually looking at the next one for an upgrade but really don't need it.
And free data backups to Chinese government servers.
There's probably nothing the CPC doesn't know about me. But once you start to look at where Chinese companies are involved that would likely mean complete inactivity to stay out of their clutches.
Being a Trump supporter now means saying you support someone who instigated a coup attempt against American democracy.
It is not the same as saying you are a Republican
Although sadly Trump = GOP is where things seem to heading. I think this will change before WH24 but I struggle to find much evidence right now to support that minority view.
Looking at that, though appreciating everyone is selectively quoting from polls, it backs up my feeling that things are on the turn. If you map out the sea changes in British politics and superimpose the GE on top, they wouldn’t align.
The key thing for the Tories is to keep eye on the indicators of a narrative change and go early if necessary. Being in possession they have advantage of keeping quiet about further bad news till they have got an election win out the way.
No signal yet of big university numbers. This time last year (30 Sep) fresher age group 15-19 yrs old was 25% of cases - this year 10%. 20-24 yrs old were 16% now 3%
Yet. First full teaching for us, some places are ahead. Students are expected to wear masks during in person teaching, but this is not well observed. Campus feels very different after 18 quiet months. I think there will be some extra cases in the student cohorts, but it won’t be huge.
Nadine Dorries today: BBC staffed by people ‘whose mum and dad worked there’, says Nadine Dorries. Culture secretary attacks ‘nepotism’ and ‘groupthink’ at broadcaster in interview at Tory conference
Nadine Dorries few years ago: MP Nadine Dorries paid her daughters up to £80k from the public purse to work in her office... and gave one a £15k pay rise
If Boris Johnson or Keir Starmer want my vote and thus a landslide at the next election then they will pass a law allowing drivers run over the insulate Britain types.
I just interviewed Roger Hallam, co-founder of Extinction Rebellion.
Discussing the incident of the Insulate Britain protesters blocking a woman in tears trying to get to a hospital - he says he’d do the same.
In a way I respect him for admitting that. If you only think a mild disruption that doesn't do more than annoy some people is enough then perhaps the issue is not all that serious. "I'm prepared to contribute to people dying as a result of my actions" at least shows he probably believes in what he says, even if he's nutty.
But the green lobby has won. Action is being taken. COP26 will speed that up. The govt does help to fund insulation. My walls had free cavity wall insulation thanks to the govt.
The vast majority accept we need action.
We are moving away from the petrol engine and the gas boiler. In ten years time these will be things of the past from the point of view of mass manufacture and purchase.
XR are fanatics. You can never Appease fanatics.
No you cannot. And by admitting he would contribute to people's deaths in pursuit of his aims, rather than attempt to sugarcoat it or pretend he thinks otherwise, people can see just how fanatical he is.
Indeed, far better to let the cranks damn themselves with their words than just get into a slanging match with them.
Comments
I broke my phone right at the start of lockdown, I was without my phone for 4 days, it felt like The Somme for me.
This next GE is going to be about brutal politics, not gentlemanly conduct.
Tax rises? How much will be needed to pay off the debt? What tax rise would make the NHS happy? I don't think we shall hear a lot of non-unicorn policies on those.
A bunch of Facebook networks has just disappeared from the internet: https://twitter.com/g_bonfiglio/status/1445056923309649926/photo/1
It's a total backup if one phone fucks up. So not exactly "pointless"
Call it the West Epping Question and you would be getting warmer.
They do not even have a factual understanding of the issue over which they are willing to cause innocent and vulnerable people to die.
They belong behind bars, though there is a debate as to whether it should be a prison cell or a padded cell.
The vast majority accept we need action.
We are moving away from the petrol engine and the gas boiler. In ten years time these will be things of the past from the point of view of mass manufacture and purchase.
XR are fanatics. You can never Appease fanatics.
Keep an old iPhone in a draw and back up to cloud on a regular basis.
·
31s
With China sending 145 war planes over Taiwan air space(52 in one day) both the United States and Japan should send military advisory groups to review what weapons and support Taiwan would need to defeat a Chinese invasion or blockade. Equipment should follow on a rush basis.
https://twitter.com/newtgingrich/status/1445071074207600655?s=20
Now Scotland, Wales and NI decide their own domestic policies if we have a UK Tory government in their own Parliaments, so quite rightly Tory MPs in England will decide English domestic policy if there is a UK Labour PM without a majority in England
It was also extremely useful when the kids were younger and they needed distracting, I could hand them my 2nd phone and still have MY phone to hand
And it is still useful if I want to lend someone my phone for a reason, but I don't want anyone to see any, say, recent pics on my main phone. You know. That kind of "sensitive" data
Personally I would stay clear of anyone who expresses strong political views either way on a dating profile, and think this is common sense unless you share those particular views or like listening to long diatribes.
It's a nightmare, these days, because our entire lives are channelled through these devices
If you have a second phone on a different network, the worst of the nightmare is averted
Work related WhatsApp messages are usually a variation of 'Read your fecking emails!'
I detest how that's become the case.
Is this a war we really want to fight?
Anyhoo 3G is getting switched off soon.
However they are the prisms through which we now see the world, and they are indispensable. It is the case
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html
I said I thought it was totally counterproductive and likely to work against them.
And you haven't, with respect, thought about it very hard or long. For instance, cars don't just carbon cost in fuel, they carbon cost in road building too, so moving away from the petrol engine only addresses half a problem anyway.
It's more a case of having the phone numbers of your colleagues in your personal phone and a brief work related message turns up.
The pandemic has presented quite a few challenges, the FCA have been understanding.
And a landline.
And another landline.
And a SIP phone.
https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/diehard/images/6/6b/Warlock.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20110221193808
Cons lead Lab:
Promises anything (+15 lead)
Fit to govern (+7)
Different to other parties (+7)
Extreme (+6)
Lab lead Cons:
Concerned about needy (+31)
Understands problems facing GB (+9)
Divided (+12)
Looks after people like me (+11)
But plenty not really enthused by either side.
https://twitter.com/CameronGarrett_/status/1445066112249516032?s=20
You just place your old phone physically next to your new phone, and everything transfers, no more backups and all that bollocks. It all goes over, in about 40 minutes.
Marv
I know people on here like the headline voting figures and playing around with seat calcs and fantasy coalitions, but you shouldn’t waste your time, Labour could take lead in headline poll but stack them up where they don’t need them.
The red wall polling and leadership ratings only thing worth watching between now and the election.
PS message to Kinabalu about his Trumpers reference, can, as a group, we make a decision to call them Trumpettes?
It is not the same as saying you are a Republican
Fast plenty of storage I was actually looking at the next one for an upgrade but really don't need it.
For friendship, I would expect it to be a snag, but one that can be outweighed - my oldest friend has ranged from Tory to UKIP to BNP to (currently) Reform, but he's been a good friend for 50 years and we tolerate each others' views with amicable disagreement. There's so much more to people than their political opinions.
I wouldn't be shocked to see them banned in their entirety.
And coincidentally so does my OnePlus. Thought it was Taiwanese.
The point is that ER are placing lives at risk because they have no understanding about what the situation is, and are justifying actions that place vulnerable people at risk because they have believed the lies that they have told themselves.
https://twitter.com/e_casalicchio/status/1445081785101074441
Conference has worked
Dan Cookson
@danc00ks0n
·
1h
Replying to
@markepernay
No signal yet of big university numbers. This time last year (30 Sep) fresher age group 15-19 yrs old was 25% of cases - this year 10%.
20-24 yrs old were 16% now 3%
Got to find those refusers...
The key thing for the Tories is to keep eye on the indicators of a narrative change and go early if necessary. Being in possession they have advantage of keeping quiet about further bad news till they have got an election win out the way.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/oct/04/bbc-staffed-by-people-whose-mum-and-dad-worked-there-says-nadine-dorries
Nadine Dorries few years ago: MP Nadine Dorries paid her daughters up to £80k from the public purse to work in her office... and gave one a £15k pay rise
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420625/MP-Nadine-Dorries-pays-daughters-75k-public-purse-work-office.html