Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Your Economic position is 73° Right, your National position is 9° National, and your Social position is 71° Liberal.
You are economically strongly right-wing, nationally moderate, and strongly socially liberal.
I'm surprised to be so moderate on national v global issues. I suppose that's because I'm quite pro-immigration.
PT, you are mistaken. You can't be pro-immigration and be pro-Brexit. The Remoaners have told us time and time again that this is not possible.
PT is mistaken, since he spends half his time lauding the supposed productivity improvements ensuing from reduced immigration.
He should pick a side.
It *was* possible to be pro-Brexit, pro-immigration. That side lost though, thanks first to Theresa May and then to the unholy Boris/Spartan alliance.
Yep - the thing that swung my vote to leave was the idea that we could leave the EU to get on with their politics while we kept the economic benefits from free access to the market.
To me, the only reasonable Brexit stance. See also, Flexcit and Dan Hannan’s “no-one is seriously talking about leaving the single market”.
Someone noted on Twitter the other day (I can’t find the reference) that Vote Leave actually said that it supported single market membership in its official declaration to the Electoral Commission.
They pivoted midway through the campaign as they realised that anti-immigration was getting more clicks and cut-through.
The thing that annoys me most is that we wouldn't have been in them mess we got into if Brown and Blair had switched our welfare system to being "contribution" based as everyone in the EU was telling them was essential.
I use "contribution" because the suggestion was that you kicked it off at 16 and counted the last 2 years in fulltime education as a suitable contribution if you didn't meet the other criteria.
Your Political Compass Economic Left/Right: -1.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.05
I've always hovered around the mid-point on "left/right" - this iteration slightly to the left of before, and consistently been libertarian.
I got Economic Left/Right -1.0. Social Libertarian/Authoritarian +0.56
Most PBers lean economically right but socially liberal.
Political Compass does generally tend to get left liberal results though in my experience because of the questions asked
I'd take the site more seriously if each question could be asked/worded from an opposite point of view and each question you actually get is a random pick from the two possible wordings.
Just so everyone knows Hugo Guy is a grauniad journalist who will pick any crum of comfort that is bad for the Tories. These bloody lefty Eton types....
crumb.
Hugo Gye?
None of this makes any sense to me. Care to try again?
He is actualky political editor of the I newspaper but writing for the grauniad. he is obvioudly a left-wing hack. See polling figures quoted by him upthread.
Your Political Compass Economic Left/Right: -1.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.05
I've always hovered around the mid-point on "left/right" - this iteration slightly to the left of before, and consistently been libertarian.
I got Economic Left/Right -1.0. Social Libertarian/Authoritarian +0.56
Most PBers lean economically right but socially liberal.
Political Compass does generally tend to get left liberal results though in my experience because of the questions asked
I got:
Economic Left/Right: -2.75 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.31
Pretty close to that myself...
Economic Left/Right: -3.25 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.97
And I think of myself as pretty much down the middle on the left/right thing but strongly liberal (in terms of versus authoritarian and versus collectivist). Is that how you see yourself?
Your Political Compass Economic Left/Right: -1.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.05
I've always hovered around the mid-point on "left/right" - this iteration slightly to the left of before, and consistently been libertarian.
I got Economic Left/Right -1.0. Social Libertarian/Authoritarian +0.56
Most PBers lean economically right but socially liberal.
Political Compass does generally tend to get left liberal results though in my experience because of the questions asked
I'd take the site more seriously if each question could be asked/worded from an opposite point of view and each question you actually get is a random pick from the two possible wordings.
I would need to find the evidence but I seem to remember from personality tests that the opposite viewpoint can generate a greater reaction - i.e. you will agree with the viewpoint you prefer but strongly disagree with the one you dislike. So it's not as simple as using different wording will give you the same result.
If, assuming DT are plugged into government thinking, the suggestion of the EU "offering surrender terms" indicates the EU and UKG may be moving to agreement.
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Your Economic position is 73° Right, your National position is 9° National, and your Social position is 71° Liberal.
You are economically strongly right-wing, nationally moderate, and strongly socially liberal.
I'm surprised to be so moderate on national v global issues. I suppose that's because I'm quite pro-immigration.
PT, you are mistaken. You can't be pro-immigration and be pro-Brexit. The Remoaners have told us time and time again that this is not possible.
PT is mistaken, since he spends half his time lauding the supposed productivity improvements ensuing from reduced immigration.
He should pick a side.
It *was* possible to be pro-Brexit, pro-immigration. That side lost though, thanks first to Theresa May and then to the unholy Boris/Spartan alliance.
Yep - the thing that swung my vote to leave was the idea that we could leave the EU to get on with their politics while we kept the economic benefits from free access to the market.
To me, the only reasonable Brexit stance. See also, Flexcit and Dan Hannan’s “no-one is seriously talking about leaving the single market”.
Someone noted on Twitter the other day (I can’t find the reference) that Vote Leave actually said that it supported single market membership in its official declaration to the Electoral Commission.
They pivoted midway through the campaign as they realised that anti-immigration was getting more clicks and cut-through.
[Citation Needed]
They always said they were against the single market as far as I saw.
Mr. Paris, in psychometric testing, it's usual to have diametrically opposing questions (not next to each other) to try and iron out certain wrinkles and get more accurate results.
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Your Economic position is 73° Right, your National position is 9° National, and your Social position is 71° Liberal.
You are economically strongly right-wing, nationally moderate, and strongly socially liberal.
I'm surprised to be so moderate on national v global issues. I suppose that's because I'm quite pro-immigration.
PT, you are mistaken. You can't be pro-immigration and be pro-Brexit. The Remoaners have told us time and time again that this is not possible.
PT is mistaken, since he spends half his time lauding the supposed productivity improvements ensuing from reduced immigration.
He should pick a side.
It *was* possible to be pro-Brexit, pro-immigration. That side lost though, thanks first to Theresa May and then to the unholy Boris/Spartan alliance.
Yep - the thing that swung my vote to leave was the idea that we could leave the EU to get on with their politics while we kept the economic benefits from free access to the market.
To me, the only reasonable Brexit stance. See also, Flexcit and Dan Hannan’s “no-one is seriously talking about leaving the single market”.
Someone noted on Twitter the other day (I can’t find the reference) that Vote Leave actually said that it supported single market membership in its official declaration to the Electoral Commission.
They pivoted midway through the campaign as they realised that anti-immigration was getting more clicks and cut-through.
The thing that annoys me most is that we wouldn't have been in them mess we got into if Brown and Blair had switched our welfare system to being "contribution" based as everyone in the EU was telling them was essential.
I use "contribution" because the suggestion was that you kicked it off at 16 and counted the last 2 years in fulltime education as a suitable contribution if you didn't meet the other criteria.
Yeh I agree with that.
Or rather, I don’t think anyone much thought about either the effect or the equity of our welfare system and high immigration.
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Closest Match: Eco-Anarchism Eco-Anarchism, or Green Anarchism, is a form of anarchism that places a particular emphasis on environmental issues. It is often linked to more distinct ideologies such as Anarcho-Syndicalism. Eco-Anarchists are generally revolutionary and support using a decentralized egalitarian economy to achieve environmental goals.
It works...
Some hoots:
The fact that so many workers vote for bourgeois parties over socialist parties is proof that party politics are no longer relevant.
And it thinks I might be:
Closest Match: Utopian Socialism Utopian Socialism is a form of pre-Marxist socialism that believes highly in an egalitarian, moralistic and idealistic foundation for a socialist society. Utopian Socialists generally reject violent revolution and often believe the ruling class can be convinced to adopt socialism.
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
If, assuming DT are plugged into government thinking, the suggestion of the EU "offering surrender terms" indicates the EU and UKG may be moving to agreement.
This is the Kremlinology of the Johnson regime.
It is a surrender though. However you want dress it up they've completely reversed their position on free movement of goods into NI from GB without any kind of alignment on standards required. It's something I was assured by you and other ardent EUphiles wouldn't be possible.
Once again you all keep losing because you've underestimated the strength of our position and overestimated the strength of the EU position. The EU is extremely brittle. The support it has is very shallow and based on bribing people with their own money.
If, assuming DT are plugged into government thinking, the suggestion of the EU "offering surrender terms" indicates the EU and UKG may be moving to agreement.
"Our childhoods were stolen," says 21-year-old Rikki Schlott, who has had an Instagram account since she was 11. Recently, Facebook has come under fire for the impact its apps can have on teens and their mental health. The BBC looks at how algorithms have made social media the new “drug of choice” and what people are doing about it."
Looking at everyone's score on the Libertarian/Authoritarian axis, I guess being a posting member of PB self-selects for those who question authority ...
I'm not sure I take such tests too seriously.
They ask simplistic questions like "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".
Well, that very much depends who, how, where and to what extent.
If you squint you can see the questions as drafted skew Left, and like it's still the 1950s, and it's quite hard to answer them in a way that gives a right-wing profile unless you admit to being a nut and a bigot. Even I came out as slightly left-libertarian.
The test wouldn't last 5 minutes in front of the Electoral Commission.
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Totally & utterly off topic but 'fact' needed for a story I'm writing. If DNA samples from a putative mother and son are sent for analysis, how long before the lab can/will confirm that they are in fact parent and child?
Looking at everyone's score on the Libertarian/Authoritarian axis, I guess being a posting member of PB self-selects for those who question authority ...
I'm not sure I take such tests too seriously.
They ask simplistic questions like "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".
Well, that very much depends who, how, where and to what extent.
If you squint you can see the questions as drafted skew Left, and like it's still the 1950s, and it's quite hard to answer them in a way that gives a right-wing profile unless you admit to being a nut and a bigot. Even I came out as slightly left-libertarian.
The test wouldn't last 5 minutes in front of the Electoral Commission.
It needs updating. The lack of questions about trans rights is a glaring omission.
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
A answered that on as agree. Traditional British values include taking the piss from stupid questions.
Looking at everyone's score on the Libertarian/Authoritarian axis, I guess being a posting member of PB self-selects for those who question authority ...
I'm not sure I take such tests too seriously.
They ask simplistic questions like "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".
Well, that very much depends who, how, where and to what extent.
If you squint you can see the questions as drafted skew Left, and like it's still the 1950s, and it's quite hard to answer them in a way that gives a right-wing profile unless you admit to being a nut and a bigot. Even I came out as slightly left-libertarian.
The test wouldn't last 5 minutes in front of the Electoral Commission.
It needs updating. The lack of questions about trans rights is a glaring omission.
Lol, it's true though, huge left/right split on it.
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Rather a lot of nations do indeed have a less well developed sense of these things. But, these values are not exclusive to this country.
Looking at everyone's score on the Libertarian/Authoritarian axis, I guess being a posting member of PB self-selects for those who question authority ...
I'm not sure I take such tests too seriously.
They ask simplistic questions like "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".
Well, that very much depends who, how, where and to what extent.
If you squint you can see the questions as drafted skew Left, and like it's still the 1950s, and it's quite hard to answer them in a way that gives a right-wing profile unless you admit to being a nut and a bigot. Even I came out as slightly left-libertarian.
The test wouldn't last 5 minutes in front of the Electoral Commission.
I think it just means that even PB Tory Young Fogeys are left liberal on an international scale.
I think even you would be considered ridiculously woke in much of the world.
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
I have a harsh view on widespread traditional values around most parts of the world. It's one of the great things about Britain that the traditional values I listed have now largely fallen out of favour.
As for your list, sure. I wasn't being particularly serious, just agreeing it's a bit of a ridiculous question (they should list the values that are being asked about). I'm sure most countries would claim a similar list of traditional values and be equally guilty of my list.
Totally & utterly off topic but 'fact' needed for a story I'm writing. If DNA samples from a putative mother and son are sent for analysis, how long before the lab can/will confirm that they are in fact parent and child?
No Mr Dancer, I'm not out to compete with you.
This is 2 years old and presumably US based, but 2-10 working days.
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
NEW: Former Government minister and Conservative MP for Old Bexley and Sidcup James Brokenshire, who had been suffering with lung cancer, has died aged 53, his family has said in a statement.
I think it is 1 in 6 lung cancer victims have never smoked.
My brother-in-law's colon cancer was discovered only once it had metastasized to the lungs. Fortunately a combination of surgery, chemo and radiation treatment saved him.
Would that be counted as a lung cancer, colon cancer or both death? Genuine question. I presume colon, but I don't know.
That would be metastatic colon cancer. Cancer is always known by it's original primary wherever else it ends up invading.
Breast cancer that goes to the bones it metastatic breast cancer, mouth cancer that goes to the lung is metastatic mouth cancer, prostate cancer that goes to the liver is metastatic prostate cancer, for example...
Of course sometimes cancer can appear of unknown primary.
Totally & utterly off topic but 'fact' needed for a story I'm writing. If DNA samples from a putative mother and son are sent for analysis, how long before the lab can/will confirm that they are in fact parent and child?
No Mr Dancer, I'm not out to compete with you.
Depends how busy the lab is. DNA fingerprinting can be rapid now, if on a mission could turn round in 24 hours no problem.
On the scale I came out as socially and economically moderate, fairly nationalist. But, I think the questions being asked were hard to answer in any other way.
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Weird rewriting of history.
It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.
Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.
If, assuming DT are plugged into government thinking, the suggestion of the EU "offering surrender terms" indicates the EU and UKG may be moving to agreement.
This is the Kremlinology of the Johnson regime.
It is a surrender though. However you want dress it up they've completely reversed their position on free movement of goods into NI from GB without any kind of alignment on standards required. It's something I was assured by you and other ardent EUphiles wouldn't be possible.
Once again you all keep losing because you've underestimated the strength of our position and overestimated the strength of the EU position. The EU is extremely brittle. The support it has is very shallow and based on bribing people with their own money.
Since Lord Frost took control the EU has had to concede on every point of principle. All Britain has to do is stand firm and outlast the EU in a game of chicken and they're the ones to move. Which is what some of us always said was the case.
Your point on the shallow support is very well made. The EU is like the Wizard of Oz, all flash and showy and widely adored but we've peaked behind the curtain now and seen that there is nothing there.
Totally & utterly off topic but 'fact' needed for a story I'm writing. If DNA samples from a putative mother and son are sent for analysis, how long before the lab can/will confirm that they are in fact parent and child?
No Mr Dancer, I'm not out to compete with you.
Depends how busy the lab is. DNA fingerprinting can be rapid now, if on a mission could turn round in 24 hours no problem.
+1 - I suspect the biggest delay will be the time it takes to get the sample to the lab plus say 12 hours.
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Yes. So have I. You have been to Egypt and China and come away without believing that it is even arguable that the world might have an overpopulation problem, though, so I'm not sure how much attention you were paying.
Have you never visited continental Europe or is there some other reason that no country there gets a mention?
Looking at everyone's score on the Libertarian/Authoritarian axis, I guess being a posting member of PB self-selects for those who question authority ...
I'm not sure I take such tests too seriously.
They ask simplistic questions like "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".
Well, that very much depends who, how, where and to what extent.
If you squint you can see the questions as drafted skew Left, and like it's still the 1950s, and it's quite hard to answer them in a way that gives a right-wing profile unless you admit to being a nut and a bigot. Even I came out as slightly left-libertarian.
The test wouldn't last 5 minutes in front of the Electoral Commission.
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is to test how Machiavellian you are.
Looking at everyone's score on the Libertarian/Authoritarian axis, I guess being a posting member of PB self-selects for those who question authority ...
I'm not sure I take such tests too seriously.
They ask simplistic questions like "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".
Well, that very much depends who, how, where and to what extent.
If you squint you can see the questions as drafted skew Left, and like it's still the 1950s, and it's quite hard to answer them in a way that gives a right-wing profile unless you admit to being a nut and a bigot. Even I came out as slightly left-libertarian.
The test wouldn't last 5 minutes in front of the Electoral Commission.
Yep, I had a lot of questions about the questions. Should I answer according to a very literal interpretation of the precise wording of the question (in the case above, no, my enemy's enemy is not necessarily my friend, even if we may have mutual interests), or should I answer according to the philosophical, social, economic, or political principle underlying the question (for which that question, being trite, is irrelevant)? I chose the former, and I think that skewed my results left and authoritarian.
Looking at everyone's score on the Libertarian/Authoritarian axis, I guess being a posting member of PB self-selects for those who question authority ...
I'm not sure I take such tests too seriously.
They ask simplistic questions like "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".
Well, that very much depends who, how, where and to what extent.
If you squint you can see the questions as drafted skew Left, and like it's still the 1950s, and it's quite hard to answer them in a way that gives a right-wing profile unless you admit to being a nut and a bigot. Even I came out as slightly left-libertarian.
The test wouldn't last 5 minutes in front of the Electoral Commission.
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is to test how Machiavellian you are.
Surely you also need "The enemy of my enemy regards me as a friend" to see the true answer there.
Real Machiavellian is to push the latter as far as possible while treating the former as neutral at best.
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Yes. So have I. You have been to Egypt and China and come away without believing that it is even arguable that the world might have an overpopulation problem, though, so I'm not sure how much attention you were paying.
Have you never visited continental Europe or is there some other reason that no country there gets a mention?
In all seriousness I would like to hear suggestions for countries that are less racist than Britain. Taking official and informal criteria into account. In my opinion there are a few in Western Europe that tie but otherwise I can't think of any.
@Casino_Royale from last thread. Killing off the general discussion but on a separate note you seemed surprised that I thought I might be to the right of you on some things and asked for examples. Clearly it is difficult to give specifics without an in depth discussion but in general I get the impression you are a traditional Conservative, more along the lines of @HYUFD although not as traditional as him, whereas I am more along the lines of an Orange Booker. Although I have some humdinger arguments with @Philip_Thompson on many things my views are often in line with him, although maybe not quite as libertarian as him, I am very libertarian.
Have I judged that correctly?
I am often misjudged as being of the left because I attack the Conservatives often, but equally I don't support Labour. I have never voted Labour and I am 67 in a few weeks. I often feel traditional Conservatives come out with some staggering Socialist policies (not you, just in general).
Thanks. So, you're very free-market then I presume?
I consider myself to be a traditional shire Tory. I don't agree with anyone all of the time on anything but I think the poster on here that comes closest to my views is @Sean_F
Yep very free market and small state. Like Philip I would like to see a Universal Wage. I was a fan of this from the 90s when I first heard it put forward by a right wing think tank. That could eliminate most of the DWP and much of HMRC. Not a fan of BEIS either. Far to much interference in the marketplace. I would like to see more generic laws and much less specific laws on issues. I hate the government faffing around an issue with interference. If something should be run by the state (eg health and education) then do so, otherwise leave it to the market, with generic laws to protect the consumer from abuse.
I hate bureaucracy and state interference because they are useless at it, but accept it is needed, but as little as possible. Leave people to live their lives.
I am also very, very socially liberal.
I like SeanF a lot also, but I like the views of a range of people. I like TSE, Nigelb, IanB2, kinabalu etc so a wide selection across the spectrum
Does this come as a surprise? What did you think my views were? I won't be offended if you though I was a raving Socialist.
Thanks. Interesting.
It comes as a surprise because almost all the posts of yours I can recall relate to social issues, institutions and the nation state, and that is where the zeitgeist currently is in political debate and where I suspect we diverge.
Oh that is very interesting. I have no idea what you are referring to re social issues and institutions. What did you have in mind? I am not a fan of institutions generally and I think you are, but I would be surprised if we differed much on social issues. Can you elaborate please? This is very interesting.
Re nation state are you referring to my luke warm attachment to nations and my liking of the EU?
I have to say it comes as a surprise that is how I come across. I thought I would come across as an Orange Book liberal, but often our own perception are different to what others see.
I would love to know what @Philip_Thompson and @HYUFD think I am with whom I have had many discussions.
I think that you and I can be quite similar in a lot of ways, though I'd put you down as slightly to the left of me.
One very good thing I saw in the earlier days of being online was the website Political Compass, though it was rather US-dominated, that broke views down to left & right on the X-axis and on the Y-axis was libertarianism (down) and authoritarianism (up). I've always been firmly in the bottom-right quadrant, I'd guess you'd be similar but maybe marginally to the left?
Be curious if people wanted to take the test and see where their results are. I've just done it again and mine are: Economic Left/Right: 4.0 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.18
So, don't give me any more of your "I'm a libertarian" stuff, you authoritarian
I'm a lot more left on that scale than I expected. And maybe more libertarian. There were several questions here I would have chosen 'neither agree or disagree' had it been an option - if they were I'd maybe be more towards the centre on both scales.
I'm more libertarian than PT, too. Well, well. Though rather more to the left. My views seem to have changed even more as I grow still older.
I'm sure you (and I) are about to hit the 'I'm old enough to be a Unionist now' wall any day. Signs may include the name 'Nippy' creeping into conversation, deliberately picking out the UJ emblazoned foodstuffs at Morrisons and humming the R4 UK theme under one's breath.
It's striking that contrary to the myth on PB the SNP is a lot less authoritarian than almost anyone else - almost perfectly centrist. And there is an interesting contrast also between Labour and Slab at Holyrood: you can really see Messrs/Mdmes Sarwar and Baillie trying to be Tory lite (as are the LDs, too, tbf). Though the Tories swing inland themselves. The SNP hardly budge, and the SGs are rather more mainstream than the UK Greens.
Dullish centrists is unfortunately a fair description, fortunately that still means left of any of the main contenders. We all have a tendency to mythologise our opponents failings but the stories Yoons tell themselves about the SNP & Scotland are pretty self defeatingly hilarious. The tourists might have a minimal excuse but they seem terribly reluctant to admit that they may not be fully cognizant of the facts (aka experts).
Banana republic One party state Police state Authoritarian dictatorship Woke Marxist Socialist Fascist etc
I wonder if that's a factor in their parties' dire performances? If you're perpetually trying to defeat some other boogie man enemy rather than the one in front of you..
Especially when the bogey is on the end of your own nose - vide authoritarianism etc.
It also shows how the SGs and SNP could form an agreement much more easily than say the Brighton kind and Mr Davey's LDs (or for that matter Ms Swinson's).
OT but BTW - many thanks for recommending the Otto Prohaska novel. A curious combination of Svejk, Patrick O'Brian, Flann O'Brien and Porco Rosso - but I enjoyed it very much and have ordered the next two. I do like the idea of the railway station that was known by a number because they couldn't decide whether to call it by its German, Czech, Polish or Magyar name ...
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Weird rewriting of history.
It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.
Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.
Not that weird a rewriting of history..
Yes the democratic franchise evolved over time eventually to a universal franchise in the early 20th century but that is the same anywhere that was democratic. But few other countries where and still today globally few other countries are as democratic as the UK.
Less than a tenth of the world's population live in a "Full Democracy" like the UK according to rankings like the Democracy Index - and a lot of those that are were influenced by or evolved from the UK's own democracy.
So yes I stand by it as a very traditional British value.
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
I have a harsh view on widespread traditional values around most parts of the world. It's one of the great things about Britain that the traditional values I listed have now largely fallen out of favour.
As for your list, sure. I wasn't being particularly serious, just agreeing it's a bit of a ridiculous question (they should list the values that are being asked about). I'm sure most countries would claim a similar list of traditional values and be equally guilty of my list.
The key problem with the question is that a UKIP blazer wearing type and a young student activist might well answer the question the same way, but differ strongly on whether they are happy about it.
That said, I think the questions are from some serious research that was used to identify seven different political groups in the British public, so the question must be useful in some way in discriminating between those groups.
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Yes. So have I. You have been to Egypt and China and come away without believing that it is even arguable that the world might have an overpopulation problem, though, so I'm not sure how much attention you were paying.
Have you never visited continental Europe or is there some other reason that no country there gets a mention?
Continental Europe is a piddly minor part of the world's population, there is no reason to only use them as a comparison. But even if you do then within living memory most were not democracies. I'm old enough to remember the Berlin Wall falling and within either my parents or grandparents lifetime Spain, Germany and most of Europe were not democracies.
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
No country is a democracy until it has given men and women the vote equally. Use that to count how old a democracy is.
Mid term polls bear no relation whatsoever to subsequent general election results.
Indeed. In April 2017 TMay's Tories had a 25% polling lead which was almost frittered away by polling day.
Lets hope and pray that history repeats itself. One of the most distasteful things I find with Tory politicians is that immigrants to this country and the sons and daughters of immigrants are viscerally anti immigration. It feeds the notion of the Tories being the nasty Party. I'm all right Jack is a very unpleasant look....
Priti Patel should should be ashamed
Are you judging Patel differently because of her ethnicity and background?
There's a word for that.
I am judging her as an anti immigrant Home Secretary who is the daughter of immigrants. My Great Grandparents arrived here at the turn of the last century and if I heard that they or their children fought tooth and claw to keep others from arriving I would be disgusted. But I'm not a Tory
If you accept that there is an argument against unlimited immigration (I'm not sure that you personally do accept this) then why does it matter who makes it? Those with the most to lose from immigration are often the most recently settled wave of immigrants - those without much in the way of assets and who are dependent on selling their labour, the value of which is driven down by the arrival of a new source of labour.
I would say the government policy makes sense if you think immigration is bad, at least at previous levels. But the argument that limiting immigration improves productivity - to allow wages to increase in real terms - isn't backed by the evidence. Probably the opposite. And shortages are just bad. You just can't spin this*
* Johnson is of course spinning this.
Of course you can spin shortages as being a good thing. Indeed I believe it.
Economics is ultimately all about the productive use of scarce resources. Shortages are a show of scarcity and allows even more productive use.
If resources weren't scarce, there'd never be any shortages, but nor would we have any need for economics.
Shortages mean things that are wanted, maybe vital, which previously happend, no longer happen. It means people no longer get the social care they had previously, businesses are dealing with shortages rather than productive work, employees are frustrated because they can't do their job properly. There isn't much of an upside.
That's because you're only looking at one side of the equation.
Shortage of labour raises the value and productivity of said labour, which raises their real wages and leads to real economic growth per capita.
The most productive businesses are able to affort the labour - the least productive businesses can't and die.
Creative destruction, its what leads to long term economic growth.
Labour shortage doesn't increase productivity or real wages. Consumers (all of us) are losers while some producers are winners and some are losers. All things being equal, winners and losers roughly balance out. Things aren't equal because shortages are bad in themselves, as I have said.
Not true. The losers are the companies who go out of business because they can't find labour - but those businesses will be the least productive, least-efficient businesses that we had. So by them going out of business we raise our overall productivity and income per capita.
Or businesses face up to the shortage and invest in productivity improvements so they don't have to go out of business, which boosts productivity, which raises our overall productivity and income per capita.
Either way, we win.
I think I detect a few flaws in your logic: businesses' relocating abroad because staying in the UK isn't cost effective; customers' turning to suppliers abroad because UK suppliers have been undercut. That's just for starters. Your pronouncements would have been outdated in the middle ages.
If the businesses that are less productive, less efficient and less competitive that we have a competitive disadvantage in relocate abroad then that is a good thing.
Ricardian economics, we should do what we have a competitive advantage in - and import that which we have a competitive disadvantage in.
Your anti-import, anti-abroad mercantilism would have been quite appropriate in the middle ages. But we've moved on from then, try and catch up.
Ricardian economics requires an undistorted market does it not? Brexit has deliberately distorted the market by giving our foreign competitors advantages (eg. a huge pool of cheap labour) that we are now denied. As a market-distorter, all these economic theories you espouse simply crumble to dust in your hands. You need a new outlook and some further reading.
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Weird rewriting of history.
It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.
Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.
Not that weird a rewriting of history..
Yes the democratic franchise evolved over time eventually to a universal franchise in the early 20th century but that is the same anywhere that was democratic. But few other countries where and still today globally few other countries are as democratic as the UK.
Less than a tenth of the world's population live in a "Full Democracy" like the UK according to rankings like the Democracy Index - and a lot of those that are were influenced by or evolved from the UK's own democracy.
So yes I stand by it as a very traditional British value.
AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.
If, assuming DT are plugged into government thinking, the suggestion of the EU "offering surrender terms" indicates the EU and UKG may be moving to agreement.
This is the Kremlinology of the Johnson regime.
It is a surrender though. However you want dress it up they've completely reversed their position on free movement of goods into NI from GB without any kind of alignment on standards required. It's something I was assured by you and other ardent EUphiles wouldn't be possible.
Once again you all keep losing because you've underestimated the strength of our position and overestimated the strength of the EU position. The EU is extremely brittle. The support it has is very shallow and based on bribing people with their own money.
Since Lord Frost took control the EU has had to concede on every point of principle. All Britain has to do is stand firm and outlast the EU in a game of chicken and they're the ones to move. Which is what some of us always said was the case.
Your point on the shallow support is very well made. The EU is like the Wizard of Oz, all flash and showy and widely adored but we've peaked behind the curtain now and seen that there is nothing there.
It follows on from the discussion about national identity this morning. Like many, I can't necessarily explain why I love England/Britain/the UK. It's not what makes us great that I love about the country, it's everything else, the warts. The EU likes to pretend it is perfect, nobody can fall in love with something or someone perfect, you can idealise it as some on here do, but not love it. That's what makes EU support brittle and shallow.
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Yes. So have I. You have been to Egypt and China and come away without believing that it is even arguable that the world might have an overpopulation problem, though, so I'm not sure how much attention you were paying.
Have you never visited continental Europe or is there some other reason that no country there gets a mention?
In all seriousness I would like to hear suggestions for countries that are less racist than Britain. Taking official and informal criteria into account. In my opinion there are a few in Western Europe that tie but otherwise I can't think of any.
Very few, if any (I think there are polls backing that up - Brexiters were wont to post them after the referendum, justifiably so, given the narrative).
Difficult thing to define/measure though. You can look at average attitudes, which is one thing, but if we're tlaking overt racism then the number of people with those views is more important than the mean/median view in the population. Is a country where the average person is slightly racist, but only 1% white supremacist more or less racist than one where the average person is not racist at all, but 10% are white supremacist?
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Weird rewriting of history.
It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.
Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.
Not that weird a rewriting of history..
Yes the democratic franchise evolved over time eventually to a universal franchise in the early 20th century but that is the same anywhere that was democratic. But few other countries where and still today globally few other countries are as democratic as the UK.
Less than a tenth of the world's population live in a "Full Democracy" like the UK according to rankings like the Democracy Index - and a lot of those that are were influenced by or evolved from the UK's own democracy.
So yes I stand by it as a very traditional British value.
AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.
7%.
Which is about 7% more than most of the world at the time.
And we evolved that 7% to 100% via a continuous iteration of democracy not via revolution and rebeginnings.
Mid term polls bear no relation whatsoever to subsequent general election results.
Indeed. In April 2017 TMay's Tories had a 25% polling lead which was almost frittered away by polling day.
Lets hope and pray that history repeats itself. One of the most distasteful things I find with Tory politicians is that immigrants to this country and the sons and daughters of immigrants are viscerally anti immigration. It feeds the notion of the Tories being the nasty Party. I'm all right Jack is a very unpleasant look....
Priti Patel should should be ashamed
Are you judging Patel differently because of her ethnicity and background?
There's a word for that.
I am judging her as an anti immigrant Home Secretary who is the daughter of immigrants. My Great Grandparents arrived here at the turn of the last century and if I heard that they or their children fought tooth and claw to keep others from arriving I would be disgusted. But I'm not a Tory
If you accept that there is an argument against unlimited immigration (I'm not sure that you personally do accept this) then why does it matter who makes it? Those with the most to lose from immigration are often the most recently settled wave of immigrants - those without much in the way of assets and who are dependent on selling their labour, the value of which is driven down by the arrival of a new source of labour.
I would say the government policy makes sense if you think immigration is bad, at least at previous levels. But the argument that limiting immigration improves productivity - to allow wages to increase in real terms - isn't backed by the evidence. Probably the opposite. And shortages are just bad. You just can't spin this*
* Johnson is of course spinning this.
Of course you can spin shortages as being a good thing. Indeed I believe it.
Economics is ultimately all about the productive use of scarce resources. Shortages are a show of scarcity and allows even more productive use.
If resources weren't scarce, there'd never be any shortages, but nor would we have any need for economics.
Shortages mean things that are wanted, maybe vital, which previously happend, no longer happen. It means people no longer get the social care they had previously, businesses are dealing with shortages rather than productive work, employees are frustrated because they can't do their job properly. There isn't much of an upside.
That's because you're only looking at one side of the equation.
Shortage of labour raises the value and productivity of said labour, which raises their real wages and leads to real economic growth per capita.
The most productive businesses are able to affort the labour - the least productive businesses can't and die.
Creative destruction, its what leads to long term economic growth.
Labour shortage doesn't increase productivity or real wages. Consumers (all of us) are losers while some producers are winners and some are losers. All things being equal, winners and losers roughly balance out. Things aren't equal because shortages are bad in themselves, as I have said.
Not true. The losers are the companies who go out of business because they can't find labour - but those businesses will be the least productive, least-efficient businesses that we had. So by them going out of business we raise our overall productivity and income per capita.
Or businesses face up to the shortage and invest in productivity improvements so they don't have to go out of business, which boosts productivity, which raises our overall productivity and income per capita.
Either way, we win.
I think I detect a few flaws in your logic: businesses' relocating abroad because staying in the UK isn't cost effective; customers' turning to suppliers abroad because UK suppliers have been undercut. That's just for starters. Your pronouncements would have been outdated in the middle ages.
If the businesses that are less productive, less efficient and less competitive that we have a competitive disadvantage in relocate abroad then that is a good thing.
Ricardian economics, we should do what we have a competitive advantage in - and import that which we have a competitive disadvantage in.
Your anti-import, anti-abroad mercantilism would have been quite appropriate in the middle ages. But we've moved on from then, try and catch up.
Ricardian economics requires an undistorted market does it not? Brexit has deliberately distorted the market by giving our foreign competitors advantages (eg. a huge pool of cheap labour) that we are now denied. As a market-distorter, all these economic theories you espouse simply crumble to dust in your hands. You need a new outlook and some further reading.
No that's not what it requires.
Those nations with a competitive advantage of a huge pool of cheap labour can take the shitty jobs that require cheap labour. We're better off without them. That's Ricardian economics - we can take the skilled jobs that have high value added that can pay a decent wage instead.
Totally & utterly off topic but 'fact' needed for a story I'm writing. If DNA samples from a putative mother and son are sent for analysis, how long before the lab can/will confirm that they are in fact parent and child?
No Mr Dancer, I'm not out to compete with you.
I'd expect 24-48 hours would be realistic, if urgent and the force is willing to pay for an expedited service.
However: I wonder why there would be a need for dramatic speed in a case? Is the need for urgency realistic? (You don't have to tell us the plot, obviously).
There's a good Facebook group for writers and policing, where writers can ask police and ex-police questions. A global audience, but lots of UK contributors and answerers. Just say which country you're interested in. https://www.facebook.com/groups/copsandwriters
@Casino_Royale from last thread. Killing off the general discussion but on a separate note you seemed surprised that I thought I might be to the right of you on some things and asked for examples. Clearly it is difficult to give specifics without an in depth discussion but in general I get the impression you are a traditional Conservative, more along the lines of @HYUFD although not as traditional as him, whereas I am more along the lines of an Orange Booker. Although I have some humdinger arguments with @Philip_Thompson on many things my views are often in line with him, although maybe not quite as libertarian as him, I am very libertarian.
Have I judged that correctly?
I am often misjudged as being of the left because I attack the Conservatives often, but equally I don't support Labour. I have never voted Labour and I am 67 in a few weeks. I often feel traditional Conservatives come out with some staggering Socialist policies (not you, just in general).
Thanks. So, you're very free-market then I presume?
I consider myself to be a traditional shire Tory. I don't agree with anyone all of the time on anything but I think the poster on here that comes closest to my views is @Sean_F
Yep very free market and small state. Like Philip I would like to see a Universal Wage. I was a fan of this from the 90s when I first heard it put forward by a right wing think tank. That could eliminate most of the DWP and much of HMRC. Not a fan of BEIS either. Far to much interference in the marketplace. I would like to see more generic laws and much less specific laws on issues. I hate the government faffing around an issue with interference. If something should be run by the state (eg health and education) then do so, otherwise leave it to the market, with generic laws to protect the consumer from abuse.
I hate bureaucracy and state interference because they are useless at it, but accept it is needed, but as little as possible. Leave people to live their lives.
I am also very, very socially liberal.
I like SeanF a lot also, but I like the views of a range of people. I like TSE, Nigelb, IanB2, kinabalu etc so a wide selection across the spectrum
Does this come as a surprise? What did you think my views were? I won't be offended if you though I was a raving Socialist.
Thanks. Interesting.
It comes as a surprise because almost all the posts of yours I can recall relate to social issues, institutions and the nation state, and that is where the zeitgeist currently is in political debate and where I suspect we diverge.
Oh that is very interesting. I have no idea what you are referring to re social issues and institutions. What did you have in mind? I am not a fan of institutions generally and I think you are, but I would be surprised if we differed much on social issues. Can you elaborate please? This is very interesting.
Re nation state are you referring to my luke warm attachment to nations and my liking of the EU?
I have to say it comes as a surprise that is how I come across. I thought I would come across as an Orange Book liberal, but often our own perception are different to what others see.
I would love to know what @Philip_Thompson and @HYUFD think I am with whom I have had many discussions.
I think that you and I can be quite similar in a lot of ways, though I'd put you down as slightly to the left of me.
One very good thing I saw in the earlier days of being online was the website Political Compass, though it was rather US-dominated, that broke views down to left & right on the X-axis and on the Y-axis was libertarianism (down) and authoritarianism (up). I've always been firmly in the bottom-right quadrant, I'd guess you'd be similar but maybe marginally to the left?
Be curious if people wanted to take the test and see where their results are. I've just done it again and mine are: Economic Left/Right: 4.0 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.18
So, don't give me any more of your "I'm a libertarian" stuff, you authoritarian
I'm a lot more left on that scale than I expected. And maybe more libertarian. There were several questions here I would have chosen 'neither agree or disagree' had it been an option - if they were I'd maybe be more towards the centre on both scales.
I'm more libertarian than PT, too. Well, well. Though rather more to the left. My views seem to have changed even more as I grow still older.
I'm sure you (and I) are about to hit the 'I'm old enough to be a Unionist now' wall any day. Signs may include the name 'Nippy' creeping into conversation, deliberately picking out the UJ emblazoned foodstuffs at Morrisons and humming the R4 UK theme under one's breath.
It's striking that contrary to the myth on PB the SNP is a lot less authoritarian than almost anyone else - almost perfectly centrist. And there is an interesting contrast also between Labour and Slab at Holyrood: you can really see Messrs/Mdmes Sarwar and Baillie trying to be Tory lite (as are the LDs, too, tbf). Though the Tories swing inland themselves. The SNP hardly budge, and the SGs are rather more mainstream than the UK Greens.
Dullish centrists is unfortunately a fair description, fortunately that still means left of any of the main contenders. We all have a tendency to mythologise our opponents failings but the stories Yoons tell themselves about the SNP & Scotland are pretty self defeatingly hilarious. The tourists might have a minimal excuse but they seem terribly reluctant to admit that they may not be fully cognizant of the facts (aka experts).
Banana republic One party state Police state Authoritarian dictatorship Woke Marxist Socialist Fascist etc
I wonder if that's a factor in their parties' dire performances? If you're perpetually trying to defeat some other boogie man enemy rather than the one in front of you..
Especially when the bogey is on the end of your own nose - vide authoritarianism etc.
It also shows how the SGs and SNP could form an agreement much more easily than say the Brighton kind and Mr Davey's LDs (or for that matter Ms Swinson's).
OT but BTW - many thanks for recommending the Otto Prohaska novel. A curious combination of Svejk, Patrick O'Brian, Flann O'Brien and Porco Rosso - but I enjoyed it very much and have ordered the next two. I do like the idea of the railway station that was known by a number because they couldn't decide whether to call it by its German, Czech, Polish or Magyar name ...
Cool, glad you liked it (and hopefully them). Now the season for reading in front of a fire is coming upon us I may give them another go. Technical observations on Austro-Hungarian submarines (edit: though from memory Otto's sub was originally German?) and aircraft among other things always add interest in my experience!
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Weird rewriting of history.
It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.
Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.
Not that weird a rewriting of history..
Yes the democratic franchise evolved over time eventually to a universal franchise in the early 20th century but that is the same anywhere that was democratic. But few other countries where and still today globally few other countries are as democratic as the UK.
Less than a tenth of the world's population live in a "Full Democracy" like the UK according to rankings like the Democracy Index - and a lot of those that are were influenced by or evolved from the UK's own democracy.
So yes I stand by it as a very traditional British value.
AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.
7%.
Which is about 7% more than most of the world at the time.
And we evolved that 7% to 100% via a continuous iteration of democracy not via revolution and rebeginnings.
It's not 100% even now, FYI.
Yes it is. To the nearest percentage it absolutely is 100% now.
Prisoners are less than 0.1% of population, which rounds down to 0%
Could someone be kind enough to describe that result as I think it is just left of centre
I look forward to an honest answer, go on and tell me I will not be upset. !!!!!
Afternoon, Big G. You did say you would not be upset ... but that puts you pretty much midway between Labour, PC and Green. With PC being most suited to your conservative (little C) views.
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
I have a harsh view on widespread traditional values around most parts of the world. It's one of the great things about Britain that the traditional values I listed have now largely fallen out of favour.
As for your list, sure. I wasn't being particularly serious, just agreeing it's a bit of a ridiculous question (they should list the values that are being asked about). I'm sure most countries would claim a similar list of traditional values and be equally guilty of my list.
The key problem with the question is that a UKIP blazer wearing type and a young student activist might well answer the question the same way, but differ strongly on whether they are happy about it.
That said, I think the questions are from some serious research that was used to identify seven different political groups in the British public, so the question must be useful in some way in discriminating between those groups.
Yep, you can have questions that don't seem to stand up to scrutiny if people answer them in predictable ways. A lot of these things work better under time pressure so you get the instinctive response before people have time to dissect the question.
I remember when I was at uni there was an online test that guessed your sex and was pretty accurate. Pretty innocuous questions, gathered - I think - from a set of existing online surveys. Then fit a model on training data, update periodically, voila!
Mid term polls bear no relation whatsoever to subsequent general election results.
Indeed. In April 2017 TMay's Tories had a 25% polling lead which was almost frittered away by polling day.
Lets hope and pray that history repeats itself. One of the most distasteful things I find with Tory politicians is that immigrants to this country and the sons and daughters of immigrants are viscerally anti immigration. It feeds the notion of the Tories being the nasty Party. I'm all right Jack is a very unpleasant look....
Priti Patel should should be ashamed
Are you judging Patel differently because of her ethnicity and background?
There's a word for that.
I am judging her as an anti immigrant Home Secretary who is the daughter of immigrants. My Great Grandparents arrived here at the turn of the last century and if I heard that they or their children fought tooth and claw to keep others from arriving I would be disgusted. But I'm not a Tory
If you accept that there is an argument against unlimited immigration (I'm not sure that you personally do accept this) then why does it matter who makes it? Those with the most to lose from immigration are often the most recently settled wave of immigrants - those without much in the way of assets and who are dependent on selling their labour, the value of which is driven down by the arrival of a new source of labour.
I would say the government policy makes sense if you think immigration is bad, at least at previous levels. But the argument that limiting immigration improves productivity - to allow wages to increase in real terms - isn't backed by the evidence. Probably the opposite. And shortages are just bad. You just can't spin this*
* Johnson is of course spinning this.
Of course you can spin shortages as being a good thing. Indeed I believe it.
Economics is ultimately all about the productive use of scarce resources. Shortages are a show of scarcity and allows even more productive use.
If resources weren't scarce, there'd never be any shortages, but nor would we have any need for economics.
Shortages mean things that are wanted, maybe vital, which previously happend, no longer happen. It means people no longer get the social care they had previously, businesses are dealing with shortages rather than productive work, employees are frustrated because they can't do their job properly. There isn't much of an upside.
That's because you're only looking at one side of the equation.
Shortage of labour raises the value and productivity of said labour, which raises their real wages and leads to real economic growth per capita.
The most productive businesses are able to affort the labour - the least productive businesses can't and die.
Creative destruction, its what leads to long term economic growth.
Labour shortage doesn't increase productivity or real wages. Consumers (all of us) are losers while some producers are winners and some are losers. All things being equal, winners and losers roughly balance out. Things aren't equal because shortages are bad in themselves, as I have said.
Not true. The losers are the companies who go out of business because they can't find labour - but those businesses will be the least productive, least-efficient businesses that we had. So by them going out of business we raise our overall productivity and income per capita.
Or businesses face up to the shortage and invest in productivity improvements so they don't have to go out of business, which boosts productivity, which raises our overall productivity and income per capita.
Either way, we win.
I think I detect a few flaws in your logic: businesses' relocating abroad because staying in the UK isn't cost effective; customers' turning to suppliers abroad because UK suppliers have been undercut. That's just for starters. Your pronouncements would have been outdated in the middle ages.
If the businesses that are less productive, less efficient and less competitive that we have a competitive disadvantage in relocate abroad then that is a good thing.
Ricardian economics, we should do what we have a competitive advantage in - and import that which we have a competitive disadvantage in.
Your anti-import, anti-abroad mercantilism would have been quite appropriate in the middle ages. But we've moved on from then, try and catch up.
Ricardian economics requires an undistorted market does it not? Brexit has deliberately distorted the market by giving our foreign competitors advantages (eg. a huge pool of cheap labour) that we are now denied. As a market-distorter, all these economic theories you espouse simply crumble to dust in your hands. You need a new outlook and some further reading.
No that's not what it requires.
Those nations with a competitive advantage of a huge pool of cheap labour can take the shitty jobs that require cheap labour. We're better off without them. That's Ricardian economics - we can take the skilled jobs that have high value added that can pay a decent wage instead.
That only really works if transport costs are insignificant. Otherwise it makes sense for the items to be produced locally, one example is plastic boxes, little need to make them locally but transport costs (due to size) means you need to be incredibly unproductive for a local producer to not be competitive
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Weird rewriting of history.
It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.
Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.
Not that weird a rewriting of history..
Yes the democratic franchise evolved over time eventually to a universal franchise in the early 20th century but that is the same anywhere that was democratic. But few other countries where and still today globally few other countries are as democratic as the UK.
Less than a tenth of the world's population live in a "Full Democracy" like the UK according to rankings like the Democracy Index - and a lot of those that are were influenced by or evolved from the UK's own democracy.
So yes I stand by it as a very traditional British value.
AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.
7%.
Which is about 7% more than most of the world at the time.
And we evolved that 7% to 100% via a continuous iteration of democracy not via revolution and rebeginnings.
It's not 100% even now, FYI.
Yes it is. To the nearest percentage it absolutely is 100% now.
Prisoners are less than 0.1% of population, which rounds down to 0%
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Weird rewriting of history.
It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.
Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.
Not that weird a rewriting of history..
Yes the democratic franchise evolved over time eventually to a universal franchise in the early 20th century but that is the same anywhere that was democratic. But few other countries where and still today globally few other countries are as democratic as the UK.
Less than a tenth of the world's population live in a "Full Democracy" like the UK according to rankings like the Democracy Index - and a lot of those that are were influenced by or evolved from the UK's own democracy.
So yes I stand by it as a very traditional British value.
AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.
7%.
Which is about 7% more than most of the world at the time.
And we evolved that 7% to 100% via a continuous iteration of democracy not via revolution and rebeginnings.
It's not 100% even now, FYI.
Yes it is. To the nearest percentage it absolutely is 100% now.
Prisoners are less than 0.1% of population, which rounds down to 0%
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Weird rewriting of history.
It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.
Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.
Not that weird a rewriting of history..
Yes the democratic franchise evolved over time eventually to a universal franchise in the early 20th century but that is the same anywhere that was democratic. But few other countries where and still today globally few other countries are as democratic as the UK.
Less than a tenth of the world's population live in a "Full Democracy" like the UK according to rankings like the Democracy Index - and a lot of those that are were influenced by or evolved from the UK's own democracy.
So yes I stand by it as a very traditional British value.
AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.
7%.
Everyone has the vote in Russia today, but I'd argue that Britain was more democratic in the late 18th century than Russia is today.
It's a mistake to think of democracy as solely about multi-party elections and a wide franchise. There are so many more important aspects.
Closest Match: Eco-Anarchism Eco-Anarchism, or Green Anarchism, is a form of anarchism that places a particular emphasis on environmental issues. It is often linked to more distinct ideologies such as Anarcho-Syndicalism. Eco-Anarchists are generally revolutionary and support using a decentralized egalitarian economy to achieve environmental goals.
It works...
Some hoots:
The fact that so many workers vote for bourgeois parties over socialist parties is proof that party politics are no longer relevant.
And it thinks I might be:
Closest Match: Utopian Socialism Utopian Socialism is a form of pre-Marxist socialism that believes highly in an egalitarian, moralistic and idealistic foundation for a socialist society. Utopian Socialists generally reject violent revolution and often believe the ruling class can be convinced to adopt socialism.
I think that's just @Dura_Ace 's retaliatory symbolic violence.
Mid term polls bear no relation whatsoever to subsequent general election results.
Indeed. In April 2017 TMay's Tories had a 25% polling lead which was almost frittered away by polling day.
Lets hope and pray that history repeats itself. One of the most distasteful things I find with Tory politicians is that immigrants to this country and the sons and daughters of immigrants are viscerally anti immigration. It feeds the notion of the Tories being the nasty Party. I'm all right Jack is a very unpleasant look....
Priti Patel should should be ashamed
Are you judging Patel differently because of her ethnicity and background?
There's a word for that.
I am judging her as an anti immigrant Home Secretary who is the daughter of immigrants. My Great Grandparents arrived here at the turn of the last century and if I heard that they or their children fought tooth and claw to keep others from arriving I would be disgusted. But I'm not a Tory
If you accept that there is an argument against unlimited immigration (I'm not sure that you personally do accept this) then why does it matter who makes it? Those with the most to lose from immigration are often the most recently settled wave of immigrants - those without much in the way of assets and who are dependent on selling their labour, the value of which is driven down by the arrival of a new source of labour.
I would say the government policy makes sense if you think immigration is bad, at least at previous levels. But the argument that limiting immigration improves productivity - to allow wages to increase in real terms - isn't backed by the evidence. Probably the opposite. And shortages are just bad. You just can't spin this*
* Johnson is of course spinning this.
Of course you can spin shortages as being a good thing. Indeed I believe it.
Economics is ultimately all about the productive use of scarce resources. Shortages are a show of scarcity and allows even more productive use.
If resources weren't scarce, there'd never be any shortages, but nor would we have any need for economics.
Shortages mean things that are wanted, maybe vital, which previously happend, no longer happen. It means people no longer get the social care they had previously, businesses are dealing with shortages rather than productive work, employees are frustrated because they can't do their job properly. There isn't much of an upside.
That's because you're only looking at one side of the equation.
Shortage of labour raises the value and productivity of said labour, which raises their real wages and leads to real economic growth per capita.
The most productive businesses are able to affort the labour - the least productive businesses can't and die.
Creative destruction, its what leads to long term economic growth.
Labour shortage doesn't increase productivity or real wages. Consumers (all of us) are losers while some producers are winners and some are losers. All things being equal, winners and losers roughly balance out. Things aren't equal because shortages are bad in themselves, as I have said.
Not true. The losers are the companies who go out of business because they can't find labour - but those businesses will be the least productive, least-efficient businesses that we had. So by them going out of business we raise our overall productivity and income per capita.
Or businesses face up to the shortage and invest in productivity improvements so they don't have to go out of business, which boosts productivity, which raises our overall productivity and income per capita.
Either way, we win.
I think I detect a few flaws in your logic: businesses' relocating abroad because staying in the UK isn't cost effective; customers' turning to suppliers abroad because UK suppliers have been undercut. That's just for starters. Your pronouncements would have been outdated in the middle ages.
If the businesses that are less productive, less efficient and less competitive that we have a competitive disadvantage in relocate abroad then that is a good thing.
Ricardian economics, we should do what we have a competitive advantage in - and import that which we have a competitive disadvantage in.
Your anti-import, anti-abroad mercantilism would have been quite appropriate in the middle ages. But we've moved on from then, try and catch up.
Ricardian economics requires an undistorted market does it not? Brexit has deliberately distorted the market by giving our foreign competitors advantages (eg. a huge pool of cheap labour) that we are now denied. As a market-distorter, all these economic theories you espouse simply crumble to dust in your hands. You need a new outlook and some further reading.
No that's not what it requires.
Those nations with a competitive advantage of a huge pool of cheap labour can take the shitty jobs that require cheap labour. We're better off without them. That's Ricardian economics - we can take the skilled jobs that have high value added that can pay a decent wage instead.
That only really works if transport costs are insignificant. Otherwise it makes sense for the items to be produced locally, one example is plastic boxes, little need to make them locally but transport costs (due to size) means you need to be incredibly unproductive for a local producer to not be competitive
Transport costs are insignificant for most things though.
Ironically including CO2 as well as ££££, if you are capable of shipping things on large containers then the cost of shipping them both in cash and CO2 halfway around the planet is utterly inconsequential.
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Weird rewriting of history.
It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.
Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.
Not that weird a rewriting of history..
Yes the democratic franchise evolved over time eventually to a universal franchise in the early 20th century but that is the same anywhere that was democratic. But few other countries where and still today globally few other countries are as democratic as the UK.
Less than a tenth of the world's population live in a "Full Democracy" like the UK according to rankings like the Democracy Index - and a lot of those that are were influenced by or evolved from the UK's own democracy.
So yes I stand by it as a very traditional British value.
AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.
7%.
Which is about 7% more than most of the world at the time.
And we evolved that 7% to 100% via a continuous iteration of democracy not via revolution and rebeginnings.
It's not 100% even now, FYI.
Yes it is. To the nearest percentage it absolutely is 100% now.
Prisoners are less than 0.1% of population, which rounds down to 0%
And children are, what, 20%?
Children are 20% of the adult population are they? 🤔
AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.
Mid term polls bear no relation whatsoever to subsequent general election results.
Indeed. In April 2017 TMay's Tories had a 25% polling lead which was almost frittered away by polling day.
Lets hope and pray that history repeats itself. One of the most distasteful things I find with Tory politicians is that immigrants to this country and the sons and daughters of immigrants are viscerally anti immigration. It feeds the notion of the Tories being the nasty Party. I'm all right Jack is a very unpleasant look....
Priti Patel should should be ashamed
Are you judging Patel differently because of her ethnicity and background?
There's a word for that.
I am judging her as an anti immigrant Home Secretary who is the daughter of immigrants. My Great Grandparents arrived here at the turn of the last century and if I heard that they or their children fought tooth and claw to keep others from arriving I would be disgusted. But I'm not a Tory
If you accept that there is an argument against unlimited immigration (I'm not sure that you personally do accept this) then why does it matter who makes it? Those with the most to lose from immigration are often the most recently settled wave of immigrants - those without much in the way of assets and who are dependent on selling their labour, the value of which is driven down by the arrival of a new source of labour.
I would say the government policy makes sense if you think immigration is bad, at least at previous levels. But the argument that limiting immigration improves productivity - to allow wages to increase in real terms - isn't backed by the evidence. Probably the opposite. And shortages are just bad. You just can't spin this*
* Johnson is of course spinning this.
Of course you can spin shortages as being a good thing. Indeed I believe it.
Economics is ultimately all about the productive use of scarce resources. Shortages are a show of scarcity and allows even more productive use.
If resources weren't scarce, there'd never be any shortages, but nor would we have any need for economics.
Shortages mean things that are wanted, maybe vital, which previously happend, no longer happen. It means people no longer get the social care they had previously, businesses are dealing with shortages rather than productive work, employees are frustrated because they can't do their job properly. There isn't much of an upside.
That's because you're only looking at one side of the equation.
Shortage of labour raises the value and productivity of said labour, which raises their real wages and leads to real economic growth per capita.
The most productive businesses are able to affort the labour - the least productive businesses can't and die.
Creative destruction, its what leads to long term economic growth.
Labour shortage doesn't increase productivity or real wages. Consumers (all of us) are losers while some producers are winners and some are losers. All things being equal, winners and losers roughly balance out. Things aren't equal because shortages are bad in themselves, as I have said.
Not true. The losers are the companies who go out of business because they can't find labour - but those businesses will be the least productive, least-efficient businesses that we had. So by them going out of business we raise our overall productivity and income per capita.
Or businesses face up to the shortage and invest in productivity improvements so they don't have to go out of business, which boosts productivity, which raises our overall productivity and income per capita.
Either way, we win.
I think I detect a few flaws in your logic: businesses' relocating abroad because staying in the UK isn't cost effective; customers' turning to suppliers abroad because UK suppliers have been undercut. That's just for starters. Your pronouncements would have been outdated in the middle ages.
If the businesses that are less productive, less efficient and less competitive that we have a competitive disadvantage in relocate abroad then that is a good thing.
Ricardian economics, we should do what we have a competitive advantage in - and import that which we have a competitive disadvantage in.
Your anti-import, anti-abroad mercantilism would have been quite appropriate in the middle ages. But we've moved on from then, try and catch up.
Ricardian economics requires an undistorted market does it not? Brexit has deliberately distorted the market by giving our foreign competitors advantages (eg. a huge pool of cheap labour) that we are now denied. As a market-distorter, all these economic theories you espouse simply crumble to dust in your hands. You need a new outlook and some further reading.
No that's not what it requires.
Those nations with a competitive advantage of a huge pool of cheap labour can take the shitty jobs that require cheap labour. We're better off without them. That's Ricardian economics - we can take the skilled jobs that have high value added that can pay a decent wage instead.
That only really works if transport costs are insignificant. Otherwise it makes sense for the items to be produced locally, one example is plastic boxes, little need to make them locally but transport costs (due to size) means you need to be incredibly unproductive for a local producer to not be competitive
A very nice example, actually. I've noticed before now that two major suppliers pf plastic boxes are actually UK producers.
Mid term polls bear no relation whatsoever to subsequent general election results.
Indeed. In April 2017 TMay's Tories had a 25% polling lead which was almost frittered away by polling day.
Lets hope and pray that history repeats itself. One of the most distasteful things I find with Tory politicians is that immigrants to this country and the sons and daughters of immigrants are viscerally anti immigration. It feeds the notion of the Tories being the nasty Party. I'm all right Jack is a very unpleasant look....
Priti Patel should should be ashamed
Are you judging Patel differently because of her ethnicity and background?
There's a word for that.
I am judging her as an anti immigrant Home Secretary who is the daughter of immigrants. My Great Grandparents arrived here at the turn of the last century and if I heard that they or their children fought tooth and claw to keep others from arriving I would be disgusted. But I'm not a Tory
If you accept that there is an argument against unlimited immigration (I'm not sure that you personally do accept this) then why does it matter who makes it? Those with the most to lose from immigration are often the most recently settled wave of immigrants - those without much in the way of assets and who are dependent on selling their labour, the value of which is driven down by the arrival of a new source of labour.
I would say the government policy makes sense if you think immigration is bad, at least at previous levels. But the argument that limiting immigration improves productivity - to allow wages to increase in real terms - isn't backed by the evidence. Probably the opposite. And shortages are just bad. You just can't spin this*
* Johnson is of course spinning this.
Of course you can spin shortages as being a good thing. Indeed I believe it.
Economics is ultimately all about the productive use of scarce resources. Shortages are a show of scarcity and allows even more productive use.
If resources weren't scarce, there'd never be any shortages, but nor would we have any need for economics.
Shortages mean things that are wanted, maybe vital, which previously happend, no longer happen. It means people no longer get the social care they had previously, businesses are dealing with shortages rather than productive work, employees are frustrated because they can't do their job properly. There isn't much of an upside.
That's because you're only looking at one side of the equation.
Shortage of labour raises the value and productivity of said labour, which raises their real wages and leads to real economic growth per capita.
The most productive businesses are able to affort the labour - the least productive businesses can't and die.
Creative destruction, its what leads to long term economic growth.
Labour shortage doesn't increase productivity or real wages. Consumers (all of us) are losers while some producers are winners and some are losers. All things being equal, winners and losers roughly balance out. Things aren't equal because shortages are bad in themselves, as I have said.
Not true. The losers are the companies who go out of business because they can't find labour - but those businesses will be the least productive, least-efficient businesses that we had. So by them going out of business we raise our overall productivity and income per capita.
Or businesses face up to the shortage and invest in productivity improvements so they don't have to go out of business, which boosts productivity, which raises our overall productivity and income per capita.
Either way, we win.
I think I detect a few flaws in your logic: businesses' relocating abroad because staying in the UK isn't cost effective; customers' turning to suppliers abroad because UK suppliers have been undercut. That's just for starters. Your pronouncements would have been outdated in the middle ages.
If the businesses that are less productive, less efficient and less competitive that we have a competitive disadvantage in relocate abroad then that is a good thing.
Ricardian economics, we should do what we have a competitive advantage in - and import that which we have a competitive disadvantage in.
Your anti-import, anti-abroad mercantilism would have been quite appropriate in the middle ages. But we've moved on from then, try and catch up.
Ricardian economics requires an undistorted market does it not? Brexit has deliberately distorted the market by giving our foreign competitors advantages (eg. a huge pool of cheap labour) that we are now denied. As a market-distorter, all these economic theories you espouse simply crumble to dust in your hands. You need a new outlook and some further reading.
No that's not what it requires.
Those nations with a competitive advantage of a huge pool of cheap labour can take the shitty jobs that require cheap labour. We're better off without them. That's Ricardian economics - we can take the skilled jobs that have high value added that can pay a decent wage instead.
That only really works if transport costs are insignificant. Otherwise it makes sense for the items to be produced locally, one example is plastic boxes, little need to make them locally but transport costs (due to size) means you need to be incredibly unproductive for a local producer to not be competitive
Transport costs are insignificant for most things though.
Ironically including CO2 as well as ££££, if you are capable of shipping things on large containers then the cost of shipping them both in cash and CO2 halfway around the planet is utterly inconsequential.
Have you seen current container prices? $25,000 was 1 quote I've seen recently (completely insane but a demonstration of current supply chain issues with ships in the wrong places for multiple reasons).
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Weird rewriting of history.
It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.
Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.
Not that weird a rewriting of history..
Yes the democratic franchise evolved over time eventually to a universal franchise in the early 20th century but that is the same anywhere that was democratic. But few other countries where and still today globally few other countries are as democratic as the UK.
Less than a tenth of the world's population live in a "Full Democracy" like the UK according to rankings like the Democracy Index - and a lot of those that are were influenced by or evolved from the UK's own democracy.
So yes I stand by it as a very traditional British value.
AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.
7%.
Which is about 7% more than most of the world at the time.
And we evolved that 7% to 100% via a continuous iteration of democracy not via revolution and rebeginnings.
It's not 100% even now, FYI.
Do you believe all residents should be able to vote in national elections?
Mid term polls bear no relation whatsoever to subsequent general election results.
Indeed. In April 2017 TMay's Tories had a 25% polling lead which was almost frittered away by polling day.
Lets hope and pray that history repeats itself. One of the most distasteful things I find with Tory politicians is that immigrants to this country and the sons and daughters of immigrants are viscerally anti immigration. It feeds the notion of the Tories being the nasty Party. I'm all right Jack is a very unpleasant look....
Priti Patel should should be ashamed
Are you judging Patel differently because of her ethnicity and background?
There's a word for that.
I am judging her as an anti immigrant Home Secretary who is the daughter of immigrants. My Great Grandparents arrived here at the turn of the last century and if I heard that they or their children fought tooth and claw to keep others from arriving I would be disgusted. But I'm not a Tory
If you accept that there is an argument against unlimited immigration (I'm not sure that you personally do accept this) then why does it matter who makes it? Those with the most to lose from immigration are often the most recently settled wave of immigrants - those without much in the way of assets and who are dependent on selling their labour, the value of which is driven down by the arrival of a new source of labour.
I would say the government policy makes sense if you think immigration is bad, at least at previous levels. But the argument that limiting immigration improves productivity - to allow wages to increase in real terms - isn't backed by the evidence. Probably the opposite. And shortages are just bad. You just can't spin this*
* Johnson is of course spinning this.
Of course you can spin shortages as being a good thing. Indeed I believe it.
Economics is ultimately all about the productive use of scarce resources. Shortages are a show of scarcity and allows even more productive use.
If resources weren't scarce, there'd never be any shortages, but nor would we have any need for economics.
Shortages mean things that are wanted, maybe vital, which previously happend, no longer happen. It means people no longer get the social care they had previously, businesses are dealing with shortages rather than productive work, employees are frustrated because they can't do their job properly. There isn't much of an upside.
That's because you're only looking at one side of the equation.
Shortage of labour raises the value and productivity of said labour, which raises their real wages and leads to real economic growth per capita.
The most productive businesses are able to affort the labour - the least productive businesses can't and die.
Creative destruction, its what leads to long term economic growth.
Labour shortage doesn't increase productivity or real wages. Consumers (all of us) are losers while some producers are winners and some are losers. All things being equal, winners and losers roughly balance out. Things aren't equal because shortages are bad in themselves, as I have said.
Not true. The losers are the companies who go out of business because they can't find labour - but those businesses will be the least productive, least-efficient businesses that we had. So by them going out of business we raise our overall productivity and income per capita.
Or businesses face up to the shortage and invest in productivity improvements so they don't have to go out of business, which boosts productivity, which raises our overall productivity and income per capita.
Either way, we win.
I think I detect a few flaws in your logic: businesses' relocating abroad because staying in the UK isn't cost effective; customers' turning to suppliers abroad because UK suppliers have been undercut. That's just for starters. Your pronouncements would have been outdated in the middle ages.
If the businesses that are less productive, less efficient and less competitive that we have a competitive disadvantage in relocate abroad then that is a good thing.
Ricardian economics, we should do what we have a competitive advantage in - and import that which we have a competitive disadvantage in.
Your anti-import, anti-abroad mercantilism would have been quite appropriate in the middle ages. But we've moved on from then, try and catch up.
Ricardian economics requires an undistorted market does it not? Brexit has deliberately distorted the market by giving our foreign competitors advantages (eg. a huge pool of cheap labour) that we are now denied. As a market-distorter, all these economic theories you espouse simply crumble to dust in your hands. You need a new outlook and some further reading.
No that's not what it requires.
Those nations with a competitive advantage of a huge pool of cheap labour can take the shitty jobs that require cheap labour. We're better off without them. That's Ricardian economics - we can take the skilled jobs that have high value added that can pay a decent wage instead.
That only really works if transport costs are insignificant. Otherwise it makes sense for the items to be produced locally, one example is plastic boxes, little need to make them locally but transport costs (due to size) means you need to be incredibly unproductive for a local producer to not be competitive
Transport costs are insignificant for most things though.
Ironically including CO2 as well as ££££, if you are capable of shipping things on large containers then the cost of shipping them both in cash and CO2 halfway around the planet is utterly inconsequential.
Have you seen current container prices? $25,000 was 1 quote I've seen recently (completely insane but a demonstration of current supply chain issues with ships in the wrong places for multiple reasons).
Not something I've looked into recently no, but in general as a rule of thumb (and it will settle back down) then because containers are carrying tonnes the cost of shipping will always be inconsequential compared to eg the cost of moving things via trucks post-shipping, or domestically produced once its divided up at destination.
For most things, not everything. As you said, there are cases where it will be different.
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Weird rewriting of history.
It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.
Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.
Not that weird a rewriting of history..
Yes the democratic franchise evolved over time eventually to a universal franchise in the early 20th century but that is the same anywhere that was democratic. But few other countries where and still today globally few other countries are as democratic as the UK.
Less than a tenth of the world's population live in a "Full Democracy" like the UK according to rankings like the Democracy Index - and a lot of those that are were influenced by or evolved from the UK's own democracy.
So yes I stand by it as a very traditional British value.
AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.
7%.
Which is about 7% more than most of the world at the time.
And we evolved that 7% to 100% via a continuous iteration of democracy not via revolution and rebeginnings.
It's not 100% even now, FYI.
Yes it is. To the nearest percentage it absolutely is 100% now.
Prisoners are less than 0.1% of population, which rounds down to 0%
It's not just prisoners.
The mentally incapable and a few others . . . won't come to 0.5% of adult citizens.
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Weird rewriting of history.
It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.
Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.
Not that weird a rewriting of history..
Yes the democratic franchise evolved over time eventually to a universal franchise in the early 20th century but that is the same anywhere that was democratic. But few other countries where and still today globally few other countries are as democratic as the UK.
Less than a tenth of the world's population live in a "Full Democracy" like the UK according to rankings like the Democracy Index - and a lot of those that are were influenced by or evolved from the UK's own democracy.
So yes I stand by it as a very traditional British value.
AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.
7%.
Which is about 7% more than most of the world at the time.
And we evolved that 7% to 100% via a continuous iteration of democracy not via revolution and rebeginnings.
It's not 100% even now, FYI.
Yes it is. To the nearest percentage it absolutely is 100% now.
Prisoners are less than 0.1% of population, which rounds down to 0%
And children are, what, 20%?
Children are 20% of the adult population are they? 🤔
AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.
Aahh! Skim reading too quickly. I stand corrected.
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Weird rewriting of history.
It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.
Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.
Not that weird a rewriting of history..
Yes the democratic franchise evolved over time eventually to a universal franchise in the early 20th century but that is the same anywhere that was democratic. But few other countries where and still today globally few other countries are as democratic as the UK.
Less than a tenth of the world's population live in a "Full Democracy" like the UK according to rankings like the Democracy Index - and a lot of those that are were influenced by or evolved from the UK's own democracy.
So yes I stand by it as a very traditional British value.
AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.
7%.
If it was still just the richest 7% I doubt the last general election would have been between Corbyn and Boris.
Probably it would have been between Hunt and Swinson and we would not have voted for Brexit and still be in the EU.
Your Political Compass Economic Left/Right: -1.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.05
I've always hovered around the mid-point on "left/right" - this iteration slightly to the left of before, and consistently been libertarian.
I got Economic Left/Right -1.0. Social Libertarian/Authoritarian +0.56
Most PBers lean economically right but socially liberal.
Political Compass does generally tend to get left liberal results though in my experience because of the questions asked
I'd take the site more seriously if each question could be asked/worded from an opposite point of view and each question you actually get is a random pick from the two possible wordings.
I would need to find the evidence but I seem to remember from personality tests that the opposite viewpoint can generate a greater reaction - i.e. you will agree with the viewpoint you prefer but strongly disagree with the one you dislike. So it's not as simple as using different wording will give you the same result.
If this was a properly constructed Likert scale (which it pretty obviously isn't) the items should be selected so that they are likely to elicit extreme responses. The explanation below is from a chapter I wrote nearly 30 years ago about an attitude scale I developed (still widely used today as it happens)
"It is often assumed that a Likert scale is simply one based on forced-choice questions, where a statement is made and the respondent then indicates the degree of agreement or disagreement with the statement on a 5 (or 7) point scale. However, the construction of a Likert scale is somewhat more subtle than this. Whilst Likert scales are presented in this form, the statements with which the respondent indicates agreement and disagreement have to be selected carefully.
The technique used for selecting items for a Likert scale is to identify examples of things which lead to extreme expressions of the attitude being captured. For instance, if one was interested in attitudes to crimes and misdemeanours, one might use serial murder and parking offences as examples of the extreme ends of the spectrum. When these examples have been selected, then a sample of respondents is asked to give ratings to these examples across a wide pool of potential questionnaire items. For instance, respondents might be asked to respond to statements such as “hanging’s too good for them”, or “I can imagine myself doing something like this”.
Given a large pool of such statements, there will generally be some where there is a lot of agreement between respondents. In addition, some of these will be ones where the statements provoke extreme statements of agreement or disagreement among all respondents. It is these latter statements which one tries to identify for inclusion in a Likert scale, since, we would hope that, if we have selected suitable examples, there would be general agreement of extreme attitudes to them. Items where there is ambiguity are not good discriminators of attitudes. For instance, while one hopes that there would be a general, extreme disagreement that “hanging’s too good” for those who perpetrate parking offences, there may well be less agreement about applying this statement to serial killers, since opinions differ widely about the ethics and efficacy of capital punishment."
Could someone be kind enough to describe that result as I think it is just left of centre
I look forward to an honest answer, go on and tell me I will not be upset. !!!!!
Afternoon, Big G. You did say you would not be upset ... but that puts you pretty much midway between Labour, PC and Green. With PC being most suited to your conservative (little C) views.
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Weird rewriting of history.
It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.
Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.
Not that weird a rewriting of history..
Yes the democratic franchise evolved over time eventually to a universal franchise in the early 20th century but that is the same anywhere that was democratic. But few other countries where and still today globally few other countries are as democratic as the UK.
Less than a tenth of the world's population live in a "Full Democracy" like the UK according to rankings like the Democracy Index - and a lot of those that are were influenced by or evolved from the UK's own democracy.
So yes I stand by it as a very traditional British value.
AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.
7%.
Which is about 7% more than most of the world at the time.
And we evolved that 7% to 100% via a continuous iteration of democracy not via revolution and rebeginnings.
It's not 100% even now, FYI.
Yes it is. To the nearest percentage it absolutely is 100% now.
Prisoners are less than 0.1% of population, which rounds down to 0%
It's not just prisoners.
The mentally incapable and a few others . . . won't come to 0.5% of adult citizens.
Ah ha, a shift from population to citizens. That changes it.
Your Political Compass Economic Left/Right: -1.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.05
I've always hovered around the mid-point on "left/right" - this iteration slightly to the left of before, and consistently been libertarian.
I got Economic Left/Right -1.0. Social Libertarian/Authoritarian +0.56
Most PBers lean economically right but socially liberal.
Political Compass does generally tend to get left liberal results though in my experience because of the questions asked
I'd take the site more seriously if each question could be asked/worded from an opposite point of view and each question you actually get is a random pick from the two possible wordings.
I would need to find the evidence but I seem to remember from personality tests that the opposite viewpoint can generate a greater reaction - i.e. you will agree with the viewpoint you prefer but strongly disagree with the one you dislike. So it's not as simple as using different wording will give you the same result.
If this was a properly constructed Likert scale (which it pretty obviously isn't) the items should be selected so that they are likely to elicit extreme responses. The explanation below is from a chapter I wrote nearly 30 years ago about an attitude scale I developed (still widely used today as it happens)
"It is often assumed that a Likert scale is simply one based on forced-choice questions, where a statement is made and the respondent then indicates the degree of agreement or disagreement with the statement on a 5 (or 7) point scale. However, the construction of a Likert scale is somewhat more subtle than this. Whilst Likert scales are presented in this form, the statements with which the respondent indicates agreement and disagreement have to be selected carefully.
The technique used for selecting items for a Likert scale is to identify examples of things which lead to extreme expressions of the attitude being captured. For instance, if one was interested in attitudes to crimes and misdemeanours, one might use serial murder and parking offences as examples of the extreme ends of the spectrum. When these examples have been selected, then a sample of respondents is asked to give ratings to these examples across a wide pool of potential questionnaire items. For instance, respondents might be asked to respond to statements such as “hanging’s too good for them”, or “I can imagine myself doing something like this”.
Given a large pool of such statements, there will generally be some where there is a lot of agreement between respondents. In addition, some of these will be ones where the statements provoke extreme statements of agreement or disagreement among all respondents. It is these latter statements which one tries to identify for inclusion in a Likert scale, since, we would hope that, if we have selected suitable examples, there would be general agreement of extreme attitudes to them. Items where there is ambiguity are not good discriminators of attitudes. For instance, while one hopes that there would be a general, extreme disagreement that “hanging’s too good” for those who perpetrate parking offences, there may well be less agreement about applying this statement to serial killers, since opinions differ widely about the ethics and efficacy of capital punishment."
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Weird rewriting of history.
It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.
Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.
Not that weird a rewriting of history..
Yes the democratic franchise evolved over time eventually to a universal franchise in the early 20th century but that is the same anywhere that was democratic. But few other countries where and still today globally few other countries are as democratic as the UK.
Less than a tenth of the world's population live in a "Full Democracy" like the UK according to rankings like the Democracy Index - and a lot of those that are were influenced by or evolved from the UK's own democracy.
So yes I stand by it as a very traditional British value.
AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.
7%.
Which is about 7% more than most of the world at the time.
And we evolved that 7% to 100% via a continuous iteration of democracy not via revolution and rebeginnings.
It's not 100% even now, FYI.
Yes it is. To the nearest percentage it absolutely is 100% now.
Prisoners are less than 0.1% of population, which rounds down to 0%
It's not just prisoners.
The mentally incapable and a few others . . . won't come to 0.5% of adult citizens.
Ah ha, a shift from population to citizens. That changes it.
Your Political Compass Economic Left/Right: -1.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.05
I've always hovered around the mid-point on "left/right" - this iteration slightly to the left of before, and consistently been libertarian.
I got Economic Left/Right -1.0. Social Libertarian/Authoritarian +0.56
Most PBers lean economically right but socially liberal.
Political Compass does generally tend to get left liberal results though in my experience because of the questions asked
I'd take the site more seriously if each question could be asked/worded from an opposite point of view and each question you actually get is a random pick from the two possible wordings.
I would need to find the evidence but I seem to remember from personality tests that the opposite viewpoint can generate a greater reaction - i.e. you will agree with the viewpoint you prefer but strongly disagree with the one you dislike. So it's not as simple as using different wording will give you the same result.
If this was a properly constructed Likert scale (which it pretty obviously isn't) the items should be selected so that they are likely to elicit extreme responses. The explanation below is from a chapter I wrote nearly 30 years ago about an attitude scale I developed (still widely used today as it happens)
"It is often assumed that a Likert scale is simply one based on forced-choice questions, where a statement is made and the respondent then indicates the degree of agreement or disagreement with the statement on a 5 (or 7) point scale. However, the construction of a Likert scale is somewhat more subtle than this. Whilst Likert scales are presented in this form, the statements with which the respondent indicates agreement and disagreement have to be selected carefully.
The technique used for selecting items for a Likert scale is to identify examples of things which lead to extreme expressions of the attitude being captured. For instance, if one was interested in attitudes to crimes and misdemeanours, one might use serial murder and parking offences as examples of the extreme ends of the spectrum. When these examples have been selected, then a sample of respondents is asked to give ratings to these examples across a wide pool of potential questionnaire items. For instance, respondents might be asked to respond to statements such as “hanging’s too good for them”, or “I can imagine myself doing something like this”.
Given a large pool of such statements, there will generally be some where there is a lot of agreement between respondents. In addition, some of these will be ones where the statements provoke extreme statements of agreement or disagreement among all respondents. It is these latter statements which one tries to identify for inclusion in a Likert scale, since, we would hope that, if we have selected suitable examples, there would be general agreement of extreme attitudes to them. Items where there is ambiguity are not good discriminators of attitudes. For instance, while one hopes that there would be a general, extreme disagreement that “hanging’s too good” for those who perpetrate parking offences, there may well be less agreement about applying this statement to serial killers, since opinions differ widely about the ethics and efficacy of capital punishment."
What is missing in that capital questions is a variation regarding the chance of someone innocent being hung for a crime they did not commit.
When ever I answer such question, you instantly end up with reaction a that is then trumped the risk of an innocent bystander being killed.
The map there generated from people's results does seem to show that the English are rightwingers apart from some of the Northerners. Very strong change at the Scottish/English boundary, amazingly so, despite what is often claimed on PB - even the Scottish rightwingers are different.
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Weird rewriting of history.
It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.
Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.
Not that weird a rewriting of history..
Yes the democratic franchise evolved over time eventually to a universal franchise in the early 20th century but that is the same anywhere that was democratic. But few other countries where and still today globally few other countries are as democratic as the UK.
Less than a tenth of the world's population live in a "Full Democracy" like the UK according to rankings like the Democracy Index - and a lot of those that are were influenced by or evolved from the UK's own democracy.
So yes I stand by it as a very traditional British value.
AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.
7%.
Which is about 7% more than most of the world at the time.
And we evolved that 7% to 100% via a continuous iteration of democracy not via revolution and rebeginnings.
It's not 100% even now, FYI.
Yes it is. To the nearest percentage it absolutely is 100% now.
Prisoners are less than 0.1% of population, which rounds down to 0%
It's not just prisoners.
The mentally incapable and a few others . . . won't come to 0.5% of adult citizens.
Ah ha, a shift from population to citizens. That changes it.
By population you're giving 4 year olds the vote.
No, we were talking about the adult population.
So you accept limitations on the right to vote, then?
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Weird rewriting of history.
It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.
Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.
Not that weird a rewriting of history..
Yes the democratic franchise evolved over time eventually to a universal franchise in the early 20th century but that is the same anywhere that was democratic. But few other countries where and still today globally few other countries are as democratic as the UK.
Less than a tenth of the world's population live in a "Full Democracy" like the UK according to rankings like the Democracy Index - and a lot of those that are were influenced by or evolved from the UK's own democracy.
So yes I stand by it as a very traditional British value.
AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.
7%.
Which is about 7% more than most of the world at the time.
And we evolved that 7% to 100% via a continuous iteration of democracy not via revolution and rebeginnings.
It's not 100% even now, FYI.
Yes it is. To the nearest percentage it absolutely is 100% now.
Prisoners are less than 0.1% of population, which rounds down to 0%
It's not just prisoners.
The mentally incapable and a few others . . . won't come to 0.5% of adult citizens.
Ah ha, a shift from population to citizens. That changes it.
Non-citizens can vote in their own country, just as our citizens abroad can vote here.
Unless their country isn't a democracy, which just goes to further prove the point.
Mid term polls bear no relation whatsoever to subsequent general election results.
Indeed. In April 2017 TMay's Tories had a 25% polling lead which was almost frittered away by polling day.
Lets hope and pray that history repeats itself. One of the most distasteful things I find with Tory politicians is that immigrants to this country and the sons and daughters of immigrants are viscerally anti immigration. It feeds the notion of the Tories being the nasty Party. I'm all right Jack is a very unpleasant look....
Priti Patel should should be ashamed
Are you judging Patel differently because of her ethnicity and background?
There's a word for that.
I am judging her as an anti immigrant Home Secretary who is the daughter of immigrants. My Great Grandparents arrived here at the turn of the last century and if I heard that they or their children fought tooth and claw to keep others from arriving I would be disgusted. But I'm not a Tory
If you accept that there is an argument against unlimited immigration (I'm not sure that you personally do accept this) then why does it matter who makes it? Those with the most to lose from immigration are often the most recently settled wave of immigrants - those without much in the way of assets and who are dependent on selling their labour, the value of which is driven down by the arrival of a new source of labour.
I would say the government policy makes sense if you think immigration is bad, at least at previous levels. But the argument that limiting immigration improves productivity - to allow wages to increase in real terms - isn't backed by the evidence. Probably the opposite. And shortages are just bad. You just can't spin this*
* Johnson is of course spinning this.
Of course you can spin shortages as being a good thing. Indeed I believe it.
Economics is ultimately all about the productive use of scarce resources. Shortages are a show of scarcity and allows even more productive use.
If resources weren't scarce, there'd never be any shortages, but nor would we have any need for economics.
Shortages mean things that are wanted, maybe vital, which previously happend, no longer happen. It means people no longer get the social care they had previously, businesses are dealing with shortages rather than productive work, employees are frustrated because they can't do their job properly. There isn't much of an upside.
That's because you're only looking at one side of the equation.
Shortage of labour raises the value and productivity of said labour, which raises their real wages and leads to real economic growth per capita.
The most productive businesses are able to affort the labour - the least productive businesses can't and die.
Creative destruction, its what leads to long term economic growth.
Labour shortage doesn't increase productivity or real wages. Consumers (all of us) are losers while some producers are winners and some are losers. All things being equal, winners and losers roughly balance out. Things aren't equal because shortages are bad in themselves, as I have said.
Not true. The losers are the companies who go out of business because they can't find labour - but those businesses will be the least productive, least-efficient businesses that we had. So by them going out of business we raise our overall productivity and income per capita.
Or businesses face up to the shortage and invest in productivity improvements so they don't have to go out of business, which boosts productivity, which raises our overall productivity and income per capita.
Either way, we win.
I think I detect a few flaws in your logic: businesses' relocating abroad because staying in the UK isn't cost effective; customers' turning to suppliers abroad because UK suppliers have been undercut. That's just for starters. Your pronouncements would have been outdated in the middle ages.
If the businesses that are less productive, less efficient and less competitive that we have a competitive disadvantage in relocate abroad then that is a good thing.
Ricardian economics, we should do what we have a competitive advantage in - and import that which we have a competitive disadvantage in.
Your anti-import, anti-abroad mercantilism would have been quite appropriate in the middle ages. But we've moved on from then, try and catch up.
Ricardian economics requires an undistorted market does it not? Brexit has deliberately distorted the market by giving our foreign competitors advantages (eg. a huge pool of cheap labour) that we are now denied. As a market-distorter, all these economic theories you espouse simply crumble to dust in your hands. You need a new outlook and some further reading.
No that's not what it requires.
Those nations with a competitive advantage of a huge pool of cheap labour can take the shitty jobs that require cheap labour. We're better off without them. That's Ricardian economics - we can take the skilled jobs that have high value added that can pay a decent wage instead.
That only really works if transport costs are insignificant. Otherwise it makes sense for the items to be produced locally, one example is plastic boxes, little need to make them locally but transport costs (due to size) means you need to be incredibly unproductive for a local producer to not be competitive
Transport costs are insignificant for most things though.
Ironically including CO2 as well as ££££, if you are capable of shipping things on large containers then the cost of shipping them both in cash and CO2 halfway around the planet is utterly inconsequential.
Have you seen current container prices? $25,000 was 1 quote I've seen recently (completely insane but a demonstration of current supply chain issues with ships in the wrong places for multiple reasons).
A games importer was asked on the BBC yesterday how he was coping with the rocketing container prices and he held up 2 boxes, one near half the size of the other and said they redesigned their product packaging and instead of 13,000 in a container he gets 27,000
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Weird rewriting of history.
It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.
Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.
Not that weird a rewriting of history..
Yes the democratic franchise evolved over time eventually to a universal franchise in the early 20th century but that is the same anywhere that was democratic. But few other countries where and still today globally few other countries are as democratic as the UK.
Less than a tenth of the world's population live in a "Full Democracy" like the UK according to rankings like the Democracy Index - and a lot of those that are were influenced by or evolved from the UK's own democracy.
So yes I stand by it as a very traditional British value.
AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.
7%.
Which is about 7% more than most of the world at the time.
And we evolved that 7% to 100% via a continuous iteration of democracy not via revolution and rebeginnings.
It's not 100% even now, FYI.
Yes it is. To the nearest percentage it absolutely is 100% now.
Prisoners are less than 0.1% of population, which rounds down to 0%
It's not just prisoners.
The mentally incapable and a few others . . . won't come to 0.5% of adult citizens.
Ah ha, a shift from population to citizens. That changes it.
Are you opposed to the concept of citizenship?
No, I'm pointing out that the population contains non-citizens.
Given that you seem to be arguing that disenfranchising some of the population based on legal categories undermines a country's claim to being a democracy, how can you, as a democrat, support a distinction between citizen and non-citizen taxpayers in the franchise?
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Weird rewriting of history.
It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.
Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.
Not that weird a rewriting of history..
Yes the democratic franchise evolved over time eventually to a universal franchise in the early 20th century but that is the same anywhere that was democratic. But few other countries where and still today globally few other countries are as democratic as the UK.
Less than a tenth of the world's population live in a "Full Democracy" like the UK according to rankings like the Democracy Index - and a lot of those that are were influenced by or evolved from the UK's own democracy.
So yes I stand by it as a very traditional British value.
AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.
7%.
Which is about 7% more than most of the world at the time.
And we evolved that 7% to 100% via a continuous iteration of democracy not via revolution and rebeginnings.
It's not 100% even now, FYI.
Yes it is. To the nearest percentage it absolutely is 100% now.
Prisoners are less than 0.1% of population, which rounds down to 0%
It's not just prisoners.
The mentally incapable and a few others . . . won't come to 0.5% of adult citizens.
Ah ha, a shift from population to citizens. That changes it.
Non-citizens can vote in their own country, just as our citizens abroad can vote here.
Unless their country isn't a democracy, which just goes to further prove the point.
Non citizens can vote in elections in my country, just not in elections for your country.
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Weird rewriting of history.
It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.
Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.
Not that weird a rewriting of history..
Yes the democratic franchise evolved over time eventually to a universal franchise in the early 20th century but that is the same anywhere that was democratic. But few other countries where and still today globally few other countries are as democratic as the UK.
Less than a tenth of the world's population live in a "Full Democracy" like the UK according to rankings like the Democracy Index - and a lot of those that are were influenced by or evolved from the UK's own democracy.
So yes I stand by it as a very traditional British value.
AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.
7%.
Which is about 7% more than most of the world at the time.
And we evolved that 7% to 100% via a continuous iteration of democracy not via revolution and rebeginnings.
It's not 100% even now, FYI.
Yes it is. To the nearest percentage it absolutely is 100% now.
Prisoners are less than 0.1% of population, which rounds down to 0%
It's not just prisoners.
The mentally incapable and a few others . . . won't come to 0.5% of adult citizens.
Ah ha, a shift from population to citizens. That changes it.
Non-citizens can vote in their own country, just as our citizens abroad can vote here.
Unless their country isn't a democracy, which just goes to further prove the point.
Non citizens can vote in elections in my country, just not in elections for your country.
The map there generated from people's results does seem to show that the English are rightwingers apart from some of the Northerners. Very strong change at the Scottish/English boundary, amazingly so, despite what is often claimed on PB - even the Scottish rightwingers are different.
Stark contrast between Electoral Calculus and Political Compass results:
EC = Your Economic position is 41° Right, your National position is 2° International, and your Social position is 46° Liberal. You are economically strongly right-wing, nationally moderate, and strongly socially liberal
PC = -3.0 economic, -4.97 libertarian
So probably fairly close agreement on the libertarian streak, very different results on the economic.
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Weird rewriting of history.
It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.
Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.
Not that weird a rewriting of history..
Yes the democratic franchise evolved over time eventually to a universal franchise in the early 20th century but that is the same anywhere that was democratic. But few other countries where and still today globally few other countries are as democratic as the UK.
Less than a tenth of the world's population live in a "Full Democracy" like the UK according to rankings like the Democracy Index - and a lot of those that are were influenced by or evolved from the UK's own democracy.
So yes I stand by it as a very traditional British value.
AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.
7%.
Which is about 7% more than most of the world at the time.
And we evolved that 7% to 100% via a continuous iteration of democracy not via revolution and rebeginnings.
It's not 100% even now, FYI.
Yes it is. To the nearest percentage it absolutely is 100% now.
Prisoners are less than 0.1% of population, which rounds down to 0%
It's not just prisoners.
The mentally incapable and a few others . . . won't come to 0.5% of adult citizens.
Ah ha, a shift from population to citizens. That changes it.
Non-citizens can vote in their own country, just as our citizens abroad can vote here.
Unless their country isn't a democracy, which just goes to further prove the point.
Non citizens can vote in elections in my country, just not in elections for your country.
Stricly speaking nobody is a citizen of Scotland.
I didn't say they were, but the UK defines them as citizens of other countries and does not give them the vote.
Comments
I use "contribution" because the suggestion was that you kicked it off at 16 and counted the last 2 years in fulltime education as a suitable contribution if you didn't meet the other criteria.
This is the Kremlinology of the Johnson regime.
They always said they were against the single market as far as I saw.
Or rather, I don’t think anyone much thought about either the effect or the equity of our welfare system and high immigration.
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
Once again you all keep losing because you've underestimated the strength of our position and overestimated the strength of the EU position. The EU is extremely brittle. The support it has is very shallow and based on bribing people with their own money.
Give me bangers'
"Our childhoods were stolen," says 21-year-old Rikki Schlott, who has had an Instagram account since she was 11.
Recently, Facebook has come under fire for the impact its apps can have on teens and their mental health.
The BBC looks at how algorithms have made social media the new “drug of choice” and what people are doing about it."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-58838000
They ask simplistic questions like "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".
Well, that very much depends who, how, where and to what extent.
If you squint you can see the questions as drafted skew Left, and like it's still the 1950s, and it's quite hard to answer them in a way that gives a right-wing profile unless you admit to being a nut and a bigot. Even I came out as slightly left-libertarian.
The test wouldn't last 5 minutes in front of the Electoral Commission.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
No Mr Dancer, I'm not out to compete with you.
I think even you would be considered ridiculously woke in much of the world.
As for your list, sure. I wasn't being particularly serious, just agreeing it's a bit of a ridiculous question (they should list the values that are being asked about). I'm sure most countries would claim a similar list of traditional values and be equally guilty of my list.
https://www.dnalegal.com/blog/how-long-does-court-ordered-dna-test-take
My guess is that now, with desktop sequencers, the answer is same day if you pay.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Breast cancer that goes to the bones it metastatic breast cancer, mouth cancer that goes to the lung is metastatic mouth cancer, prostate cancer that goes to the liver is metastatic prostate cancer, for example...
Of course sometimes cancer can appear of unknown primary.
It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.
Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.
Your point on the shallow support is very well made. The EU is like the Wizard of Oz, all flash and showy and widely adored but we've peaked behind the curtain now and seen that there is nothing there.
Have you never visited continental Europe or is there some other reason that no country there gets a mention?
Real Machiavellian is to push the latter as far as possible while treating the former as neutral at best.
It also shows how the SGs and SNP could form an agreement much more easily than say the Brighton kind and Mr Davey's LDs (or for that matter Ms Swinson's).
OT but BTW - many thanks for recommending the Otto Prohaska novel. A curious combination of Svejk, Patrick O'Brian, Flann O'Brien and Porco Rosso - but I enjoyed it very much and have ordered the next two. I do like the idea of the railway station that was known by a number because they couldn't decide whether to call it by its German, Czech, Polish or Magyar name ...
Yes the democratic franchise evolved over time eventually to a universal franchise in the early 20th century but that is the same anywhere that was democratic. But few other countries where and still today globally few other countries are as democratic as the UK.
Less than a tenth of the world's population live in a "Full Democracy" like the UK according to rankings like the Democracy Index - and a lot of those that are were influenced by or evolved from the UK's own democracy.
So yes I stand by it as a very traditional British value.
That said, I think the questions are from some serious research that was used to identify seven different political groups in the British public, so the question must be useful in some way in discriminating between those groups.
7%.
Difficult thing to define/measure though. You can look at average attitudes, which is one thing, but if we're tlaking overt racism then the number of people with those views is more important than the mean/median view in the population. Is a country where the average person is slightly racist, but only 1% white supremacist more or less racist than one where the average person is not racist at all, but 10% are white supremacist?
Could someone be kind enough to describe that result as I think it is just left of centre
I look forward to an honest answer, go on and tell me I will not be upset. !!!!!
And we evolved that 7% to 100% via a continuous iteration of democracy not via revolution and rebeginnings.
Those nations with a competitive advantage of a huge pool of cheap labour can take the shitty jobs that require cheap labour. We're better off without them. That's Ricardian economics - we can take the skilled jobs that have high value added that can pay a decent wage instead.
However: I wonder why there would be a need for dramatic speed in a case? Is the need for urgency realistic? (You don't have to tell us the plot, obviously).
There's a good Facebook group for writers and policing, where writers can ask police and ex-police questions. A global audience, but lots of UK contributors and answerers. Just say which country you're interested in.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/copsandwriters
Prisoners are less than 0.1% of population, which rounds down to 0%
That's the 2019 General Election. https://www.politicalcompass.org/uk2019
In Holyrood terms it's almost perfect for the Scottish Greens.
https://www.politicalcompass.org/scotland2021
You did say!
I remember when I was at uni there was an online test that guessed your sex and was pretty accurate. Pretty innocuous questions, gathered - I think - from a set of existing online surveys. Then fit a model on training data, update periodically, voila!
It's a mistake to think of democracy as solely about multi-party elections and a wide franchise. There are so many more important aspects.
Ironically including CO2 as well as ££££, if you are capable of shipping things on large containers then the cost of shipping them both in cash and CO2 halfway around the planet is utterly inconsequential.
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.44 My score
Economic Left/Right: -7.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.44
No wonder I'm getting disenchanted with Nicola...
AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.
For most things, not everything. As you said, there are cases where it will be different.
The Electoral Calculus questionnaire is more accurate to identify your genuine political position
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/survey3d.html
Probably it would have been between Hunt and Swinson and we would not have voted for Brexit and still be in the EU.
"It is often assumed that a Likert scale is simply one based on forced-choice questions, where a statement is made and the respondent then indicates the degree of agreement or disagreement with the statement on a 5 (or 7) point scale. However, the construction of a Likert scale is somewhat more subtle than this. Whilst Likert scales are presented in this form, the statements with which the respondent indicates agreement and disagreement have to be selected carefully.
The technique used for selecting items for a Likert scale is to identify examples of things which lead to extreme expressions of the attitude being captured. For instance, if one was interested in attitudes to crimes and misdemeanours, one might use serial murder and parking offences as examples of the extreme ends of the spectrum. When these examples have been selected, then a sample of respondents is asked to give ratings to these examples across a wide pool of potential questionnaire items. For instance, respondents might be asked to respond to statements such as “hanging’s too good for them”, or “I can imagine myself doing something like this”.
Given a large pool of such statements, there will generally be some where there is a lot of agreement between respondents. In addition, some of these will be ones where the statements provoke extreme statements of agreement or disagreement among all respondents. It is these latter statements which one tries to identify for inclusion in a Likert scale, since, we would hope that, if we have selected suitable examples, there would be general agreement of extreme attitudes to them. Items where there is ambiguity are not good discriminators of attitudes. For instance, while one hopes that there would be a general, extreme disagreement that “hanging’s too good” for those who perpetrate parking offences, there may well be less agreement about applying this statement to serial killers, since opinions differ widely about the ethics and efficacy of capital punishment."
Maybe it will surprise some but I did answer the questions honestly and I am attracted to some policies in those parties
https://twitter.com/GBNEWS/status/1446447124598644739?s=20
When ever I answer such question, you instantly end up with reaction a that is then trumped the risk of an innocent bystander being killed.
The map there generated from people's results does seem to show that the English are rightwingers apart from some of the Northerners. Very strong change at the Scottish/English boundary, amazingly so, despite what is often claimed on PB - even the Scottish rightwingers are different.
Unless their country isn't a democracy, which just goes to further prove the point.
I was very impressed at his innovation
EC = Your Economic position is 41° Right, your National position is 2° International, and your Social position is 46° Liberal. You are economically strongly right-wing, nationally moderate, and strongly socially liberal
PC = -3.0 economic, -4.97 libertarian
So probably fairly close agreement on the libertarian streak, very different results on the economic.
This takes the biscuit
https://sifted.eu/articles/cala-robot/