politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Challenges, challenges

This is all very vague. Who is denying who a voice? How? Can you be specific?

The lead starts out promisingly and then drifts into waffle, with little to say about topical events in Iran. Free speech is important, but big geo-political issues cannot be reduced to a little rehearsal of the author's well-known hobby horse on safe spaces and the like.

The bigger picture in terms of threat to western democracy is from the Chinese model of long-term central planning coupled with relative economic but not political freedom for individuals. Depending on which economist you turn to, this is either progressively closing on the Americans or heading for collapse under its own contradictions. Yet with clear attractions for many smaller nations.

I think this post conflates the very real threat to Western liberal democracy, with a hobby horse being pushed by certain people on the right having a ridiculous tantrum. On the university lecture thing, as I understand it the academics concerned weren't trying to ban his views but questioning Nigel Biggar's suitability to lead a research project into empire with aims they see as dubious (the research description makes it look like he's already decided imperialism is ethical) because he's a theology professor whose views on empire are opposed by the vast majority of scholars. He's then thrown a wobbly because hundreds of academics have said they think his views are daft, unsupported by evidence. It's a case of an somone who's upset because people aren't being deferential to him. There are some problems with free speech issues on the activist left - notably on transgender issues - but they're not opinions shared across even the left, let alone liberals from other traditions.

Where there may be a real danger is that authoritarianism of the left and right appears to be becoming more popular as nation states struggle to keep up with globalisation. There has been a strong liberal response to this - It's just been conducted in French by Emmanuel Macron. In Britain, our electoral system and two parties' takeover by their authoritarian wings means It's more of a struggle - but that's more of a political problem rather than an intellectual one.

Off-topic - Trump says 'my nuclear weapon is bigger than your nuclear weapon.'
http://www.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/948355557022420992
If we ordered Kim and Trump to both strip naked (horrible thought I know give the mountains of flesh on display) would we find that they both had very small ones?

Hmm...We undoubtedly have problems with our economic model and @Cyclefree identifies them well. The fruits of our model are too narrowly shared; too many are excluded and left without opportunity. But let's keep a sense of proportion. We have had a Tory led government since 2010. They came in to a horrendous deficit after what was arguably the largest economic shock in history. And health spending has continued to grow in real terms, even if it has been at a slower rate than previously, government spending overall has increased modestly and the deficit is now less that 1/3 of what it was and still falling.

We need to renew our commitment to equality of opportunity, we need to be more vigorous about demanding excellence from our public services, we need to break away from the bureaucratic mindset that thinks problems can be solved with enough tick boxes and forms and we need to tackle the multinational tech giants that leach off our society without paying back much needed taxes.

But I don't perceive the overall crisis of confidence or any real doubt that our model is the correct one, even if there is not a consensus on how it should be tweaked going forward. For most of us this is economically the best time to be alive in history. We need to focus on making and keeping that true for those excluded.

Will someone get a job nowadays in a professional public sector job if they make it clear they think the British Empire had some good points or if they are sceptical about `man made global warming`?

Metatron said:

Will someone get a job nowadays in a professional public sector job if they make it clear they think the British Empire had some good points or if they are sceptical about `man made global warming`?

Yes, not least because political opinions are not discussed at interview!

Good morning, everyone.

Much to agree with there, Miss Cyclefree. The use of "I'm offended, so this opinion must be silenced, after the mandatory penance of repudiation and apology" to close down a debate rather than have an argument to see whose ideas are best is rather depressing.

@Cyclefree

After watching the paper review on Sky this morning and reading the oped above, I have come to the conclusion that ms cyclefree is actually Michael Daubney

DavidL said:

Hmm...We undoubtedly have problems with our economic model and @Cyclefree identifies them well. The fruits of our model are too narrowly shared; too many are excluded and left without opportunity. But let's keep a sense of proportion. We have had a Tory led government since 2010. They came in to a horrendous deficit after what was arguably the largest economic shock in history. And health spending has continued to grow in real terms, even if it has been at a slower rate than previously, government spending overall has increased modestly and the deficit is now less that 1/3 of what it was and still falling.

We need to renew our commitment to equality of opportunity, we need to be more vigorous about demanding excellence from our public services, we need to break away from the bureaucratic mindset that thinks problems can be solved with enough tick boxes and forms and we need to tackle the multinational tech giants that leach off our society without paying back much needed taxes.

But I don't perceive the overall crisis of confidence or any real doubt that our model is the correct one, even if there is not a consensus on how it should be tweaked going forward. For most of us this is economically the best time to be alive in history. We need to focus on making and keeping that true for those excluded.

The “multinational tech giants” you decry are useful to society because of the goods and services they provide, not the taxes they collect. Leaching implies taking without giving anything back, as does economic vampirism. You mention Uber for instance: it doesn’t pay corporation tax because it isn’t making a profit.

Metatron said:

Will someone get a job nowadays in a professional public sector job if they make it clear they think the British Empire had some good points or if they are sceptical about `man made global warming`?

Such questions are unlikely to be asked in a job interview outside of a post in academia or teaching history in a school

DavidL said:

The challenge of making and keeping the tech giants and financial giants accountable is real both in terms of their power (particularly Google) and their economic vampirism.

At the moment there is something like $1,200 bn of pretty much untaxed profits sitting waiting for a deal with Trump that will allow it to be repatriated with minimal tax to the US. If that deal is done he may well be re-elected given the boost it will give the US economy but it is worth reflecting where that unimaginable sum of money came from. It very largely came from profits in Europe that were hidden away by frankly fictitious fees, IP rights and other devices from the Treasuries of Europe so that the profits of activities in our country were technically accrued in a place where they would not pay tax.

On a GDP basis 16% of that sum, approximately $192bn, was made and excluded from tax in the UK. Even at current rates of CT that means that $40bn of that sum should have been paid to HMRC, or, more colloquially, us. It wouldn't have solved all of our problems, not by a long shot, but it would have helped.

The challenge for our government and the governments of Europe is to ensure that the next $1,200bn of profits is taxed on a fair and even basis with the other profits generated in our economy. At the moment the non tax paying Amazon and Uber are being allowed to exploit their special status to destroy the parts of our economy that do pay taxes. This will not end well.

We have been exploited in the same way that third world countries were all so often exploited by the Oil giants in the 20th Century where the profits of their activities were hidden away from where the resource was exploited. The reasons that they have got away from this are similar. Our political systems have been corrupted and influence has been bought by political donations and PR spin. This makes changing this a real challenge for our politicians. So far their steps up to the plate have been tentative at best.

I'm afraid that much of that argument is completely fallacious. While it's true that companies like Apple avoided large amounts of tax, the idea that the profits on (for example U.K. sales) should have been accrued here is just wrong. All that distinguished Apple from its competitors is its IP, and that is overwhelmingly generated in the US (in the same way that our pharmaceutical companies generate profit in the UK on their US sales). If any treasury has been cheated then it is the US treasury.

Amazon, notoriously, has made pretty minimal profits worldwide as it has consistently reinvested revenues in its business. Has Uber ever made a profit at all ?

There are big and complex issues surrounding the increasing dominance of a few technology companies, and there is certainly some tax that has been avoided in Europe, but the figures you postulate are imaginary.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Happy MiFID II day everybody.

Isn't there a six month grace period on wishing us that ?

DecrepitJohnL said:

ydoethur said:

Off-topic - Trump says 'my nuclear weapon is bigger than your nuclear weapon.'
http://www.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/948355557022420992
If we ordered Kim and Trump to both strip naked (horrible thought I know give the mountains of flesh on display) would we find that they both had very small ones?

Have you forgotten that Trump boast during one of the primaries?
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/donald-trump-penis-cpac_us_56d9d2cbe4b0000de4047294

Given the size of his gut, how can he tell ... ?

TheJezziah said:

I can't see how the Blairite's are anything but the authoritarian wing of the Labour party, albeit authoritarians without any real power at the moment. Unless we are only conflating right wing economic policy with anti authoritarianism and ignoring things like human rights, which is an interesting take on it.

On that basis Clegg's LDs were the most anti authoritarian party

Foxy said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

DavidL said:

Hmm...We undoubtedly have problems with our economic model and @Cyclefree identifies them well. The fruits of our model are too narrowly shared; too many are excluded and left without opportunity. But let's keep a sense of proportion. We have had a Tory led government since 2010. They came in to a horrendous deficit after what was arguably the largest economic shock in history. And health spending has continued to grow in real terms, even if it has been at a slower rate than previously, government spending overall has increased modestly and the deficit is now less that 1/3 of what it was and still falling.

We need to renew our commitment to equality of opportunity, we need to be more vigorous about demanding excellence from our public services, we need to break away from the bureaucratic mindset that thinks problems can be solved with enough tick boxes and forms and we need to tackle the multinational tech giants that leach off our society without paying back much needed taxes.

But I don't perceive the overall crisis of confidence or any real doubt that our model is the correct one, even if there is not a consensus on how it should be tweaked going forward. For most of us this is economically the best time to be alive in history. We need to focus on making and keeping that true for those excluded.

The “multinational tech giants” you decry are useful to society because of the goods and services they provide, not the taxes they collect. Leaching implies taking without giving anything back, as does economic vampirism. You mention Uber for instance: it doesn’t pay corporation tax because it isn’t making a profit.

The point of these vast cash piles is that they have been created by companies that on paper do not make a profit, or at least one in a jurisdiction where it is taxed. The money moves as part of a licensing agreement off shore etc.

These are the vampires of the modern world.

Vampires don’t normally leave you with goods or services in return.

What I am arguing against here is the idea that a business is only of use to society based on the amount of tax it pays: does that mean that the BBC is also a vampire?

HYUFD said:

Metatron said:

Will someone get a job nowadays in a professional public sector job if they make it clear they think the British Empire had some good points or if they are sceptical about `man made global warming`?

Such questions are unlikely to be asked in a job interview outside of a post in academia or teaching history in a school

I've had a great many interviews in both fields. I have only ever once been asked about my political and/or religious views, and that was when being interviewed for a post in a Catholic school when they were asking if I would also be willing to act as organist for the local Catholic Church.

DavidL said:

The challenge of making and keeping the tech giants and financial giants accountable is real both in terms of their power (particularly Google) and their economic vampirism.

At the moment there is something like $1,200 bn of pretty much untaxed profits sitting waiting for a deal with Trump that will allow it to be repatriated with minimal tax to the US. If that deal is done he may well be re-elected given the boost it will give the US economy but it is worth reflecting where that unimaginable sum of money came from. It very largely came from profits in Europe that were hidden away by frankly fictitious fees, IP rights and other devices from the Treasuries of Europe so that the profits of activities in our country were technically accrued in a place where they would not pay tax.

On a GDP basis 16% of that sum, approximately $192bn, was made and excluded from tax in the UK. Even at current rates of CT that means that $40bn of that sum should have been paid to HMRC, or, more colloquially, us. It wouldn't have solved all of our problems, not by a long shot, but it would have helped.

The challenge for our government and the governments of Europe is to ensure that the next $1,200bn of profits is taxed on a fair and even basis with the other profits generated in our economy. At the moment the non tax paying Amazon and Uber are being allowed to exploit their special status to destroy the parts of our economy that do pay taxes. This will not end well.

We have been exploited in the same way that third world countries were all so often exploited by the Oil giants in the 20th Century where the profits of their activities were hidden away from where the resource was exploited. The reasons that they have got away from this are similar. Our political systems have been corrupted and influence has been bought by political donations and PR spin. This makes changing this a real challenge for our politicians. So far their steps up to the plate have been tentative at best.

Agreed.

I would point the finger at one politician in particular, but given his current role that would probably derail an interesting thread.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Happy MiFID II day everybody.

Isn't there a six month grace period on wishing us that ?

I’m a traditionalist.

Plus we’ve been compliant for ages, thanks to our superb Head of Legal and Regulatory Affairs.

Your counterpart over here was looking incredibly relaxed when I caught up with him yesterday afternoon...

basicbridge said:

edmundintokyo said:

This is all very vague. Who is denying who a voice? How? Can you be specific?

No-platforming by left-wing activists at Universities is one example. The faux outrage that Toby Young, who does not subscribe to the left-wing orthodoxies of the teaching establishment, should be appointed to the education watchdog is another.

Pretty much everywhere you look elements of the far left are trying, and often succeeding, in stifling debate that runs counter to their orthodoxies.

Surely the problem of Toby is that he is not qualified for the post, and was appointed over people who were qualified, in a nakedly political move? His own repulsive views are merely the cherry on the cake of favouritism. His appointment is the antithesis of meritocracy.

Foxy said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Foxy said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

DavidL said:

Hmm...We undoubtedly have problems with our economic model and @Cyclefree identifies them well. The fruits of our model are too narrowly shared; too many are excluded and left without opportunity. But let's keep a sense of proportion. We have had a Tory led government since 2010. They came in to a horrendous deficit after what was arguably the largest economic shock in history. And health spending has continued to grow in real terms, even if it has been at a slower rate than previously, government spending overall has increased modestly and the deficit is now less that 1/3 of what it was and still falling.

We need to renew our commitment to equality of opportunity, we need to be more vigorous about demanding excellence from our public services, we need to break away from the bureaucratic mindset that thinks problems can be solved with enough tick boxes and forms and we need to tackle the multinational tech giants that leach off our society without paying back much needed taxes.

But I don't perceive the overall crisis of confidence or any real doubt that our model is the correct one, even if ing and keeping that true for those excluded.

The “multinational tech giants” you decry are useful to society because of the goods and services they provide, not the taxes they collect. Leaching implies taking without giving anything back, as does economic vampirism. You mention Uber for instance: it doesn’t pay corporation tax because it isn’t making a profit.

The point of these vast cash piles is that they have been created by companies that on paper do not make a profit, or at least one in a jurisdiction where it is taxed. The money moves as part of a licensing agreement off shore etc.

These are the vampires of the modern world.

Vampires don’t normally leave you with goods or services in return.

What I am arguing against here is the idea that a business is only of use to society based on the amount of tax it pays: does that mean that the BBC is also a vampire?

Sure, and I use Amazon too, but we have long known that monopolies drive out competition, and these ones are doing it by offshoring profits. This gives competitive advantage over indiginous companies paying corporation tax.

I am sure that the waiters serving tax dodging billionaires their lunch get something from the day too, but dont expect them to do it unquestioningly forever.

The competitive advantage argument is a good point.

I’m still not comfortable with the demonisation of companies who provide huge benefits to consumers just because the take advantage of the rules to minimise their taxes as if the only benefit they produce were their contribution to the treasury.

FF43 said:

ydoethur said:

Off-topic - Trump says 'my nuclear weapon is bigger than your nuclear weapon.'
http://www.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/948355557022420992
If we ordered Kim and Trump to both strip naked (horrible thought I know give the mountains of flesh on display) would we find that they both had very small ones?

Kim Jongun will always out-crazy Donald Trump. Trump doesn't realise his kind of aggression, which saw off squeamish establishment politicians in the US, cuts no ice with a dictator whose country's existence depends on his absolute willingness to do something catastrophically bonkers.

That is true.

If I were the governor of any given province in Manchuria I would right now be panicking. I wonder if that will filter through to Xi in Beijing? To judge from his recent actions he's already getting quite nervous.

Foxy said:

basicbridge said:

edmundintokyo said:

This is all very vague. Who is denying who a voice? How? Can you be specific?

No-platforming by left-wing activists at Universities is one example. The faux outrage that Toby Young, who does not subscribe to the left-wing orthodoxies of the teaching establishment, should be appointed to the education watchdog is another.

Pretty much everywhere you look elements of the far left are trying, and often succeeding, in stifling debate that runs counter to their orthodoxies.

Surely the problem of Toby is that he is not qualified for the post, and was appointed over people who were qualified, in a nakedly political move? His own repulsive views are merely the cherry on the cake of favouritism. His appointment is the antithesis of meritocracy.

The problem for Labour is that after Campbell and Adonis they are hardly in a position to criticise.

Quangos have always been a jobs for the boys joke - there is an entire Yes Minister episode on it from 1981 - and if ever a system needed reform it's that one. The problem is coming up with a more an effective system to replace it.

Edited because on reflection my earlier post implied the quangocracy does work.

logical_song said:

FF43 said:

ydoethur said:

Off-topic - Trump says 'my nuclear weapon is bigger than your nuclear weapon.'
http://www.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/948355557022420992
If we ordered Kim and Trump to both strip naked (horrible thought I know give the mountains of flesh on display) would we find that they both had very small ones?

Kim Jongun will always out-crazy Donald Trump. Trump doesn't realise his kind of aggression, which saw off squeamish establishment politicians in the US, cuts no ice with a dictator whose country's existence depends on his absolute willingness to do something catastrophically bonkers.

Both mad of course, but North Korea having an H-Bomb does make it less likely that the US will attack. Kim saw what happened to Gaddafi and Saddam.

A point made by Lewis Page as long ago as 2006.

I have to go. Have a good day.

Fysics_Teacher said:

Foxy said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Foxy said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

DavidL said:

We need to renew our commitment to equality of opportunity, we need to be more vigorous about demanding excellence from our public services, we need to break away from the bureaucratic mindset that thinks problems can be solved with enough tick boxes and forms and we need to tackle the multinational tech giants that leach off our society without paying back much needed taxes.

But I don't perceive the overall crisis of confidence or any real doubt that our model is the correct one, even if ing and keeping that true for those excluded.

The point of these vast cash piles is that they have been created by companies that on paper do not make a profit, or at least one in a jurisdiction where it is taxed. The money moves as part of a licensing agreement off shore etc.

These are the vampires of the modern world.

Vampires don’t normally leave you with goods or services in return.

What I am arguing against here is the idea that a business is only of use to society based on the amount of tax it pays: does that mean that the BBC is also a vampire?

Sure, and I use Amazon too, but we have long known that monopolies drive out competition, and these ones are doing it by offshoring profits. This gives competitive advantage over indiginous companies paying corporation tax.

I am sure that the waiters serving tax dodging billionaires their lunch get something from the day too, but dont expect them to do it unquestioningly forever.

The competitive advantage argument is a good point.

I’m still not comfortable with the demonisation of companies who provide huge benefits to consumers just because the take advantage of the rules to minimise their taxes as if the only benefit they produce were their contribution to the treasury.

Problem is we have a 20th, (and a early 20th) century tax system which is unfit for the 21st Century. We need to be taxing not profits, which can be moved around and manipulated, but activity.

What actually should happen is a much smarter sales tax system than VAT currently is. Remove Corporation Tax and bin it completely, but tax sales and activity.

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Happy MiFID II day everybody.

Isn't there a six month grace period on wishing us that ?

No.

Edit: apart from the LEI carve out.

logical_song said:

FF43 said:

ydoethur said:

Off-topic - Trump says 'my nuclear weapon is bigger than your nuclear weapon.'
http://www.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/948355557022420992
If we ordered Kim and Trump to both strip naked (horrible thought I know give the mountains of flesh on display) would we find that they both had very small ones?

Kim Jongun will always out-crazy Donald Trump. Trump doesn't realise his kind of aggression, which saw off squeamish establishment politicians in the US, cuts no ice with a dictator whose country's existence depends on his absolute willingness to do something catastrophically bonkers.

Both mad of course, but North Korea having an H-Bomb does make it less likely that the US will attack. Kim saw what happened to Gaddafi and Saddam.

For all his bluster, though, Kim can't seriously threaten the US (he can threaten Japan or South Korea). The danger is that Kim actually believes his own propaganda, and initiates a nuclear conflict.

Nigelb said:

TOPPING said:

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Happy MiFID II day everybody.

Isn't there a six month grace period on wishing us that ?

No.

Edit: apart from the LEI carve out.

The 'us' being the poor clients who have to make their way through yet another set of tedious paperwork of no obvious benefit to us... so, yes ?

haha well the best description I heard of M*F*D II was that it was a solution in search of a problem.

That said, the road to hell, etc...

Rest assured, however, that whoever you have your investments with is having to work a bit harder to ensure that they are doing the right thing, no matter how tedious hearing about MTFs and RTS 28 reporting might be to hear or read about.

A bit late to this but I have to say, it's an excellent opinion piece by Cyclefree that's ruthless (but right) in its analysis and asks a lot of hard questions. It doesn't really answer them other than in calling (again, rightly) for wider debate and greater tolerance of opinion but that's only a starting point.

There is a problem when so many are locked out of the benefits of the system and particularly so if - as is increasingly the case - they see no means of changing it from within. At that point, 'smash the bastards' becomes an attractive mantra, no matter how self-defeating it might be: the joy of the action and of the retribution it brings would seem worth it, for a while. It took a long time for the Russian revolution to pay dividends.

What it comes back to is global governance. Transnational corporations and geographically mobile billionaires with no innate loyalty to a given country or type of country, make it hard to regulate wealth, which easily flies to safe havens. To some extent, the West - with its rule of law and safety from arbitrary government - still has an advantage as a safe haven there but it's one that can't be guaranteed indefinitely not least because those with vast wealth risk of starving the tiger they're riding. Getting to grips with low-tax microstates that free ride off the security provided by larger countries would be a start.

But internally, there needs to be a recognition that there is a generational unfairness in the way that wealth is created and distributed, something reflected in the changes in party support. As the party of government, the Conservatives have the best opportunity to do something about that - though the experience of the Dementia Tax shows the political danger of doing so (though it has to be said, the political stupidity there was the timing rather than the policy itself). Even so, it must try a great deal harder or else the rather brittle economic and political system that Cyclefree identifies could crack a lot faster than many think possible.

Foxy said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Foxy said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

DavidL said:

Hmm...We undoubtedly have problems with our economic model....

The “multinational tech giants” you decry are useful to society because of the goods and services they provide, not the taxes they collect. Leaching implies taking without giving anything back, as does economic vampirism. You mention Uber for instance: it doesn’t pay corporation tax because it isn’t making a profit.

The point of these vast cash piles is that they have been created by companies that on paper do not make a profit, or at least one in a jurisdiction where it is taxed. The money moves as part of a licensing agreement off shore etc.

These are the vampires of the modern world.

Vampires don’t normally leave you with goods or services in return.

What I am arguing against here is the idea that a business is only of use to society based on the amount of tax it pays: does that mean that the BBC is also a vampire?

Sure, and I use Amazon too, but we have long known that monopolies drive out competition, and these ones are doing it by offshoring profits. This gives competitive advantage over indiginous companies paying corporation tax.

I am sure that the waiters serving tax dodging billionaires their lunch get something from the day too, but dont expect them to do it unquestioningly forever.

In Amazon's case it's little to do with corporation tax, as up until now they would have paid very little wherever they were domiciled. The avoidance of sales tax, perhaps - but more to do with the overwhelming efficiency of selling online compared to paying high street rent and rates.

And the monopoly thing is of course a significant issue, but again has little to do with tax. The new online behemoths have become virtual monopolies in their particular spheres for reasons quite other than tax - and history has shown how difficult and time consuming and fraught with unintended consequences it is to grapple with the problems of new monopolies.

The likelihood of the Trump administration doing anything useful in this respect must be somewhere around zero. And we just abandoned the other institution with the economic heft to address the problem...

basicbridge said:

OldKingCole said:

basicbridge said:

Foxy said:

basicbridge said:

edmundintokyo said:

This is all very vague. Who is denying who a voice? How? Can you be specific?

No-platforming by left-wing activists at Universities is one example. The faux outrage that Toby Young, who does not subscribe to the left-wing orthodoxies of the teaching establishment, should be appointed to the education watchdog is another.

Pretty much everywhere you look elements of the far left are trying, and often succeeding, in stifling debate that runs counter to their orthodoxies.

Surely the problem of Toby is that he is not qualified for the post, and was appointed over people who were qualified, in a nakedly political move? His own repulsive views are merely the cherry on the cake of favouritism. His appointment is the antithesis of meritocracy.

He is extremely well qualified for the post. As you well know the "problem" is that he is a tory. You may think his views are "repulsive" but that just shows you how intolerant you are of others. He is clearly not a bigot despite the various attempts to paint him as one are political.

He is a layman with a wide-ranging and informed non-professional experience of the tsector. He has vast experience of education. On the basis that the best regulators are those with relevant experience on both sides of the fence but those not prone to "professional capture" he is an ideal regulator.

The opposition to him isdriven by the fact that he is not of the Left and certain people don't agree with his views. You are clearly one of those and perfectly illustrate my point.

I think you are just slightly over-egging hsi pudding.

Not really. He is well qualified and of independent mind with broad knowledge and experience of the sector from several angles. An ideal choice in my view.

Sorry, but the appointment of someone who conned his way into Oxford because his father knew a don isn't indicative of a government taking the matter seriously.

basicbridge said:

OldKingCole said:

basicbridge said:

Foxy said:

basicbridge said:

edmundintokyo said:

This is all very vague. Who is denying who a voice? How? Can you be specific?

No-platforming by left-wing activists at Universities is one example. The faux outrage that Toby Young, who does not subscribe to the left-wing orthodoxies of the teaching establishment, should be appointed to the education watchdog is another.

Pretty much everywhere you look elements of the far left are trying, and often succeeding, in stifling debate that runs counter to their orthodoxies.

Surely the problem of Toby is that he is not qualified for the post, and was appointed over people who were qualified, in a nakedly political move? His own repulsive views are merely the cherry on the cake of favouritism. His appointment is the antithesis of meritocracy.

He is extremely well qualified for the post. As you well know the "problem" is that he is a tory. You may think his views are "repulsive" but that just shows you how intolerant you are of others. He is clearly not a bigot despite the various attempts to paint him as one are political.

He is a layman with a wide-ranging and informed non-professional experience of the tsector. He has vast experience of education. On the basis that the best regulators are those with relevant experience on both sides of the fence but those not prone to "professional capture" he is an ideal regulator.

The opposition to him isdriven by the fact that he is not of the Left and certain people don't agree with his views. You are clearly one of those and perfectly illustrate my point.

I think you are just slightly over-egging hsi pudding.

Not really. He is well qualified and of independent mind with broad knowledge and experience of the sector from several angles. An ideal choice in my view.

I agree with you.

The outrage at his appointment is pure and predictable hypocrisy considering the numbers of leftish quango appointments in recent years.

Stark_Dawning said:

basicbridge said:

OldKingCole said:

basicbridge said:

Foxy said:

basicbridge said:

edmundintokyo said:

This is all very vague. Who is denying who a voice? How? Can you be specific?

No-platforming by left-wing activists at Universities is one example. The faux outrage that Toby Young, who does not subscribe to the left-wing orthodoxies of the teaching establishment, should be appointed to the education watchdog is another.

Pretty much everywhere you look elements of the far left are trying, and often succeeding, in stifling debate that runs counter to their orthodoxies.

Surely the problem of Toby is that he is not qualified for the post, and was appointed over people who were qualified, in a nakedly political move? His own repulsive views are merely the cherry on the cake of favouritism. His appointment is the antithesis of meritocracy.

He is extremely well qualified for the post. As you well know the "problem" is that he is a tory. You may think his views are "repulsive" but that just shows you how intolerant you are of others. He is clearly not a bigot despite the various attempts to paint him as one are political.

He is a layman with a wide-ranging and informed non-professional experience of the tsector. He has vast experience of education. On the basis that the best regulators are those with relevant experience on both sides of the fence but those not prone to "professional capture" he is an ideal regulator.

The opposition to him isdriven by the fact that he is not of the Left and certain people don't agree with his views. You are clearly one of those and perfectly illustrate my point.

I think you are just slightly over-egging hsi pudding.

Not really. He is well qualified and of independent mind with broad knowledge and experience of the sector from several angles. An ideal choice in my view.

Sorry, but the appointment of someone who conned his way into Oxford because his father knew a don isn't indicative of a government taking the matter seriously.

His academic record is pretty impressive.

Stark_Dawning said:

basicbridge said:

OldKingCole said:

basicbridge said:

Foxy said:

basicbridge said:

edmundintokyo said:

This is all very vague. Who is denying who a voice? How? Can you be specific?

No-platforming by left-wing activists at Universities is one example. The faux outrage that Toby Young, who does not subscribe to the left-wing orthodoxies of the teaching establishment, should be appointed to the education watchdog is another.

Pretty much everywhere you look elements of the far left are trying, and often succeeding, in stifling debate that runs counter to their orthodoxies.

Surely the problem of Toby is that he is not qualified for the post, and was appointed over people who were qualified, in a nakedly political move? His own repulsive views are merely the cherry on the cake of favouritism. His appointment is the antithesis of meritocracy.

He is extremely well qualified for the post. As you well know the "problem" is that he is a tory. You may think his views are "repulsive" but that just shows you how intolerant you are of others. He is clearly not a bigot despite the various attempts to paint him as one are political.

He is a layman with a wide-ranging and informed non-professional experience of the tsector. He has vast experience of education. On the basis that the best regulators are those with relevant experience on both sides of the fence but those not prone to "professional capture" he is an ideal regulator.

The opposition to him isdriven by the fact that he is not of the Left and certain people don't agree with his views. You are clearly one of those and perfectly illustrate my point.

I think you are just slightly over-egging hsi pudding.

Not really. He is well qualified and of independent mind with broad knowledge and experience of the sector from several angles. An ideal choice in my view.

Sorry, but the appointment of someone who conned his way into Oxford because his father knew a don isn't indicative of a government taking the matter seriously.

Being let in after missing your offer by one grade isn’t conning your way in. As he left with a first (admittedly in PPE) it seems to have been the right desicion.

TYs appointment shows The Blob is alive and well....

Sean_F said:

Ishmael_Z said:

Sean_F said:

logical_song said:

FF43 said:

ydoethur said:

Off-topic - Trump says 'my nuclear weapon is bigger than your nuclear weapon.'
http://www.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/948355557022420992
If we ordered Kim and Trump to both strip naked (horrible thought I know give the mountains of flesh on display) would we find that they both had very small ones?

Kim Jongun will always out-crazy Donald Trump. Trump doesn't realise his kind of aggression, which saw off squeamish establishment politicians in the US, cuts no ice with a dictator whose country's existence depends on his absolute willingness to do something catastrophically bonkers.

Both mad of course, but North Korea having an H-Bomb does make it less likely that the US will attack. Kim saw what happened to Gaddafi and Saddam.

For all his bluster, though, Kim can't seriously threaten the US (he can threaten Japan or South Korea). The danger is that Kim actually believes his own propaganda, and initiates a nuclear conflict.

Really?

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/28/politics/north-korea-missile-launch/index.html

The likelihood that Kim could successfully detonate a nuclear warhead on the US mainland is very remote. But, he might well decide to have a go.

For all his bluster, Kim's nuclear program is about a second-strike capability - or at least, the capacity to respond to an imminent US attack and hence, deter it. I don't believe he really wants to launch an unprovoked attack on the US, which would inevitably utterly destroy his country and regime. If he did, he'd be better off delivering it in a Transit and blaming ISIS.

Fysics_Teacher said:

Foxy said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Foxy said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

DavidL said:

The point of these vast cash piles is that they have been created by companies that on paper do not make a profit, or at least one in a jurisdiction where it is taxed. The money moves as part of a licensing agreement off shore etc.

These are the vampires of the modern world.

Vampires don’t normally leave you with goods or services in return.

What I am arguing against here is the idea that a business is only of use to society based on the amount of tax it pays: does that mean that the BBC is also a vampire?

Sure, and I use Amazon too, but we have long known that monopolies drive out competition, and these ones are doing it by offshoring profits. This gives competitive advantage over indiginous companies paying corporation tax.

I am sure that the waiters serving tax dodging billionaires their lunch get something from the day too, but dont expect them to do it unquestioningly forever.

The competitive advantage argument is a good point.

I’m still not comfortable with the demonisation of companies who provide huge benefits to consumers just because the take advantage of the rules to minimise their taxes as if the only benefit they produce were their contribution to the treasury.

I am not seeking to demonise the tech companies and agree that they are successful because they offer useful products or services, even Apple. What I am criticising is their method of exploiting the weaknesses in our systems at a cost to our society and the unfair advantages that this gives them against those who do play by the rules and contribute tax for the services that our society needs.

What they do is legal. This is the fault of our politicians. That is the challenge that they must address. I have mentioned this because for me it is a specific example of the sorts of challenges that @Cyclefree is talking about in her piece. How do we control such powerful monopolies and near monopolies who have the capacity to take such advantage? Is western, liberal democracy really up to that challenge? How will it respond to the power of big data that these companies are developing? The most serious challenges to our democracy do not come from crazies with various sizes of buttons. They come from legal, permitted companies operating in the way that we allow them to operate and in what they deem to be their own best interests.

Sean_F said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

basicbridge said:

OldKingCole said:

basicbridge said:

Foxy said:

basicbridge said:

edmundintokyo said:

This is all very vague. Who is denying who a voice? How? Can you be specific?

No-platforming by left-wing activists at Universities is one example. The faux outrage that Toby Young, who does not subscribe to the left-wing orthodoxies of the teaching establishment, should be appointed to the education watchdog is another.

Pretty much everywhere you look elements of the far left are trying, and often succeeding, in stifling debate that runs counter to their orthodoxies.

Surely the problem of Toby is that he is not qualified for the post, and was appointed over people who were qualified, in a nakedly political move? His own repulsive views are merely the cherry on the cake of favouritism. His appointment is the antithesis of meritocracy.

He is extremely well qualified for the post. As you well know the "problem" is that he is a tory. You may think his views are "repulsive" but that just shows you how intolerant you are of others. He is clearly not a bigot despite the various attempts to paint him as one are political.

He is a layman with a wide-ranging and informed non-professional experience of the tsector. He has vast experience of education. On the basis that the best regulators are those with relevant experience on both sides of the fence but those not prone to "professional capture" he is an ideal regulator.

The opposition to him isdriven by the fact that he is not of the Left and certain people don't agree with his views. You are clearly one of those and perfectly illustrate my point.

I think you are just slightly over-egging hsi pudding.

Not really. He is well qualified and of independent mind with broad knowledge and experience of the sector from several angles. An ideal choice in my view.

Toby Young contributed to the minister's sister's book while they were at Oxford together. Beyond that spot of cronyism, there is no obvious sign that Young knows anything about universities. He's been to one; that's it. Well, I've been to the doctor but Foxy's not invited me to run outpatients for him.

He has taught at Harvard, Cambridge, and Buckingham Universities.

But not as a member of their faculties.

(I am all in favour of the appointment, that said - these boards need a cross-section of society for balanced input.)

Sean_F said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

basicbridge said:

OldKingCole said:

basicbridge said:

Foxy said:

basicbridge said:

edmundintokyo said:

This is all very vague. Who is denying who a voice? How? Can you be specific?

No-platforming by left-wing activists at Universities is one example. The faux outrage that Toby Young, who does not subscribe to the left-wing orthodoxies of the teaching establishment, should be appointed to the education watchdog is another.

Pretty much everywhere you look elements of the far left are trying, and often succeeding, in stifling debate that runs counter to their orthodoxies.

Surely the problem of Toby is that he is not qualified for the post, and was appointed over people who were qualified, in a nakedly political move? His own repulsive views are merely the cherry on the cake of favouritism. His appointment is the antithesis of meritocracy.

He is extremely well qualified for the post. As you well know the "problem" is that he is a tory. You may think his views are "repulsive" but that just shows you how intolerant you are of others. He is clearly not a bigot despite the various attempts to paint him as one are political.


The opposition to him isdriven by the fact that he is not of the Left and certain people don't agree with his views. You are clearly one of those and perfectly illustrate my point.

I think you are just slightly over-egging hsi pudding.

Not really. He is well qualified and of independent mind with broad knowledge and experience of the sector from several angles. An ideal choice in my view.

Toby Young contributed to the minister's sister's book while they were at Oxford together. Beyond that spot of cronyism, there is no obvious sign that Young knows anything about universities. He's been to one; that's it. Well, I've been to the doctor but Foxy's not invited me to run outpatients for him.

He has taught at Harvard, Cambridge, and Buckingham Universities.

According to the Guardian, quoting him, “I taught undergrads at Harvard and Cambridge and was paid to do so but these weren’t academic ‘posts’ and I’ve never made that claim,” he told the Guardian.

I can claim I’ve taught at two universities, but that doesn’t mean I was on the academic staff. Nor does it mean that I was teaching in the academic sense. At one I was instructing in a fairly narrow field, at the other (a foregn one) I was talking about the practice of a particular subject in the UK.

OldKingCole said:

Sean_F said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

basicbridge said:

OldKingCole said:

basicbridge said:

Foxy said:

basicbridge said:

edmundintokyo said:

This is all very vague. Who is denying who a voice? How? Can you be specific?

No-platforming by left-wing activists at Universities is one example. The faux outrage that Toby Young, who does not subscribe to the left-wing orthodoxies of the teaching establishment, should be appointed to the education watchdog is another.

Pretty much everywhere you look elements of the far left are trying, and often succeeding, in stifling debate that runs counter to their orthodoxies.

Surely the problem of Toby is that he is not qualified for the post, and was appointed over people who were qualified, in a nakedly political move? His own repulsive views are merely the cherry on the cake of favouritism. His appointment is the antithesis of meritocracy.

He is extremely well qualified for the post. As you well know the "problem" is that he is a tory. You may think his views are "repulsive" but that just shows you how intolerant you are of others. He is clearly not a bigot despite the various attempts to paint him as one are political.


The opposition to him isdriven by the fact that he is not of the Left and certain people don't agree with his views. You are clearly one of those and perfectly illustrate my point.

I think you are just slightly over-egging hsi pudding.

Not really. He is well qualified and of independent mind with broad knowledge and experience of the sector from several angles. An ideal choice in my view.

Toby Young contributed to the minister's sister's book while they were at Oxford together. Beyond that spot of cronyism, there is no obvious sign that Young knows anything about universities. He's been to one; that's it. Well, I've been to the doctor but Foxy's not invited me to run outpatients for him.

He has taught at Harvard, Cambridge, and Buckingham Universities.

According to the Guardian, quoting him, “I taught undergrads at Harvard and Cambridge and was paid to do so but these weren’t academic ‘posts’ and I’ve never made that claim,” he told the Guardian.

I can claim I’ve taught at two universities, but that doesn’t mean I was on the academic staff. Nor does it mean that I was teaching in the academic sense. At one I was instructing in a fairly narrow field, at the other (a foregn one) I was talking about the practice of a particular subject in the UK.

Sure, but contrary to the points that were being made upthread, his intellectual credentials are pretty strong.

DecrepitJohnL said:

basicbridge said:

OldKingCole said:

basicbridge said:

Foxy said:

basicbridge said:

edmundintokyo said:

This is all very vague. Who is denying who a voice? How? Can you be specific?

No-platforming by left-wing activists at Universities is one example. The faux outrage that Toby Young, who does not subscribe to the left-wing orthodoxies of the teaching establishment, should be appointed to the education watchdog is another.

Pretty much everywhere you look elements of the far left are trying, and often succeeding, in stifling debate that runs counter to their orthodoxies.

Surely the problem of Toby is that he is not qualified for the post, and was appointed over people who were qualified, in a nakedly political move? His own repulsive views are merely the cherry on the cake of favouritism. His appointment is the antithesis of meritocracy.

He is extremely well qualified for the post. As you well know the "problem" is that he is a tory. You may think his views are "repulsive" but that just shows you how intolerant you are of others. He is clearly not a bigot despite the various attempts to paint him as one are political.

He is a layman with a wide-ranging and informed non-professional experience of the tsector. He has vast experience of education. On the basis that the best regulators are those with relevant experience on both sides of the fence but those not prone to "professional capture" he is an ideal regulator.

The opposition to him isdriven by the fact that he is not of the Left and certain people don't agree with his views. You are clearly one of those and perfectly illustrate my point.

I think you are just slightly over-egging hsi pudding.

Not really. He is well qualified and of independent mind with broad knowledge and experience of the sector from several angles. An ideal choice in my view.

Toby Young contributed to the minister's sister's book while they were at Oxford together. Beyond that spot of cronyism, there is no obvious sign that Young knows anything about universities. He's been to one; that's it. Well, I've been to the doctor but Foxy's not invited me to run outpatients for him.

Yes, Young is a mate of the Johnson family and blubbed on national TV when Theresa lost her majority - what other qualifications are necessary?

Cyclefree said:

TheJezziah said:

Although vague the comments in the last few paragraphs seem to be partially about Jezza, although some of the complaints seem odd. In regards to defending democracy and freedom surely Corbyn is above many rivals in voting down excessive anti terror legislation and protecting our actual rights, rather than the more Tory or New Labour approach of sounding tough to make people feel safe. You may disagree with his approach but it doesn't seem to be less human rights... to go a step further some of the biggest complaints about him seem to be his attempts to further democratise the Labour party.

As for the discrimination this is the man who attended a pro refugee demonstration in his first act as Labour leader and had a pretty substantial lead outside of white people in the election, not that white people can't be discriminated against.

Surely these charges would be better laid at the Conservative party? Assuming that is that they were vaguely made at the Labour party...

As a left winger myself I have never been more enthused by democracy, I imagine many on the left feel similar it is often those who are losing who start to feel less enthused about democracy, although the election wasn't actually lost for the Tories it felt like a loss for many and the comments about raising the voting age and young people being too stupid/bribed did not come from the left.

If freedom, democracy and anti discrimination is your worries then Corbyn's Labour are a better bet than what we have had before and what we have in government currently.

My comments were not aimed at Corbyn. If anything the questions he has asked about the fairness of the current system are exactly the sorts of questions which should be asked and which haven’t been effectively answered.

And in part they haven’t been bcause I think that we are at risk of losing the art of debate. There is too much assertion not enough argument. Too much complacency - largely by those who benefit. And the Left has hardly been at the forefront of encouraging a diversity of opinion. Free speech is not some optional extra. It’s at the heart of our culture - or should be.

You just wrote another two paragraphs in addition to the original eleven and you still haven't told us wtf you're talking about

Stark_Dawning said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

basicbridge said:

OldKingCole said:

basicbridge said:

Foxy said:

basicbridge said:

edmundintokyo said:

This is all very vague. Who is denying who a voice? How? Can you be specific?

No-platforming by left-wing activists at Universities is one example. The faux outrage that Toby Young, who does not subscribe to the left-wing orthodoxies of the teaching establishment, should be appointed to the education watchdog is another.

Pretty much everywhere you look elements of the far left are trying, and often succeeding, in stifling debate that runs counter to their orthodoxies.

Surely the problem of Toby is that he is not qualified for the post, and was appointed over people who were qualified, in a nakedly political move? His own repulsive views are merely the cherry on the cake of favouritism. His appointment is the antithesis of meritocracy.

He is extremely well qualified for the post. As you well know the "problem" is that he is a tory. You may think his views are "repulsive" but that just shows you how intolerant you are of others. He is clearly not a bigot despite the various attempts to paint him as one are political.

He is a layman with a wide-ranging and informed non-professional experience of the tsector. He has vast experience of education. On the basis that the best regulators are those with relevant experience on both sides of the fence but those not prone to "professional capture" he is an ideal regulator.

The opposition to him isdriven by the fact that he is not of the Left and certain people don't agree with his views. You are clearly one of those and perfectly illustrate my point.

I think you are just slightly over-egging hsi pudding.

Not really. He is well qualified and of independent mind with broad knowledge and experience of the sector from several angles. An ideal choice in my view.

Toby Young contributed to the minister's sister's book while they were at Oxford together. Beyond that spot of cronyism, there is no obvious sign that Young knows anything about universities. He's been to one; that's it. Well, I've been to the doctor but Foxy's not invited me to run outpatients for him.

Yes, Young is a mate of the Johnson family and blubbed on national TV when Theresa lost her majority - what other qualifications are necessary?

The great thing about the Young story is that it shows the people taking power and influence away from the privileged elite post-Brexit. Everything has changed, hasn't it?

IanB2 said:

The lead starts out promisingly and then drifts into waffle, with little to say about topical events in Iran. Free speech is important, but big geo-political issues cannot be reduced to a little rehearsal of the author's well-known hobby horse on safe spaces and the like.

The bigger picture in terms of threat to western democracy is from the Chinese model of long-term central planning coupled with relative economic but not political freedom for individuals. Depending on which economist you turn to, this is either progressively closing on the Americans or heading for collapse under its own contradictions. Yet with clear attractions for many smaller nations.

It wasn’t intended to be about Iran. I know very little about its internal politics.

Since I wrote it the Chinese government, according to the news, announced that it intends to lift a further 43 million people out of poverty. Meanwhile we can’t even manage to build houses for our population. Unless we can justify and improve our current political and economic set up, we will face problems.

And one issue which has concerned me is the emptiness of the arguments when people do try and justify what has bern established for a while. I think that is in part because people have not had to hone their arguments, have not had to face debate. Too many - both on the left and right - want to stop the question “why” even being asked, let alone have a debate about what the answer might be.

A vigorous democracy will not survive, let alone thrive, in such circumstances.

Mortimer said:

So, if you had a few hours to spare at Zurich Hauptbahnhof, what would anyone suggest doing/visiting?

Trainspotting?

SouthamObserver said:

Stark_Dawning said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

basicbridge said:

OldKingCole said:

basicbridge said:

Foxy said:

basicbridge said:

edmundintokyo said:

This is all very vague. Who is denying who a voice? How? Can you be specific?

No-platforming by left-wing activists at Universities is one example. The faux outrage that Toby Young, who does not subscribe to the left-wing orthodoxies of the teaching establishment, should be appointed to the education watchdog is another.

Pretty much everywhere you look elements of the far left are trying, and often succeeding, in stifling debate that runs counter to their orthodoxies.

Surely the problem of Toby is that he is not qualified for the post, and was appointed over people who were qualified, in a nakedly political move? His own repulsive views are merely the cherry on the cake of favouritism. His appointment is the antithesis of meritocracy.

He is extremely well qualified for the post. As you well know the "problem" is that he is a tory. You may think his views are "repulsive" but that just shows you how intolerant you are of others. He is clearly not a bigot despite the various attempts to paint him as one are political.

He is a layman with a wide-ranging and informed non-professional experience of the tsector. He has vast experience of education. On the basis that the best regulators are those with relevant experience on both sides of the fence but those not prone to "professional capture" he is an ideal regulator.

The opposition to him isdriven by the fact that he is not of the Left and certain people don't agree with his views. You are clearly one of those and perfectly illustrate my point.

I think you are just slightly over-egging hsi pudding.

Not really. He is well qualified and of independent mind with broad knowledge and experience of the sector from several angles. An ideal choice in my view.

Toby Young contributed to the minister's sister's book while they were at Oxford together. Beyond that spot of cronyism, there is no obvious sign that Young knows anything about universities. He's been to one; that's it. Well, I've been to the doctor but Foxy's not invited me to run outpatients for him.

Yes, Young is a mate of the Johnson family and blubbed on national TV when Theresa lost her majority - what other qualifications are necessary?

The great thing about the Young story is that it shows the people taking power and influence away from the privileged elite post-Brexit. Everything has changed, hasn't it?

LIKE!