politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If the Sun’s Harry Cole is right there are signs that a move a
Comments
-
I've just looked at the Betfair market...Hunt at 19's seems unbelievable value so I have bunged a few quid....I cannot see anyone else other than Hunt who could lead the party.Charles said:
It's Hunt.Fenster said:Some thoughts on Theresa May/new leader.
- I've never been impressed with her. Uninspired and boring.
- I was disappointed when she became PM, but would've taken her in a heartbeat over Leadsom
- During the honeymoon period and 23% poll leads I shrugged my shoulders, telling myself I must've got it wrong
- Then during the GE those voters in the centre (like me) soon saw what I see. A dull, boring woman bereft of ideas
- I'd support getting rid of her, hoping she gets replaced by someone with a positive spark, but only if some serious serious thought goes into it first*
*As destabilising as removing a PM would appear to be, I'm not convinced it'd be that big a deal. Brexit was an enormous shock and has made little difference to ordinary people's lives. Getting shot of May would be far less of a shock. Things move quickly in the modern world.
Trouble is, who can replace her and keep the two wings of the party together? Without putting centre ground voters off?
Mogg - No
Leadsom - No
Gove - (I'm a fan, but I just don't think he's popular enough with voters) No
Fox - No
Patel - No
Rudd - (too Remainian) - No
Hammond - No
The likes of Dominic Raab, Nicky Morgan, Savid Javid are all too unknown by the wider public to currently take on such a difficult task.
It leaves Davis, Hunt and Boris.
I like Boris but even as a fan I'm unsure. I do, however, think he'd make a good chairman and front-man. But many think the opposite.
I guess this is why getting rid of May needs some serious chin-stroking before the MPs move against her.
Battle of the Jezzas.
Better value is Cheung for the French though at 50's who looks to have the perfect game to grind out the clay season.
0 -
Institute for Government Whitehall Scorecard:
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publication/whitehall-monitor-2018
Lots of interesting stuff.......0 -
Mr. Lennon, I didn't know about the date, but you're obviously right about Saul/Paul.
Mr. Tyson, not believing in something that isn't proven is an entirely sensible approach.0 -
Neoliberalism and austerity have led to-
Massive national debt, economic growth, stagnant real wage growth, poor productivity growing inequality, high house prices/rents, rising intergenerational inequality and a lowering of environmental protection.
Poverty has been policy.
Both parties in the past have been on the side of the few at the expense of the many
No more
0 -
How are you defining neoliberalism? Which non-neoliberal economies have higher productivity than, say, the USA?bigjohnowls said:Neoliberalism and austerity have led to-
Massive national debt, economic growth, stagnant real wage growth, poor productivity growing inequality, high house prices/rents, rising intergenerational inequality and a lowering of environmental protection.
Poverty has been policy.
Both parties in the past have been on the side of the few at the expense of the many
No more0 -
Danny Shaw
Verified account
@DannyShawBBC
2h2 hours ago
More
Crimes recorded by police in the 44 forces up 14% in year to end of September.
Violent crime up 20%
Knife Crime up 21%.
Robbery up 29%0 -
Mr. Owls, the debt is due to a combination of the cyclical recession we would've had anyway, the financial crisis, and Labour running a deficit during a boom. During said crisis workforce numbers were prioritised over pay.
Intergenerational inequality, specifically housing, is the key issue I think you raise.
I disagree with your assessment on the few versus the many.0 -
But how much of our understanding of the universe is effable?John_M said:
The origin of the universe is like abiogenesis. We don't know, we don't have theories that can address the issue (the 'Big Bang' explains 'what' but not 'why'), nor the mathematics to handle anything before Planck time. Science is at its worst when dealing with the ineffable. Once it's effable, we're good. No need for deities.tyson said:Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, I heard, when studying Religious Studies at school, that ardent atheists (or other theists) are likelier to convert to a religion than lazy agnostics. Apparently there's a much shorter distance of travel between passionate opposition and conversion than not really being fussed and conversion.
Interesting to consider, as I'm quite a relaxed atheist now but was a bit angrier about it in my youth.
I cannot really understand aetheism....It is as non sensical as faith based doctrinal religion....
The universe appeared from somewhere right?
Much of science in my kind dwells into esoteric theorising...parallel universes, cats that can be in more than one place, time travel, AI wiping us all out....
I spent ten minutes this morning marvelling at a squirrel digging up my garden and making off with one of our freshly planted bulbs and thought how marvellous the world is. I guess other people would just think the squirrel is vermin and want to kill it.
0 -
Remember people were still saying Eurozone membership would hve been better until it truly collapsed.John_M said:
There will always be that shimmering mirage of what the world would have been like had Remain won (even with a second referendum, the UK's position in the EU will be very different). The economy stronger, the summers warmer (or cooler, if that's your preference, dear reader), no one being beastly to the Poles and so forth.FF43 said:
I don't have any more insight into the future than anyone else. I am, however, more concerned about the Brexit medium term than the short term, precisely because I don't expect Brexit to be an immediate economic disaster and never have done. Individuals, companies and governments have existing investments, trading systems and life choices they want to keep going. Over time however economic activity will drift naturally from the smaller unit to the larger one as these review their next steps and investments. Governments will want, for example, financial services to be happening in their territories and regulated by them. They have the will and the means to make that happen.John_M said:No, I think that's fair. One thing we tend to forget in the projections out to 2030, is that while the aggregate loss of growth is relatively small (in the range 1-3%), the negative impact is front loaded.
The only other factor I can think of is that we're essentially at full employment, and the economy is constrained, but I would expect Brexit effects to dominate that.
Long term - no-one knows. We will have given up worrying about it and as the famous man said, we will probably be dead.
That is, as pTerry said, a different trouser leg of time. My only advice to those who consider themselves forever unreconciled to this world line is to ponder Everett's interpretation of quantum theory and rest content that in an infinite number of other universes, we are still members.0 -
Given a recent poll had almost as many Tory voters wanting Hunt sacked as kept in place it is unlikely to be him unless he gets a coronation or is up against Rudd. The left loathe him and he does not enthuse the right either. Davis is the likely choice with Brexit talks ongoing, Williamson would be the Mayite candidate and Boris and Mogg would fancy their chances with the membership but personally I think May would survive any confidence vote for nowElliot said:
Jeremy Hunt would be, joint with Boris, the worst of almost all options. He is the poster child for the screw-ups with the NHS and for privatisations. He also has shareholdings in companies that benefit from NHS privatisation, making him look not just incompetent but venal too. Corbyn and the Left would have an absolute field day.Charles said:
It's Hunt.Fenster said:Some thoughts on Theresa May/new leader.
- I've never been impressed with her. Uninspired and boring.
- I was disappointed when she became PM, but would've taken her in a heartbeat over Leadsom
- During the honeymoon period and 23% poll leads I shrugged my shoulders, telling myself I must've got it wrong
- Then during the GE those voters in the centre (like me) soon saw what I see. A dull, boring woman bereft of ideas
- I'd support getting rid of her, hoping she gets replaced by someone with a positive spark, but only if some serious serious thought goes into it first*
*As destabilising as removing a PM would appear to be, I'm not convinced it'd be that big a deal. Brexit was an enormous shock and has made little difference to ordinary people's lives. Getting shot of May would be far less of a shock. Things move quickly in the modern world.
Trouble is, who can replace her and keep the two wings of the party together? Without putting centre ground voters off?
Mogg - No
Leadsom - No
Gove - (I'm a fan, but I just don't think he's popular enough with voters) No
Fox - No
Patel - No
Rudd - (too Remainian) - No
Hammond - No
The likes of Dominic Raab, Nicky Morgan, Savid Javid are all too unknown by the wider public to currently take on such a difficult task.
It leaves Davis, Hunt and Boris.
I like Boris but even as a fan I'm unsure. I do, however, think he'd make a good chairman and front-man. But many think the opposite.
I guess this is why getting rid of May needs some serious chin-stroking before the MPs move against her.
Battle of the Jezzas.0 -
Boris Johnson is descendant of mummified Basel woman
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-428054850 -
They really do need longer sentences for violent crime. You can't have a revolving door for gang members.bigjohnowls said:Danny Shaw
Verified account
@DannyShawBBC
2h2 hours ago
More
Crimes recorded by police in the 44 forces up 14% in year to end of September.
Violent crime up 20%
Knife Crime up 21%.
Robbery up 29%0 -
Given nobody thought he would get anywhere near the semi final in the first place still an excellent tournament for himbigjohnowls said:I see South Africas Kyle Edmund got thrashed in Melbourne!!!
0 -
My dog has very definite views about squirrels, and as for cats.....it's bad enough that they are even in one place at a time.tyson said:
But how much of our understanding of the universe is effable?John_M said:
The origin of the universe is like abiogenesis. We don't know, we don't have theories that can address the issue (the 'Big Bang' explains 'what' but not 'why'), nor the mathematics to handle anything before Planck time. Science is at its worst when dealing with the ineffable. Once it's effable, we're good. No need for deities.tyson said:Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, I heard, when studying Religious Studies at school, that ardent atheists (or other theists) are likelier to convert to a religion than lazy agnostics. Apparently there's a much shorter distance of travel between passionate opposition and conversion than not really being fussed and conversion.
Interesting to consider, as I'm quite a relaxed atheist now but was a bit angrier about it in my youth.
I cannot really understand aetheism....It is as non sensical as faith based doctrinal religion....
The universe appeared from somewhere right?
Much of science in my kind dwells into esoteric theorising...parallel universes, cats that can be in more than one place, time travel, AI wiping us all out....
I spent ten minutes this morning marvelling at a squirrel digging up my garden and making off with one of our freshly planted bulbs and thought how marvellous the world is. I guess other people would just think the squirrel is vermin and want to kill it.
AI and parallel universes she is more relaxed about.0 -
The stance: "The universe appeared from somewhere, we don't yet understand how or why, therefore God Did It," is called the "God of the Gaps" argument. It's rather fraught, though, because as we keep pushing back the boundaries of our knowledge and finding out how things do happen/have happened, the God of the Gaps keeps getting pushed into smaller and smaller gaps.tyson said:Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, I heard, when studying Religious Studies at school, that ardent atheists (or other theists) are likelier to convert to a religion than lazy agnostics. Apparently there's a much shorter distance of travel between passionate opposition and conversion than not really being fussed and conversion.
Interesting to consider, as I'm quite a relaxed atheist now but was a bit angrier about it in my youth.
I cannot really understand aetheism....It is as non sensical as faith based doctrinal religion....
The universe appeared from somewhere right?
"We don't know how x happened" is simply a statement of our own lack of knowledge or specific imagination - it's not a certain necessity for a deity.0 -
Wherever it was was a function of 42.Charles said:
Bristol, I think.tyson said:Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, I heard, when studying Religious Studies at school, that ardent atheists (or other theists) are likelier to convert to a religion than lazy agnostics. Apparently there's a much shorter distance of travel between passionate opposition and conversion than not really being fussed and conversion.
Interesting to consider, as I'm quite a relaxed atheist now but was a bit angrier about it in my youth.
I cannot really understand aetheism....It is as non sensical as faith based doctrinal religion....
The universe appeared from somewhere right?
0 -
The only species to define as vermin is the one that introduced a non-native squirrel to the UK to bugger up the natural balance.tyson said:
But how much of our understanding of the universe is effable?John_M said:
The origin of the universe is like abiogenesis. We don't know, we don't have theories that can address the issue (the 'Big Bang' explains 'what' but not 'why'), nor the mathematics to handle anything before Planck time. Science is at its worst when dealing with the ineffable. Once it's effable, we're good. No need for deities.tyson said:Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, I heard, when studying Religious Studies at school, that ardent atheists (or other theists) are likelier to convert to a religion than lazy agnostics. Apparently there's a much shorter distance of travel between passionate opposition and conversion than not really being fussed and conversion.
Interesting to consider, as I'm quite a relaxed atheist now but was a bit angrier about it in my youth.
I cannot really understand aetheism....It is as non sensical as faith based doctrinal religion....
The universe appeared from somewhere right?
Much of science in my kind dwells into esoteric theorising...parallel universes, cats that can be in more than one place, time travel, AI wiping us all out....
I spent ten minutes this morning marvelling at a squirrel digging up my garden and making off with one of our freshly planted bulbs and thought how marvellous the world is. I guess other people would just think the squirrel is vermin and want to kill it.0 -
Labour politicians normally at least make it across the Atlantic before being rebuffed. However, Emily Thornberry, the shadow foreign secretary, has had to call off a trip to the US designed to present Jeremy Corbyn’s party as a government in waiting before even boarding a plane.
Diplomatic sources suggested Ms Thornberry, an outspoken critic of President Trump, had hoped to line up a series of meetings with figures in his administration. A Whitehall source said: “It became clear pretty quickly that the White House wasn’t especially keen to meet them. Can’t think why.” In the past fortnight she has described Mr Trump as a “racist” and an “asteroid of awfulness”.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/emily-thornberry-snubbed-by-white-house-dqpdhvk8b0 -
Remember people were saying Germany should leave the Eurozone because its economy was too weak.Elliot said:
Remember people were still saying Eurozone membership would hve been better until it truly collapsed.John_M said:
There will always be that shimmering mirage of what the world would have been like had Remain won (even with a second referendum, the UK's position in the EU will be very different). The economy stronger, the summers warmer (or cooler, if that's your preference, dear reader), no one being beastly to the Poles and so forth.FF43 said:
I don't have any more insight into the future than anyone else. I am, however, more concerned about the Brexit medium term than the short term, precisely because I don't expect Brexit to be an immediate economic disaster and never have done. Individuals, companies and governments have existing investments, trading systems and life choices they want to keep going. Over time however economic activity will drift naturally from the smaller unit to the larger one as these review their next steps and investments. Governments will want, for example, financial services to be happening in their territories and regulated by them. They have the will and the means to make that happen.John_M said:No, I think that's fair. One thing we tend to forget in the projections out to 2030, is that while the aggregate loss of growth is relatively small (in the range 1-3%), the negative impact is front loaded.
The only other factor I can think of is that we're essentially at full employment, and the economy is constrained, but I would expect Brexit effects to dominate that.
Long term - no-one knows. We will have given up worrying about it and as the famous man said, we will probably be dead.
That is, as pTerry said, a different trouser leg of time. My only advice to those who consider themselves forever unreconciled to this world line is to ponder Everett's interpretation of quantum theory and rest content that in an infinite number of other universes, we are still members.
http://www.economist.com/node/18421830 -
In terms of MP support quite possible those would be the final 2 with members backing Johnsonrottenborough said:0 -
There's a Matt cartoon in that somewhere, but we'll have to wait for Matt to identify it.HYUFD said:Boris Johnson is descendant of mummified Basel woman
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-428054850 -
Another government success story:
"Rough sleeping in England has increased for the seventh year in a row, new official figures reveal.
There were 4,751 people counted or estimated to be bedding down outside in autumn 2017, a 15% rise on the year before and more than double the figure recorded five years ago."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-42817123
0 -
As an atheist my answer would be sure, who knows?tyson said:Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, I heard, when studying Religious Studies at school, that ardent atheists (or other theists) are likelier to convert to a religion than lazy agnostics. Apparently there's a much shorter distance of travel between passionate opposition and conversion than not really being fussed and conversion.
Interesting to consider, as I'm quite a relaxed atheist now but was a bit angrier about it in my youth.
I cannot really understand aetheism....It is as non sensical as faith based doctrinal religion....
The universe appeared from somewhere right?
We couldn't even explain lightning at one point, our understanding of it doesn't really change the chances of a God or not. Our understanding doesn't even disprove Thor presuming it is his hammer that helps create the conditions that make lightning. Just as evolution, Adam and Eve not disproved as God could be said to have guided it.
Although I'm probably more defined as a weak/soft/negative atheist. My position on god is similar to my position on the existence of a matrix type scenario that we all live in or something else that seems very unlikely but cannot be disproved.0 -
Saved the fare, anyway. What's more an opportunity for an upgrade by several lucky economy passengers!CarlottaVance said:Labour politicians normally at least make it across the Atlantic before being rebuffed. However, Emily Thornberry, the shadow foreign secretary, has had to call off a trip to the US designed to present Jeremy Corbyn’s party as a government in waiting before even boarding a plane.
Diplomatic sources suggested Ms Thornberry, an outspoken critic of President Trump, had hoped to line up a series of meetings with figures in his administration. A Whitehall source said: “It became clear pretty quickly that the White House wasn’t especially keen to meet them. Can’t think why.” In the past fortnight she has described Mr Trump as a “racist” and an “asteroid of awfulness”.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/emily-thornberry-snubbed-by-white-house-dqpdhvk8b
0 -
Mr Cooke,
Science does progress and in our universe, it may eventually understand how it happened. We've made a good start on the 5% we think we know about. But it can never address why?
We could work out an explanation of the laws but not why they are there. We may discover we are holograms. Electrical impulses interpreted by our brains, and that time is also an illusion. It is certainly mutable.
Even if we fill in the gaps, the reason for the whole will always remain beyond us.0 -
I hate to be impolite but anyone who suggests the 2010-2018 Tory government is responsible for a massive increase in national debt is either being really f*cking stupid or deliberately devious.bigjohnowls said:Neoliberalism and austerity have led to-
Massive national debt, economic growth, stagnant real wage growth, poor productivity growing inequality, high house prices/rents, rising intergenerational inequality and a lowering of environmental protection.
Poverty has been policy.
Both parties in the past have been on the side of the few at the expense of the many
No more
There was nothing, NOTHING, the Tory government could've done to avoid a massive increase in national debt.
Differing political opinions are fine, but the debt problem was an unavoidable fact.0 -
Police numbers down by 20,000 and budgets cut by 20 per cent. Theresa May was Home Secretary.Elliot said:
They really do need longer sentences for violent crime. You can't have a revolving door for gang members.bigjohnowls said:Danny Shaw
Verified account
@DannyShawBBC
2h2 hours ago
More
Crimes recorded by police in the 44 forces up 14% in year to end of September.
Violent crime up 20%
Knife Crime up 21%.
Robbery up 29%0 -
Proof of what you can see with your own eyes.Once the weather gets warmer,more and more will move to the countryside so people in rural areas will see them too in the barns and hedgerows,the visible victims of small-state ideology.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jan/25/rough-sleeper-numbers-in-england-rise-for-seventh-year-running0 -
Okay, I agree with that. The universe is not, as a whole, comprehensible to the human mind.CD13 said:Mr Cooke,
Science does progress and in our universe, it may eventually understand how it happened. We've made a good start on the 5% we think we know about. But it can never address why?
We could work out an explanation of the laws but not why they are there. We may discover we are holograms. Electrical impulses interpreted by our brains, and that time is also an illusion. It is certainly mutable.
Even if we fill in the gaps, the reason for the whole will always remain beyond us.
To be honest, it would be shocking if it were - our minds are those of a primate descended from the trees, who tend to analogise everything by basis of what we can physically see and feel day-to-day.
But that's not, and never can be, proof of the existence of an omnipotent being who happened to create the Universe, understand it in its entirety, and may or may not have an especial interest in said descended primate.0 -
She was truly the Gordon Brown of the Tory administration. Coasting on the legacy of her predecessors, believing she would make a better PM than the man in Downing Street, storing up problems for the future, finally eliminating her rivals and winning the top job only to find that she was completely unsuited to it.DecrepitJohnL said:
Police numbers down by 20,000 and budgets cut by 20 per cent. Theresa May was Home Secretary.Elliot said:
They really do need longer sentences for violent crime. You can't have a revolving door for gang members.bigjohnowls said:Danny Shaw
Verified account
@DannyShawBBC
2h2 hours ago
More
Crimes recorded by police in the 44 forces up 14% in year to end of September.
Violent crime up 20%
Knife Crime up 21%.
Robbery up 29%0 -
Yes there was but the government tried to cut its way to growth. Unsurprisingly, it failed.Fenster said:
I hate to be impolite but anyone who suggests the 2010-2018 Tory government is responsible for a massive increase in national debt is either being really f*cking stupid or deliberately devious.bigjohnowls said:Neoliberalism and austerity have led to-
Massive national debt, economic growth, stagnant real wage growth, poor productivity growing inequality, high house prices/rents, rising intergenerational inequality and a lowering of environmental protection.
Poverty has been policy.
Both parties in the past have been on the side of the few at the expense of the many
No more
There was nothing, NOTHING, the Tory government could've done to avoid a massive increase in national debt.
Differing political opinions are fine, but the debt problem was an unavoidable fact.0 -
Or saved some of them from being bumped from Business.....OldKingCole said:
Saved the fare, anyway. What's more an opportunity for an upgrade by several lucky economy passengers!CarlottaVance said:Labour politicians normally at least make it across the Atlantic before being rebuffed. However, Emily Thornberry, the shadow foreign secretary, has had to call off a trip to the US designed to present Jeremy Corbyn’s party as a government in waiting before even boarding a plane.
Diplomatic sources suggested Ms Thornberry, an outspoken critic of President Trump, had hoped to line up a series of meetings with figures in his administration. A Whitehall source said: “It became clear pretty quickly that the White House wasn’t especially keen to meet them. Can’t think why.” In the past fortnight she has described Mr Trump as a “racist” and an “asteroid of awfulness”.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/emily-thornberry-snubbed-by-white-house-dqpdhvk8b
https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/9085664/passengers-bumped-for-gordon-brown/0 -
Yup, this is one area where I am happy to go after immigrants with guns and dogs, on the grounds that they are a different colour from the natives.tyson said:
But how much of our understanding of the universe is effable?John_M said:
The origin of the universe is like abiogenesis. We don't know, we don't have theories that can address the issue (the 'Big Bang' explains 'what' but not 'why'), nor the mathematics to handle anything before Planck time. Science is at its worst when dealing with the ineffable. Once it's effable, we're good. No need for deities.tyson said:Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, I heard, when studying Religious Studies at school, that ardent atheists (or other theists) are likelier to convert to a religion than lazy agnostics. Apparently there's a much shorter distance of travel between passionate opposition and conversion than not really being fussed and conversion.
Interesting to consider, as I'm quite a relaxed atheist now but was a bit angrier about it in my youth.
I cannot really understand aetheism....It is as non sensical as faith based doctrinal religion....
The universe appeared from somewhere right?
Much of science in my kind dwells into esoteric theorising...parallel universes, cats that can be in more than one place, time travel, AI wiping us all out....
I spent ten minutes this morning marvelling at a squirrel digging up my garden and making off with one of our freshly planted bulbs and thought how marvellous the world is. I guess other people would just think the squirrel is vermin and want to kill it.
Unless it was red, in which case please tell these people all about it:
http://www.redsquirrelsunited.org.uk/0 -
Violent crime up, but general crime down. Interesting combination really.williamglenn said:
She was truly the Gordon Brown of the Tory administration. Coasting on the legacy of her predecessors, believing she would make a better PM than the man in Downing Street, storing up problems for the future, finally eliminating her rivals and winning the top job only to find that she was completely unsuited to it.DecrepitJohnL said:
Police numbers down by 20,000 and budgets cut by 20 per cent. Theresa May was Home Secretary.Elliot said:
They really do need longer sentences for violent crime. You can't have a revolving door for gang members.bigjohnowls said:Danny Shaw
Verified account
@DannyShawBBC
2h2 hours ago
More
Crimes recorded by police in the 44 forces up 14% in year to end of September.
Violent crime up 20%
Knife Crime up 21%.
Robbery up 29%0 -
It was , from a Yorkshire lad from Beverley.HYUFD said:
Given nobody thought he would get anywhere near the semi final in the first place still an excellent tournament for himbigjohnowls said:I see South Africas Kyle Edmund got thrashed in Melbourne!!!
0 -
France must be in thrall to a massively stronger small-state ideology, presumably:volcanopete said:Proof of what you can see with your own eyes.Once the weather gets warmer,more and more will move to the countryside so people in rural areas will see them too in the barns and hedgerows,the visible victims of small-state ideology.
https://theculturetrip.com/europe/france/paris/articles/homelessness-in-paris-the-darker-side-of-the-city-of-light/
There's some useful stuff here:
http://www.feantsa.org/download/increases-in-homelessness4974810376875636190.pdf
0 -
General crime may well be down because it's considered not worth reporting in many places. Your average bobby isn't interested.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Violent crime up, but general crime down. Interesting combination really.williamglenn said:
She was truly the Gordon Brown of the Tory administration. Coasting on the legacy of her predecessors, believing she would make a better PM than the man in Downing Street, storing up problems for the future, finally eliminating her rivals and winning the top job only to find that she was completely unsuited to it.DecrepitJohnL said:
Police numbers down by 20,000 and budgets cut by 20 per cent. Theresa May was Home Secretary.Elliot said:
They really do need longer sentences for violent crime. You can't have a revolving door for gang members.bigjohnowls said:Danny Shaw
Verified account
@DannyShawBBC
2h2 hours ago
More
Crimes recorded by police in the 44 forces up 14% in year to end of September.
Violent crime up 20%
Knife Crime up 21%.
Robbery up 29%0 -
My wallet demands Hunt!HYUFD said:
In terms of MP support quite possible those would be the final 2 with members backing Johnsonrottenborough said:0 -
You're suggesting that had the government borrowed more, it would have borrowed less - or that it should have taxed more rather than restricting spending? Either way, you need to show how a £160bn deficit would have disappeared within a year or two rather than just trying to imply the magic fiscal fairy.DecrepitJohnL said:
Yes there was but the government tried to cut its way to growth. Unsurprisingly, it failed.Fenster said:
I hate to be impolite but anyone who suggests the 2010-2018 Tory government is responsible for a massive increase in national debt is either being really f*cking stupid or deliberately devious.bigjohnowls said:Neoliberalism and austerity have led to-
Massive national debt, economic growth, stagnant real wage growth, poor productivity growing inequality, high house prices/rents, rising intergenerational inequality and a lowering of environmental protection.
Poverty has been policy.
Both parties in the past have been on the side of the few at the expense of the many
No more
There was nothing, NOTHING, the Tory government could've done to avoid a massive increase in national debt.
Differing political opinions are fine, but the debt problem was an unavoidable fact.0 -
Mr. Borough, Mordaunt would also be acceptable.0
-
Yes , but crime was falling, because any classed small bank fraud , was either reported to the bank or action fraud , not recorded by the police.However get your wallet stolen , that is a crime.You can do a lot with figures by not recording them.DecrepitJohnL said:
Police numbers down by 20,000 and budgets cut by 20 per cent. Theresa May was Home Secretary.Elliot said:
They really do need longer sentences for violent crime. You can't have a revolving door for gang members.bigjohnowls said:Danny Shaw
Verified account
@DannyShawBBC
2h2 hours ago
More
Crimes recorded by police in the 44 forces up 14% in year to end of September.
Violent crime up 20%
Knife Crime up 21%.
Robbery up 29%
0 -
If the Sun says it then surely it must be right..............................
Theresa May is getting a very bad press right now. Obviously what the Tory party needs right now is a new leader who looks just like and reminds people of Donald Trump, the most unpopular President of the USA in Britain since the Boston Tea Party.0 -
By-election watch:
"Tory MP Craig Mackinlay denies election expenses charges"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-428182930 -
If you torture data enough, it will confess to anything.Yorkcity said:
Yes , but crime was falling, because any classed small bank fraud , was either reported to the bank or action fraud , not recorded by the police.However get your wallet stolen , that is a crime.You can do a lot with figures by not recording them.DecrepitJohnL said:
Police numbers down by 20,000 and budgets cut by 20 per cent. Theresa May was Home Secretary.Elliot said:
They really do need longer sentences for violent crime. You can't have a revolving door for gang members.bigjohnowls said:Danny Shaw
Verified account
@DannyShawBBC
2h2 hours ago
More
Crimes recorded by police in the 44 forces up 14% in year to end of September.
Violent crime up 20%
Knife Crime up 21%.
Robbery up 29%0 -
Gosh, that would be Hobson's choice. Either Boris Johnson who reminds people of the unpopular Donald Trump, or Jeremy Hunt who reminds people of old ladies dying on hospital trollies.rottenborough said:
My wallet demands Hunt!HYUFD said:
In terms of MP support quite possible those would be the final 2 with members backing Johnsonrottenborough said:0 -
Something unequivocally sensible has happened:
"Plastic bottles: Free water refill points rolled out to cut waste."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-428083020 -
How has it failed? We've grown every single year!DecrepitJohnL said:
Yes there was but the government tried to cut its way to growth. Unsurprisingly, it failed.Fenster said:
I hate to be impolite but anyone who suggests the 2010-2018 Tory government is responsible for a massive increase in national debt is either being really f*cking stupid or deliberately devious.bigjohnowls said:Neoliberalism and austerity have led to-
Massive national debt, economic growth, stagnant real wage growth, poor productivity growing inequality, high house prices/rents, rising intergenerational inequality and a lowering of environmental protection.
Poverty has been policy.
Both parties in the past have been on the side of the few at the expense of the many
No more
There was nothing, NOTHING, the Tory government could've done to avoid a massive increase in national debt.
Differing political opinions are fine, but the debt problem was an unavoidable fact.
Higher than our G8 competitors averages many of those years too.0 -
General crime is best measured by the CSEW, which asks victims if they have been the victim of a crime last year. It's on that measure that general, i.e. petty crime, is falling.OldKingCole said:
General crime may well be down because it's considered not worth reporting in many places. Your average bobby isn't interested.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Violent crime up, but general crime down. Interesting combination really.williamglenn said:
She was truly the Gordon Brown of the Tory administration. Coasting on the legacy of her predecessors, believing she would make a better PM than the man in Downing Street, storing up problems for the future, finally eliminating her rivals and winning the top job only to find that she was completely unsuited to it.DecrepitJohnL said:
Police numbers down by 20,000 and budgets cut by 20 per cent. Theresa May was Home Secretary.Elliot said:
They really do need longer sentences for violent crime. You can't have a revolving door for gang members.bigjohnowls said:Danny Shaw
Verified account
@DannyShawBBC
2h2 hours ago
More
Crimes recorded by police in the 44 forces up 14% in year to end of September.
Violent crime up 20%
Knife Crime up 21%.
Robbery up 29%0 -
Most likely, the Referendum vote acted as a safety valve.CarlottaVance said:
That rather depends on why concerns on immigration have gone down - as the author notes its not clear, but since the decline started after the Brexit vote, it could be that 'Brexit is priced in' and that if Brexit was brought into question, the trend could just as easily reverse.....williamglenn said:
Good news for the second referendum. Those posters won’t work twice.CarlottaVance said:Nasty, inward looking xenophobic little Britain:
https://medium.com/@robfordmancs/how-have-attitudes-to-immigration-changed-since-brexit-e37881f55530
Or not.......
the public have become more positive about immigration. Far fewer see it as a major political priority and more see it as positive for Britain’s economy and culture. What is more, this shift is seen across the board — it isn’t a case of liberal “Remainers” rallying behind migrants, while migrant sceptic “Leavers” dig in their heels. The positive shift in attitudes seems to be occurring across the political and social spectrum.0 -
Spoonerised?Charles said:
It's Hunt.Fenster said:Some thoughts on Theresa May/new leader.
- I've never been impressed with her. Uninspired and boring.
- I was disappointed when she became PM, but would've taken her in a heartbeat over Leadsom
- During the honeymoon period and 23% poll leads I shrugged my shoulders, telling myself I must've got it wrong
- Then during the GE those voters in the centre (like me) soon saw what I see. A dull, boring woman bereft of ideas
- I'd support getting rid of her, hoping she gets replaced by someone with a positive spark, but only if some serious serious thought goes into it first*
*As destabilising as removing a PM would appear to be, I'm not convinced it'd be that big a deal. Brexit was an enormous shock and has made little difference to ordinary people's lives. Getting shot of May would be far less of a shock. Things move quickly in the modern world.
Trouble is, who can replace her and keep the two wings of the party together? Without putting centre ground voters off?
Mogg - No
Leadsom - No
Gove - (I'm a fan, but I just don't think he's popular enough with voters) No
Fox - No
Patel - No
Rudd - (too Remainian) - No
Hammond - No
The likes of Dominic Raab, Nicky Morgan, Savid Javid are all too unknown by the wider public to currently take on such a difficult task.
It leaves Davis, Hunt and Boris.
I like Boris but even as a fan I'm unsure. I do, however, think he'd make a good chairman and front-man. But many think the opposite.
I guess this is why getting rid of May needs some serious chin-stroking before the MPs move against her.
Battle of the Jezzas.
Horbyn or...0 -
To be fair OKc your average bobby , does not decide what is and what is not investigated or recorded.These are set much higher.Crime recording units can easily change certain crimes to either civil or a loss.OldKingCole said:
General crime may well be down because it's considered not worth reporting in many places. Your average bobby isn't interested.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Violent crime up, but general crime down. Interesting combination really.williamglenn said:
She was truly the Gordon Brown of the Tory administration. Coasting on the legacy of her predecessors, believing she would make a better PM than the man in Downing Street, storing up problems for the future, finally eliminating her rivals and winning the top job only to find that she was completely unsuited to it.DecrepitJohnL said:
Police numbers down by 20,000 and budgets cut by 20 per cent. Theresa May was Home Secretary.Elliot said:
They really do need longer sentences for violent crime. You can't have a revolving door for gang members.bigjohnowls said:Danny Shaw
Verified account
@DannyShawBBC
2h2 hours ago
More
Crimes recorded by police in the 44 forces up 14% in year to end of September.
Violent crime up 20%
Knife Crime up 21%.
Robbery up 29%0 -
Alternatively, neo-liberalism means that (despite recent difficulties) living standards are now about twice as high as in 1980.bigjohnowls said:Neoliberalism and austerity have led to-
Massive national debt, economic growth, stagnant real wage growth, poor productivity growing inequality, high house prices/rents, rising intergenerational inequality and a lowering of environmental protection.
Poverty has been policy.
Both parties in the past have been on the side of the few at the expense of the many
No more0 -
Since, 2010, we have indeed had growth, a big fall in the public sector deficit, and a big fall in unemployment.DecrepitJohnL said:
Yes there was but the government tried to cut its way to growth. Unsurprisingly, it failed.Fenster said:
I hate to be impolite but anyone who suggests the 2010-2018 Tory government is responsible for a massive increase in national debt is either being really f*cking stupid or deliberately devious.bigjohnowls said:Neoliberalism and austerity have led to-
Massive national debt, economic growth, stagnant real wage growth, poor productivity growing inequality, high house prices/rents, rising intergenerational inequality and a lowering of environmental protection.
Poverty has been policy.
Both parties in the past have been on the side of the few at the expense of the many
No more
There was nothing, NOTHING, the Tory government could've done to avoid a massive increase in national debt.
Differing political opinions are fine, but the debt problem was an unavoidable fact.0 -
It is a great time to be an older property rich person, no doubt, someone stuck the brakes on the gravy train so they could fill up their carts a little deeper. It is why the younger generation will be poorer that then the one that came before them.Sean_F said:
Alternatively, neo-liberalism means that (despite recent difficulties) living standards are now about twice as high as in 1980.bigjohnowls said:Neoliberalism and austerity have led to-
Massive national debt, economic growth, stagnant real wage growth, poor productivity growing inequality, high house prices/rents, rising intergenerational inequality and a lowering of environmental protection.
Poverty has been policy.
Both parties in the past have been on the side of the few at the expense of the many
No more0 -
That's true in isolation, however, it's now clear that GDP per capita is barely up since 2010 which is why people still don't feel better off. For a very long time after the crash the nation was below peak per capita GDP, due mainly to low grade immigration.Sean_F said:
Since, 2010, we have indeed had growth, a big fall in the public sector deficit, and a big fall in unemployment.DecrepitJohnL said:
Yes there was but the government tried to cut its way to growth. Unsurprisingly, it failed.Fenster said:
I hate to be impolite but anyone who suggests the 2010-2018 Tory government is responsible for a massive increase in national debt is either being really f*cking stupid or deliberately devious.bigjohnowls said:Neoliberalism and austerity have led to-
Massive national debt, economic growth, stagnant real wage growth, poor productivity growing inequality, high house prices/rents, rising intergenerational inequality and a lowering of environmental protection.
Poverty has been policy.
Both parties in the past have been on the side of the few at the expense of the many
No more
There was nothing, NOTHING, the Tory government could've done to avoid a massive increase in national debt.
Differing political opinions are fine, but the debt problem was an unavoidable fact.0 -
Anyone who suggests the 2010-2018 Tory government is responsible for a massive increase in national debt is either being really f*cking stupid or deliberately devious.Fenster said:
I hate to be impolite but anyone who suggests the 2010-2018 Tory government is responsible for a massive increase in national debt is either being really f*cking stupid or deliberately devious.bigjohnowls said:Neoliberalism and austerity have led to-
Massive national debt, economic growth, stagnant real wage growth, poor productivity growing inequality, high house prices/rents, rising intergenerational inequality and a lowering of environmental protection.
Poverty has been policy.
Both parties in the past have been on the side of the few at the expense of the many
No more
There was nothing, NOTHING, the Tory government could've done to avoid a massive increase in national debt.
Differing political opinions are fine, but the debt problem was an unavoidable fact.
I agree they are not entirely responsible. That would be as f*cking stupid or deliberately deviouss as saying Labour was entirely responsinle for the 2008 Global Financial Crisis
I deliberately said both parties are responsible for the NeoLiberalism agenda and what it has led to.
Which part of both parties don't you understand0 -
Do we get a regional breakdown of these figures - how much of the violent crime is these moped gangs in London and Manchester who the police have decided they can’t chase but where every victim needs to claim on their insurance?TheWhiteRabbit said:
Violent crime up, but general crime down. Interesting combination really.williamglenn said:
She was truly the Gordon Brown of the Tory administration. Coasting on the legacy of her predecessors, believing she would make a better PM than the man in Downing Street, storing up problems for the future, finally eliminating her rivals and winning the top job only to find that she was completely unsuited to it.DecrepitJohnL said:
Police numbers down by 20,000 and budgets cut by 20 per cent. Theresa May was Home Secretary.Elliot said:
They really do need longer sentences for violent crime. You can't have a revolving door for gang members.bigjohnowls said:Danny Shaw
Verified account
@DannyShawBBC
2h2 hours ago
More
Crimes recorded by police in the 44 forces up 14% in year to end of September.
Violent crime up 20%
Knife Crime up 21%.
Robbery up 29%0 -
Indeed, Mr YC. ‘Only following orders’ has a lot to answer for, and is probably very unfair to your average bobby.Yorkcity said:
To be fair OKc your average bobby , does not decide what is and what is not investigated or recorded.These are set much higher.Crime recording units can easily change certain crimes to either civil or a loss.OldKingCole said:
General crime may well be down because it's considered not worth reporting in many places. Your average bobby isn't interested.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Violent crime up, but general crime down. Interesting combination really.williamglenn said:
She was truly the Gordon Brown of the Tory administration. Coasting on the legacy of her predecessors, believing she would make a better PM than the man in Downing Street, storing up problems for the future, finally eliminating her rivals and winning the top job only to find that she was completely unsuited to it.DecrepitJohnL said:
Police numbers down by 20,000 and budgets cut by 20 per cent. Theresa May was Home Secretary.Elliot said:
They really do need longer sentences for violent crime. You can't have a revolving door for gang members.bigjohnowls said:Danny Shaw
Verified account
@DannyShawBBC
2h2 hours ago
More
Crimes recorded by police in the 44 forces up 14% in year to end of September.
Violent crime up 20%
Knife Crime up 21%.
Robbery up 29%0 -
Going into short term debt is fine, if you get positive results of growth and the ability to repay the debt with out problem in the agreed time. Whatever you say, the Labour Party left office in 2010 with debt between £800 and £950 million*, under the Tories, who promised multiple times to reduce the debt. at budget time and in Election manifesto's, it has actually more than doubled with no chance of repayment. And according Kwazi Kwarteng in an off the cuff comment on the Politics Show recently, it is still increasing at £1 million per week, although many may suspect he was being very conservative in his figuresFenster said:
I hate to be impolite but anyone who suggests the 2010-2018 Tory government is responsible for a massive increase in national debt is either being really f*cking stupid or deliberately devious.bigjohnowls said:Neoliberalism and austerity have led to-
Massive national debt, economic growth, stagnant real wage growth, poor productivity growing inequality, high house prices/rents, rising intergenerational inequality and a lowering of environmental protection.
Poverty has been policy.
Both parties in the past have been on the side of the few at the expense of the many
No more
There was nothing, NOTHING, the Tory government could've done to avoid a massive increase in national debt.
Differing political opinions are fine, but the debt problem was an unavoidable fact.
* Whoever gives the figures out, whenever!.0 -
Science explains “how” not “why”Andy_Cooke said:
The stance: "The universe appeared from somewhere, we don't yet understand how or why, therefore God Did It," is called the "God of the Gaps" argument. It's rather fraught, though, because as we keep pushing back the boundaries of our knowledge and finding out how things do happen/have happened, the God of the Gaps keeps getting pushed into smaller and smaller gaps.tyson said:Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, I heard, when studying Religious Studies at school, that ardent atheists (or other theists) are likelier to convert to a religion than lazy agnostics. Apparently there's a much shorter distance of travel between passionate opposition and conversion than not really being fussed and conversion.
Interesting to consider, as I'm quite a relaxed atheist now but was a bit angrier about it in my youth.
I cannot really understand aetheism....It is as non sensical as faith based doctrinal religion....
The universe appeared from somewhere right?
"We don't know how x happened" is simply a statement of our own lack of knowledge or specific imagination - it's not a certain necessity for a deity.0 -
Politically, the Government is embarrassing. But, it's pretty competent at administration.Sean_F said:
Since, 2010, we have indeed had growth, a big fall in the public sector deficit, and a big fall in unemployment.DecrepitJohnL said:
Yes there was but the government tried to cut its way to growth. Unsurprisingly, it failed.Fenster said:
I hate to be impolite but anyone who suggests the 2010-2018 Tory government is responsible for a massive increase in national debt is either being really f*cking stupid or deliberately devious.bigjohnowls said:Neoliberalism and austerity have led to-
Massive national debt, economic growth, stagnant real wage growth, poor productivity growing inequality, high house prices/rents, rising intergenerational inequality and a lowering of environmental protection.
Poverty has been policy.
Both parties in the past have been on the side of the few at the expense of the many
No more
There was nothing, NOTHING, the Tory government could've done to avoid a massive increase in national debt.
Differing political opinions are fine, but the debt problem was an unavoidable fact.0 -
With their 35 hr week? Truth is we have prioritised growth over everything else - distribution, work/life balance etc. And we're miles behind the US/Sweden/Netherlands. It's not dire but no-one sees us as a success story of the last 50-60 years.MaxPB said:Something else I've noted about the apparent lack of reaction to Sterling's rise is that no one has mentioned how well the index is holding up. When it was going up because the pound was crashing we had the entire financial press corps tell everyone that it's because the FTSE100 is chock full of international companies that earn in dollars and the index is priced in sterling. Well the pound is back up and the index hasn't crashed.
The final thing I've noticed is that internationally our nominal GDP is so far ahead of France that anyone who thinks we're falling behind needs their head examined. The gap is getting bigger, not smaller and it will get bigger in 2018, I think.0 -
Even if neo-liberalism isn't the answer, neither is Corbynism.Sean_F said:
Alternatively, neo-liberalism means that (despite recent difficulties) living standards are now about twice as high as in 1980.bigjohnowls said:Neoliberalism and austerity have led to-
Massive national debt, economic growth, stagnant real wage growth, poor productivity growing inequality, high house prices/rents, rising intergenerational inequality and a lowering of environmental protection.
Poverty has been policy.
Both parties in the past have been on the side of the few at the expense of the many
No more
It would make service, cost, performance, accountability and quality-of-life far worse.0 -
There's also the absolute difference. UK GDP increased by 22.9% from 2000-2007, and by 8.8% in the following 8 years. We're used to 20-25% growth per decade. We'll do well to hit 10% this time round.MaxPB said:
That's true in isolation, however, it's now clear that GDP per capita is barely up since 2010 which is why people still don't feel better off. For a very long time after the crash the nation was below peak per capita GDP, due mainly to low grade immigration.Sean_F said:
Since, 2010, we have indeed had growth, a big fall in the public sector deficit, and a big fall in unemployment.DecrepitJohnL said:
Yes there was but the government tried to cut its way to growth. Unsurprisingly, it failed.Fenster said:
I hate to be impolite but anyone who suggests the 2010-2018 Tory government is responsible for a massive increase in national debt is either being really f*cking stupid or deliberately devious.bigjohnowls said:Neoliberalism and austerity have led to-
Massive national debt, economic growth, stagnant real wage growth, poor productivity growing inequality, high house prices/rents, rising intergenerational inequality and a lowering of environmental protection.
Poverty has been policy.
Both parties in the past have been on the side of the few at the expense of the many
No more
There was nothing, NOTHING, the Tory government could've done to avoid a massive increase in national debt.
Differing political opinions are fine, but the debt problem was an unavoidable fact.0 -
Net immigration has also dropped since.Sean_F said:
Most likely, the Referendum vote acted as a safety valve.CarlottaVance said:
That rather depends on why concerns on immigration have gone down - as the author notes its not clear, but since the decline started after the Brexit vote, it could be that 'Brexit is priced in' and that if Brexit was brought into question, the trend could just as easily reverse.....williamglenn said:
Good news for the second referendum. Those posters won’t work twice.CarlottaVance said:Nasty, inward looking xenophobic little Britain:
https://medium.com/@robfordmancs/how-have-attitudes-to-immigration-changed-since-brexit-e37881f55530
Or not.......
the public have become more positive about immigration. Far fewer see it as a major political priority and more see it as positive for Britain’s economy and culture. What is more, this shift is seen across the board — it isn’t a case of liberal “Remainers” rallying behind migrants, while migrant sceptic “Leavers” dig in their heels. The positive shift in attitudes seems to be occurring across the political and social spectrum.0 -
OT, Tories stable in the E & W latest polls, moving up again slightly in Scotland. Local by-elections mixed but not bad. Economy - unemployment still falling, economy still growing inlflation probably off its peak. Sterling well up against dollar and slightly up against euro. Labour party trapped with a crap leader and an abysmal front bench. I cannot see a case to ditch may at this point for the likes of Bojo/Rudd/Hunt. I think there should be active preparations for a successor of the likes of Raab/McVey/et al - ie skipping at least a generation. The only value in a leadership contest now may be to get rid of Bojo for good - but it might well be at the cost of a Labour government. No thanks.0
-
Isn't that more agnostic rather than atheist?TheJezziah said:
As an atheist my answer would be sure, who knows?tyson said:Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, I heard, when studying Religious Studies at school, that ardent atheists (or other theists) are likelier to convert to a religion than lazy agnostics. Apparently there's a much shorter distance of travel between passionate opposition and conversion than not really being fussed and conversion.
Interesting to consider, as I'm quite a relaxed atheist now but was a bit angrier about it in my youth.
I cannot really understand aetheism....It is as non sensical as faith based doctrinal religion....
The universe appeared from somewhere right?
We couldn't even explain lightning at one point, our understanding of it doesn't really change the chances of a God or not. Our understanding doesn't even disprove Thor presuming it is his hammer that helps create the conditions that make lightning. Just as evolution, Adam and Eve not disproved as God could be said to have guided it.
Although I'm probably more defined as a weak/soft/negative atheist. My position on god is similar to my position on the existence of a matrix type scenario that we all live in or something else that seems very unlikely but cannot be disproved.0 -
They're not responsible for the 2008 global crisis though they were responsible for the completely messed up banking reforms Brown passed that made our banks especially vulnerable to the crisis.bigjohnowls said:
Anyone who suggests the 2010-2018 Tory government is responsible for a massive increase in national debt is either being really f*cking stupid or deliberately devious.Fenster said:
I hate to be impolite but anyone who suggests the 2010-2018 Tory government is responsible for a massive increase in national debt is either being really f*cking stupid or deliberately devious.bigjohnowls said:Neoliberalism and austerity have led to-
Massive national debt, economic growth, stagnant real wage growth, poor productivity growing inequality, high house prices/rents, rising intergenerational inequality and a lowering of environmental protection.
Poverty has been policy.
Both parties in the past have been on the side of the few at the expense of the many
No more
There was nothing, NOTHING, the Tory government could've done to avoid a massive increase in national debt.
Differing political opinions are fine, but the debt problem was an unavoidable fact.
I agree they are not entirely responsible. That would be as f*cking stupid or deliberately deviouss as saying Labour was entirely responsinle for the 2008 Global Financial Crisis
I deliberately said both parties are responsible for the NeoLiberalism agenda and what it has led to.
Which part of both parties don't you understand
They were responsible for maxing out the deficit at a permanent 3% of GDP in the good times so that when the crisis hit our deficit ballooned to being worse than Greece.
They were responsible for believing their own spin that they'd eliminated Boom and Bust so there was no need to prepare for the next bust.
Nobody other than Labour is culpable for that. Had we gone into the global crisis running a small surplus then we could have absorbed the crisis much better. It isn't the globes fault that we didn't.
Any responsible government should prepare us as well as it can for the next inevitable crisis.0 -
There really wasn’tDecrepitJohnL said:
Yes there was but the government tried to cut its way to growth. Unsurprisingly, it failed.Fenster said:
I hate to be impolite but anyone who suggests the 2010-2018 Tory government is responsible for a massive increase in national debt is either being really f*cking stupid or deliberately devious.bigjohnowls said:Neoliberalism and austerity have led to-
Massive national debt, economic growth, stagnant real wage growth, poor productivity growing inequality, high house prices/rents, rising intergenerational inequality and a lowering of environmental protection.
Poverty has been policy.
Both parties in the past have been on the side of the few at the expense of the many
No more
There was nothing, NOTHING, the Tory government could've done to avoid a massive increase in national debt.
Differing political opinions are fine, but the debt problem was an unavoidable fact.
Unless you were to more than halve the deficit in year one of the government (randomnly selecting £50bn as the boundary between massive and merely huge) then don’t was bound to increase massively under the coalition0 -
But that is a derivative statistic.Casino_Royale said:
Net immigration has also dropped since.Sean_F said:
Most likely, the Referendum vote acted as a safety valve.CarlottaVance said:
That rather depends on why concerns on immigration have gone down - as the author notes its not clear, but since the decline started after the Brexit vote, it could be that 'Brexit is priced in' and that if Brexit was brought into question, the trend could just as easily reverse.....williamglenn said:
Good news for the second referendum. Those posters won’t work twice.CarlottaVance said:Nasty, inward looking xenophobic little Britain:
https://medium.com/@robfordmancs/how-have-attitudes-to-immigration-changed-since-brexit-e37881f55530
Or not.......
the public have become more positive about immigration. Far fewer see it as a major political priority and more see it as positive for Britain’s economy and culture. What is more, this shift is seen across the board — it isn’t a case of liberal “Remainers” rallying behind migrants, while migrant sceptic “Leavers” dig in their heels. The positive shift in attitudes seems to be occurring across the political and social spectrum.
The rise in the net number of immigrants is falling, the number itself is still rising.0 -
Darwinism makes quite a good fist of answering a lot of "why" questions, and religion isn't great at any of these others. But I think this site needs a rule against religion in the mess.Charles said:
Science explains “how” not “why”Andy_Cooke said:
The stance: "The universe appeared from somewhere, we don't yet understand how or why, therefore God Did It," is called the "God of the Gaps" argument. It's rather fraught, though, because as we keep pushing back the boundaries of our knowledge and finding out how things do happen/have happened, the God of the Gaps keeps getting pushed into smaller and smaller gaps.tyson said:Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, I heard, when studying Religious Studies at school, that ardent atheists (or other theists) are likelier to convert to a religion than lazy agnostics. Apparently there's a much shorter distance of travel between passionate opposition and conversion than not really being fussed and conversion.
Interesting to consider, as I'm quite a relaxed atheist now but was a bit angrier about it in my youth.
I cannot really understand aetheism....It is as non sensical as faith based doctrinal religion....
The universe appeared from somewhere right?
"We don't know how x happened" is simply a statement of our own lack of knowledge or specific imagination - it's not a certain necessity for a deity.0 -
How is that any less fanciful than right-wingers who claim that cutting tax rates leads to increased tax revenues?david_herdson said:
You're suggesting that had the government borrowed more, it would have borrowed less0 -
OchEye said:
Going into short term debt is fine, if you get positive results of growth and the ability to repay the debt with out problem in the agreed time. Whatever you say, the Labour Party left office in 2010 with debt between £800 and £950 million*, under the Tories, who promised multiple times to reduce the debt. at budget time and in Election manifesto's, it has actually more than doubled with no chance of repayment. And according Kwazi Kwarteng in an off the cuff comment on the Politics Show recently, it is still increasing at £1 million per week, although many may suspect he was being very conservative in his figuresFenster said:
I hate to be impolite but anyone who suggests the 2010-2018 Tory government is responsible for a massive increase in national debt is either being really f*cking stupid or deliberately devious.bigjohnowls said:Neoliberalism and austerity have led to-
Massive national debt, economic growth, stagnant real wage growth, poor productivity growing inequality, high house prices/rents, rising intergenerational inequality and a lowering of environmental protection.
Poverty has been policy.
Both parties in the past have been on the side of the few at the expense of the many
No more
There was nothing, NOTHING, the Tory government could've done to avoid a massive increase in national debt.
Differing political opinions are fine, but the debt problem was an unavoidable fact.
* Whoever gives the figures out, whenever!.
Are you happy with your understanding of 'debt' versus 'deficit'?0 -
Why then did Cameron and Osborne in opposition agree with government spending ? Especially during the period 2005 to 07.Philip_Thompson said:
They're not responsible for the 2008 global crisis though they were responsible for the completely messed up banking reforms Brown passed that made our banks especially vulnerable to the crisis.bigjohnowls said:
Anyone who suggests the 2010-2018 Tory government is responsible for a massive increase in national debt is either being really f*cking stupid or deliberately devious.Fenster said:
I hate to be impolite but anyone who suggests the 2010-2018 Tory government is responsible for a massive increase in national debt is either being really f*cking stupid or deliberately devious.bigjohnowls said:Neoliberalism and austerity have led to-
Massive national debt, economic growth, stagnant real wage growth, poor productivity growing inequality, high house prices/rents, rising intergenerational inequality and a lowering of environmental protection.
Poverty has been policy.
Both parties in the past have been on the side of the few at the expense of the many
No more
There was nothing, NOTHING, the Tory government could've done to avoid a massive increase in national debt.
Differing political opinions are fine, but the debt problem was an unavoidable fact.
I agree they are not entirely responsible. That would be as f*cking stupid or deliberately deviouss as saying Labour was entirely responsinle for the 2008 Global Financial Crisis
I deliberately said both parties are responsible for the NeoLiberalism agenda and what it has led to.
Which part of both parties don't you understand
They were responsible for maxing out the deficit at a permanent 3% of GDP in the good times so that when the crisis hit our deficit ballooned to being worse than Greece.
They were responsible for believing their own spin that they'd eliminated Boom and Bust so there was no need to prepare for the next bust.
Nobody other than Labour is culpable for that. Had we gone into the global crisis running a small surplus then we could have absorbed the crisis much better. It isn't the globes fault that we didn't.
Any responsible government should prepare us as well as it can for the next inevitable crisis.0 -
Born to a Welsh father too. He was a British citizen from the day he was born.Yorkcity said:
It was , from a Yorkshire lad from Beverley.HYUFD said:
Given nobody thought he would get anywhere near the semi final in the first place still an excellent tournament for himbigjohnowls said:I see South Africas Kyle Edmund got thrashed in Melbourne!!!
0 -
Atheism is a position on belief, agnostic is a position on knowledge. I can say I don't know and don't believe. Some Christians are also agnostic; they say they don't KNOW God exists, but they have faith he does.Blue_rog said:
Isn't that more agnostic rather than atheist?TheJezziah said:
As an atheist my answer would be sure, who knows?tyson said:Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, I heard, when studying Religious Studies at school, that ardent atheists (or other theists) are likelier to convert to a religion than lazy agnostics. Apparently there's a much shorter distance of travel between passionate opposition and conversion than not really being fussed and conversion.
Interesting to consider, as I'm quite a relaxed atheist now but was a bit angrier about it in my youth.
I cannot really understand aetheism....It is as non sensical as faith based doctrinal religion....
The universe appeared from somewhere right?
We couldn't even explain lightning at one point, our understanding of it doesn't really change the chances of a God or not. Our understanding doesn't even disprove Thor presuming it is his hammer that helps create the conditions that make lightning. Just as evolution, Adam and Eve not disproved as God could be said to have guided it.
Although I'm probably more defined as a weak/soft/negative atheist. My position on god is similar to my position on the existence of a matrix type scenario that we all live in or something else that seems very unlikely but cannot be disproved.
Belief is binary. If someone presents you with an idea, you can believe it or disbelieve. Knowledge is not binary; you can be right, wrong, or not know.0 -
Well if you think the Universal Credit admin is a success , you are a true believer .Casino_Royale said:
Politically, the Government is embarrassing. But, it's pretty competent at administration.Sean_F said:
Since, 2010, we have indeed had growth, a big fall in the public sector deficit, and a big fall in unemployment.DecrepitJohnL said:
Yes there was but the government tried to cut its way to growth. Unsurprisingly, it failed.Fenster said:
I hate to be impolite but anyone who suggests the 2010-2018 Tory government is responsible for a massive increase in national debt is either being really f*cking stupid or deliberately devious.bigjohnowls said:Neoliberalism and austerity have led to-
Massive national debt, economic growth, stagnant real wage growth, poor productivity growing inequality, high house prices/rents, rising intergenerational inequality and a lowering of environmental protection.
Poverty has been policy.
Both parties in the past have been on the side of the few at the expense of the many
No more
There was nothing, NOTHING, the Tory government could've done to avoid a massive increase in national debt.
Differing political opinions are fine, but the debt problem was an unavoidable fact.0 -
There's good empirical evidence for the _concept_ of the Laffer curve, but, like all models, it's simplistic. Picking the optimum rate of taxation is difficult, even when just thinking about pure economic goods.Danny565 said:
How is that any less fanciful than right-wingers who claim that cutting tax rates leads to increased tax revenues?david_herdson said:
You're suggesting that had the government borrowed more, it would have borrowed less
As people are becoming aware, economics is not the be all and end all; there are externalities that people value as much, if not more than, economic wealth.0 -
With the members yes. But would MPs contrive to stop him getting on the ballot?rottenborough said:0 -
Your optimism for our mastery(*) of knowledge(**) is noted.Andy_Cooke said:
The stance: "The universe appeared from somewhere, we don't yet understand how or why, therefore God Did It," is called the "God of the Gaps" argument. It's rather fraught, though, because as we keep pushing back the boundaries of our knowledge and finding out how things do happen/have happened, the God of the Gaps keeps getting pushed into smaller and smaller gaps.tyson said:Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, I heard, when studying Religious Studies at school, that ardent atheists (or other theists) are likelier to convert to a religion than lazy agnostics. Apparently there's a much shorter distance of travel between passionate opposition and conversion than not really being fussed and conversion.
Interesting to consider, as I'm quite a relaxed atheist now but was a bit angrier about it in my youth.
I cannot really understand aetheism....It is as non sensical as faith based doctrinal religion....
The universe appeared from somewhere right?
"We don't know how x happened" is simply a statement of our own lack of knowledge or specific imagination - it's not a certain necessity for a deity.
(*) whatever that may mean.
(**) ditto.0 -
PB gets a bit frayed round the edges and some of the spelling is atrocious, but mess is harsh.Ishmael_Z said:
Darwinism makes quite a good fist of answering a lot of "why" questions, and religion isn't great at any of these others. But I think this site needs a rule against religion in the mess.Charles said:
Science explains “how” not “why”Andy_Cooke said:
The stance: "The universe appeared from somewhere, we don't yet understand how or why, therefore God Did It," is called the "God of the Gaps" argument. It's rather fraught, though, because as we keep pushing back the boundaries of our knowledge and finding out how things do happen/have happened, the God of the Gaps keeps getting pushed into smaller and smaller gaps.tyson said:Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, I heard, when studying Religious Studies at school, that ardent atheists (or other theists) are likelier to convert to a religion than lazy agnostics. Apparently there's a much shorter distance of travel between passionate opposition and conversion than not really being fussed and conversion.
Interesting to consider, as I'm quite a relaxed atheist now but was a bit angrier about it in my youth.
I cannot really understand aetheism....It is as non sensical as faith based doctrinal religion....
The universe appeared from somewhere right?
"We don't know how x happened" is simply a statement of our own lack of knowledge or specific imagination - it's not a certain necessity for a deity.0 -
I doubt if young people in the early eighties (today's middle aged) had an easier time than young people do today. Far fewer of them went to University, and they faced higher unemployment. But, most of them prospered in the end, as I suspect most of today's young people will do as well.TheJezziah said:
It is a great time to be an older property rich person, no doubt, someone stuck the brakes on the gravy train so they could fill up their carts a little deeper. It is why the younger generation will be poorer that then the one that came before them.Sean_F said:
Alternatively, neo-liberalism means that (despite recent difficulties) living standards are now about twice as high as in 1980.bigjohnowls said:Neoliberalism and austerity have led to-
Massive national debt, economic growth, stagnant real wage growth, poor productivity growing inequality, high house prices/rents, rising intergenerational inequality and a lowering of environmental protection.
Poverty has been policy.
Both parties in the past have been on the side of the few at the expense of the many
No more0 -
Why then did Cameron and Osborne in opposition agree with government spending ? Especially during the period 2005 to 07.
A reasonable question and i'm sure the answer lies to a degree in the unwillingness of many voters to accept withdrawal of state (taxpayer) largesse once they are in receipt.
Labour understandably use spending as a political football (as Howard Flight found to his cost) so we end up with dumbed down politics.
Similar thing happened during the GE campaign with the Tory social care plan. If the political labelling had been removed it could could easily have been a Corbyn idea with the middle classes funding the bulk of their care costs.
Labour couldn't resist trying to score points with though (and to be fair they did it well) and consequently much needed reform is not going to be touched by political parties of any persuasion for a long time.
0 -
The idea that either tax cuts or higher public spending automatically pay for themselves is indeed fanciful.Danny565 said:
How is that any less fanciful than right-wingers who claim that cutting tax rates leads to increased tax revenues?david_herdson said:
You're suggesting that had the government borrowed more, it would have borrowed less
But, there is a grain of truth in both. It is possible to raise tax rates so high, or cut public spending so far, that it becomes self-defeating.
0 -
Please, then let him go to his local hospital, for say, an in growing toe nail, he'll leave in a coffin....Corbyn will have a field day, so many open goals, so many real and actual skeletons in the in the Hunt cupboard, and then there are the political ones rattling round in the background.....Rudd? Actually surprised the Met haven't been sniffing round after all the stuff in Private Eye.....Davis, all the Labour Party has to do is show recordings of him answering HoC committees, gather even the Mogg was shocked at some of the answers Davis gave. Boris hasn't got the support in the PCP although he may have in the membership. Fox is just useless. Gove, the face you most want to slap. The only one who shows any level of stability and intelligence is Hammond, but I can't see him lasting any length of time.Charles said:
It's Hunt.Fenster said:Some thoughts on Theresa May/new leader.
- I've never been impressed with her. Uninspired and boring.
- I was disappointed when she became PM, but would've taken her in a heartbeat over Leadsom
- During the honeymoon period and 23% poll leads I shrugged my shoulders, telling myself I must've got it wrong
- Then during the GE those voters in the centre (like me) soon saw what I see. A dull, boring woman bereft of ideas
- I'd support getting rid of her, hoping she gets replaced by someone with a positive spark, but only if some serious serious thought goes into it first*
*As destabilising as removing a PM would appear to be, I'm not convinced it'd be that big a deal. Brexit was an enormous shock and has made little difference to ordinary people's lives. Getting shot of May would be far less of a shock. Things move quickly in the modern world.
Trouble is, who can replace her and keep the two wings of the party together? Without putting centre ground voters off?
Mogg - No
Leadsom - No
Gove - (I'm a fan, but I just don't think he's popular enough with voters) No
Fox - No
Patel - No
Rudd - (too Remainian) - No
Hammond - No
The likes of Dominic Raab, Nicky Morgan, Savid Javid are all too unknown by the wider public to currently take on such a difficult task.
It leaves Davis, Hunt and Boris.
I like Boris but even as a fan I'm unsure. I do, however, think he'd make a good chairman and front-man. But many think the opposite.
I guess this is why getting rid of May needs some serious chin-stroking before the MPs move against her.
Battle of the Jezzas.0 -
Entirely correct. The recession of 2008/09 was a real humdinger, cutting GDP per head by about 7%.MaxPB said:
That's true in isolation, however, it's now clear that GDP per capita is barely up since 2010 which is why people still don't feel better off. For a very long time after the crash the nation was below peak per capita GDP, due mainly to low grade immigration.Sean_F said:
Since, 2010, we have indeed had growth, a big fall in the public sector deficit, and a big fall in unemployment.DecrepitJohnL said:
Yes there was but the government tried to cut its way to growth. Unsurprisingly, it failed.Fenster said:
I hate to be impolite but anyone who suggests the 2010-2018 Tory government is responsible for a massive increase in national debt is either being really f*cking stupid or deliberately devious.bigjohnowls said:Neoliberalism and austerity have led to-
Massive national debt, economic growth, stagnant real wage growth, poor productivity growing inequality, high house prices/rents, rising intergenerational inequality and a lowering of environmental protection.
Poverty has been policy.
Both parties in the past have been on the side of the few at the expense of the many
No more
There was nothing, NOTHING, the Tory government could've done to avoid a massive increase in national debt.
Differing political opinions are fine, but the debt problem was an unavoidable fact.0 -
No. The point people miss - and which has been missed here is that just because we don't know something (like how the universe started) does not mean we should just accept any old idea for which there is no empirical evidence. An Agnostic might say they do not know how the universe began and might consider God as an option. An atheist would say they do not know how the universe began and will disregard any explanation for which there is no evidence at allBlue_rog said:
Isn't that more agnostic rather than atheist?TheJezziah said:
As an atheist my answer would be sure, who knows?tyson said:Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, I heard, when studying Religious Studies at school, that ardent atheists (or other theists) are likelier to convert to a religion than lazy agnostics. Apparently there's a much shorter distance of travel between passionate opposition and conversion than not really being fussed and conversion.
Interesting to consider, as I'm quite a relaxed atheist now but was a bit angrier about it in my youth.
I cannot really understand aetheism....It is as non sensical as faith based doctrinal religion....
The universe appeared from somewhere right?
We couldn't even explain lightning at one point, our understanding of it doesn't really change the chances of a God or not. Our understanding doesn't even disprove Thor presuming it is his hammer that helps create the conditions that make lightning. Just as evolution, Adam and Eve not disproved as God could be said to have guided it.
Although I'm probably more defined as a weak/soft/negative atheist. My position on god is similar to my position on the existence of a matrix type scenario that we all live in or something else that seems very unlikely but cannot be disproved.
The alternative is to claim that all explanations have equal validity and then sit back and enjoy the punch up between Christians and Pastafarians.0 -
Exactly.Charles said:
Science explains “how” not “why”Andy_Cooke said:
The stance: "The universe appeared from somewhere, we don't yet understand how or why, therefore God Did It," is called the "God of the Gaps" argument. It's rather fraught, though, because as we keep pushing back the boundaries of our knowledge and finding out how things do happen/have happened, the God of the Gaps keeps getting pushed into smaller and smaller gaps.tyson said:Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, I heard, when studying Religious Studies at school, that ardent atheists (or other theists) are likelier to convert to a religion than lazy agnostics. Apparently there's a much shorter distance of travel between passionate opposition and conversion than not really being fussed and conversion.
Interesting to consider, as I'm quite a relaxed atheist now but was a bit angrier about it in my youth.
I cannot really understand aetheism....It is as non sensical as faith based doctrinal religion....
The universe appeared from somewhere right?
"We don't know how x happened" is simply a statement of our own lack of knowledge or specific imagination - it's not a certain necessity for a deity.
So, given where this all kicked off, a stance based on "How?" isn't really a good argument for a religious stance, and certainly not for proving atheists wrong.0 -
Gove, the father of Brexit, present at the birth.-1
-
How is that any less fanciful than right-wingers who claim that cutting tax rates leads to increased tax revenues?
If we were in a Corbyn utopia of 1970s marginal taxation rates then certainly the above would be correct.
For a literal example: If income tax was 100% where there was no incentive to work then the cutting of tax rates would of course increase tax revenues.
The difficulty is finding the 'sweet spot'.
0 -
I think this is in fact what happened in the late 80's when Lawson cut income tax top rate from 60-40%.Danny565 said:
How is that any less fanciful than right-wingers who claim that cutting tax rates leads to increased tax revenues?david_herdson said:
You're suggesting that had the government borrowed more, it would have borrowed less
Now it all depends where you start and what the level of resistance to a rate of X% is on whatever it is you are taxing.
If we reduced tax on cigarettes (which is very high) by a little there's a fair chance people would smoke quite a bit more, and more than enough to compensate for the percentage reduction and revenues would rise. Reduced smuggling, and legal baccy runs to Belgium would all chip in too. Now all this might not be desirable for other reasons of course, but fiscally I think we could be pretty confident it would work.
To be at the absurd end for a moment, if income tax were 100% revenue would be pretty much nil, and reducing it by 50% would see revenues soar into the relative stratosphere.
The tricky bit is judging where these points are, and the effect on behaviour of any changes. Tax or regulate any activity too much and revenues will shrink as people "flee from tax" either literally by leaving the country, going underground with the activity (e.g. cigarette smuggling, or doing less or stopping the activity.0 -
We had a young person's greatest friend; incredibly high inflation. Who needs a degreeSean_F said:
I doubt if young people in the early eighties (today's middle aged) had an easier time than young people do today. Far fewer of them went to University, and they faced higher unemployment. But, most of them prospered in the end, as I suspect most of today's young people will do as well.TheJezziah said:
It is a great time to be an older property rich person, no doubt, someone stuck the brakes on the gravy train so they could fill up their carts a little deeper. It is why the younger generation will be poorer that then the one that came before them.Sean_F said:
Alternatively, neo-liberalism means that (despite recent difficulties) living standards are now about twice as high as in 1980.bigjohnowls said:Neoliberalism and austerity have led to-
Massive national debt, economic growth, stagnant real wage growth, poor productivity growing inequality, high house prices/rents, rising intergenerational inequality and a lowering of environmental protection.
Poverty has been policy.
Both parties in the past have been on the side of the few at the expense of the many
No more
. 0 -
Right. There's so little distinction between how you treat something you have no reason to believe is true- or probable- and something you have reason to believe *isn't* true that coming up with different terms for them then arguing about which you should identify as is silly. We don't apply that standard to anything else in our day-to-day lives.Richard_Tyndall said:
No. The point people miss - and which has been missed here is that just because we don't know something (like how the universe started) does not mean we should just accept any old idea for which there is no empirical evidence. An Agnostic might say they do not know how the universe began and might consider God as an option. An atheist would say they do not know how the universe began and will disregard any explanation for which there is no evidence at allBlue_rog said:
Isn't that more agnostic rather than atheist?TheJezziah said:
As an atheist my answer would be sure, who knows?tyson said:Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, I heard, when studying Religious Studies at school, that ardent atheists (or other theists) are likelier to convert to a religion than lazy agnostics. Apparently there's a much shorter distance of travel between passionate opposition and conversion than not really being fussed and conversion.
Interesting to consider, as I'm quite a relaxed atheist now but was a bit angrier about it in my youth.
I cannot really understand aetheism....It is as non sensical as faith based doctrinal religion....
The universe appeared from somewhere right?
We couldn't even explain lightning at one point, our understanding of it doesn't really change the chances of a God or not. Our understanding doesn't even disprove Thor presuming it is his hammer that helps create the conditions that make lightning. Just as evolution, Adam and Eve not disproved as God could be said to have guided it.
Although I'm probably more defined as a weak/soft/negative atheist. My position on god is similar to my position on the existence of a matrix type scenario that we all live in or something else that seems very unlikely but cannot be disproved.
The alternative is to claim that all explanations have equal validity and then sit back and enjoy the punch up between Christians and Pastafarians.
For example, there could be an axe murderer sneaking up behind you right now. You could say that before you turn and check you're axe-murderer-agnostic, and after you check, you're an a-axe-murderer-ist. But either way you don't feel scared, because you don't take the idea seriously. So why care about such granular labelling?0 -
Why then did Cameron and Osborne in opposition agree with government spending ? Especially during the period 2005 to 07.SunnyJim said:
A reasonable question and i'm sure the answer lies to a degree in the unwillingness of many voters to accept withdrawal of state (taxpayer) largesse once they are in receipt.
Labour understandably use spending as a political football (as Howard Flight found to his cost) so we end up with dumbed down politics.
Similar thing happened during the GE campaign with the Tory social care plan. If the political labelling had been removed it could could easily have been a Corbyn idea with the middle classes funding the bulk of their care costs.
Labour couldn't resist trying to score points with though (and to be fair they did it well) and consequently much needed reform is not going to be touched by political parties of any persuasion for a long time.
Good answer IMo.Thanks0 -
No, I really do mean mess, as in officers' mess.Theuniondivvie said:
PB gets a bit frayed round the edges and some of the spelling is atrocious, but mess is harsh.Ishmael_Z said:
Darwinism makes quite a good fist of answering a lot of "why" questions, and religion isn't great at any of these others. But I think this site needs a rule against religion in the mess.Charles said:
Science explains “how” not “why”Andy_Cooke said:
The stance: "The universe appeared from somewhere, we don't yet understand how or why, therefore God Did It," is called the "God of the Gaps" argument. It's rather fraught, though, because as we keep pushing back the boundaries of our knowledge and finding out how things do happen/have happened, the God of the Gaps keeps getting pushed into smaller and smaller gaps.tyson said:Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, I heard, when studying Religious Studies at school, that ardent atheists (or other theists) are likelier to convert to a religion than lazy agnostics. Apparently there's a much shorter distance of travel between passionate opposition and conversion than not really being fussed and conversion.
Interesting to consider, as I'm quite a relaxed atheist now but was a bit angrier about it in my youth.
I cannot really understand aetheism....It is as non sensical as faith based doctrinal religion....
The universe appeared from somewhere right?
"We don't know how x happened" is simply a statement of our own lack of knowledge or specific imagination - it's not a certain necessity for a deity.0 -
But lower than in 2010Sean_F said:
Alternatively, neo-liberalism means that (despite recent difficulties) living standards are now about twice as high as in 1980.bigjohnowls said:Neoliberalism and austerity have led to-
Massive national debt, economic growth, stagnant real wage growth, poor productivity growing inequality, high house prices/rents, rising intergenerational inequality and a lowering of environmental protection.
Poverty has been policy.
Both parties in the past have been on the side of the few at the expense of the many
No more0 -
I can't actually understand a hard atheism stance, because if we take for example an explanation I heard for dinosaur fossils that God put them there to test our faith, because dinosaurs conflicted with his view of the age of the Earth.
If we apply that logic of an all powerful God that is prepared to trick people into believing things that aren't true then we cannot trust absolutely anything all our science could be a trick by God which he maintains by making all the things we use it for work as well so anything you used to disprove God could simply be a trick by God. Far fetched doesn't matter only possible and with an all powerful God anything is possible.-1 -
There is reasonable doubt and unreasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt means you can give a reason for your doubt beyond "Well I just doubt it".148grss said:
Atheism is a position on belief, agnostic is a position on knowledge. I can say I don't know and don't believe. Some Christians are also agnostic; they say they don't KNOW God exists, but they have faith he does.Blue_rog said:
Isn't that more agnostic rather than atheist?TheJezziah said:
As an atheist my answer would be sure, who knows?tyson said:Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, I heard, when studying Religious Studies at school, that ardent atheists (or other theists) are likelier to convert to a religion than lazy agnostics. Apparently there's a much shorter distance of travel between passionate opposition and conversion than not really being fussed and conversion.
Interesting to consider, as I'm quite a relaxed atheist now but was a bit angrier about it in my youth.
I cannot really understand aetheism....It is as non sensical as faith based doctrinal religion....
The universe appeared from somewhere right?
We couldn't even explain lightning at one point, our understanding of it doesn't really change the chances of a God or not. Our understanding doesn't even disprove Thor presuming it is his hammer that helps create the conditions that make lightning. Just as evolution, Adam and Eve not disproved as God could be said to have guided it.
Although I'm probably more defined as a weak/soft/negative atheist. My position on god is similar to my position on the existence of a matrix type scenario that we all live in or something else that seems very unlikely but cannot be disproved.
Belief is binary. If someone presents you with an idea, you can believe it or disbelieve. Knowledge is not binary; you can be right, wrong, or not know.
There is also reasonable belief and unreasonable belief.
Reasonable belief means you can give a reason beyond "Well I just think so" or "I have faith".
Your reasons for your belief can then be tested by yourself and others for logical consistency and consistency with the evidence.
You can't argue with someone who just believes based on faith alone.-1 -
An all-powerful god that tries its best to make us think it doesn't exist. Is this god also a LibDem?TheJezziah said:
I can't actually understand a hard atheism stance, because if we take for example an explanation I heard for dinosaur fossils that God put them there to test our faith, because dinosaurs conflicted with his view of the age of the Earth.
If we apply that logic of an all powerful God that is prepared to trick people into believing things that aren't true then we cannot trust absolutely anything all our science could be a trick by God which he maintains by making all the things we use it for work as well so anything you used to disprove God could simply be a trick by God. Far fetched doesn't matter only possible and with an all powerful God anything is possible.-1
