I think we underestimate the ability of people (particularly young people, who we are always scared of due to their youth, energy and physicality) to sniff out bullshit.
It's the "no-platforming", "safe space" and avoiding "discomfort" that I'm far more worried about than any specific text because, without it, anyone can be exposed to anything and work it out for themselves.
Yes, having your prejudices and views challenged is uncomfortable. That's precisely why they should be.
Yes. And this should apply to all shibboleths not just modern woke ones. For example, that the British Empire was so "complicated" that it is not possible to discern and decry its racist foundation and legacy - challenging this widely held view is difficult and unpopular, but it has to be done. ☺
I think we underestimate the ability of people (particularly young people, who we are always scared of due to their youth, energy and physicality) to sniff out bullshit.
It's the "no-platforming", "safe space" and avoiding "discomfort" that I'm far more worried about than any specific text because, without it, anyone can be exposed to anything and work it out for themselves.
Yes, having your prejudices and views challenged is uncomfortable. That's precisely why they should be.
I think the problem is that this type of propaganda is making it into classrooms and lecture halls and then being presented as fact by teachers and lecturers. Yes, young people have bullshit detectors but they are also impressionable and if their lecturer with years of experience presents SWP literature as fact and says that communism is great and it just hasn't really been tried properly lots of them will accept it.
Also, things like XR use legitimate environmental concerns as cover to push their Marxist solutions. Again, it is the bad faith actors, as we have discussed before.
BLM too, I am against racism, I don't support BLM.
My philosophy is one where I fundamentally believe in individualism and not communitarianism.
Weren't you telling us yesterday how nations have distinct characters?
I never said that everyone in that country was uniform did I?
Yes every country is unique, just as every individual is unique. How is that contradictory?
If every individual were truly unique then a country would be simply a random collection of individuals, which would be indistinguishable from one another.
There is no reason for that to be true, unless all individuals were random but I never said that did I?
Unique and random are two totally different concepts.
So members of a nation are unique in similar ways?
No. The idea that all members of a nation are similar is preposterous. People can influence each other and through the nation can influence the people who live there though.
If the Duchess of Sussex does have presidential ambitions, would she have to drop the title? The constitution only forbids someone in office from accepting one, I don't think it forbids people who already have one.
I think we underestimate the ability of people (particularly young people, who we are always scared of due to their youth, energy and physicality) to sniff out bullshit.
It's the "no-platforming", "safe space" and avoiding "discomfort" that I'm far more worried about than any specific text because, without it, anyone can be exposed to anything and work it out for themselves.
Yes, having your prejudices and views challenged is uncomfortable. That's precisely why they should be.
I think the problem is that this type of propaganda is making it into classrooms and lecture halls and then being presented as fact by teachers and lecturers. Yes, young people have bullshit detectors but they are also impressionable and if their lecturer with years of experience presents SWP literature as fact and says that communism is great and it just hasn't really been tried properly lots of them will accept it.
Yes, absolutely, and I don't want to spend most of my evenings and weekends deradicalising my daughter. I will do, if necessary, however.
I think the bigger challenge with being young is that in the absence of "experience" (1) you're a bit of sponge, (2) you want to learn about the world - quickly, as you'll be in it in months and (3) you therefore look for white & black explanations of how things are and people to emulate as you haven't fully discovered yourself yet.
I've seen (and met) equally radical young libertarian or neo-Thatcherite Conservatives, who modelled themselves accordingly, although there are fewer of them.
As you get older, you realise how very grey and blurred everything is, and how radical ideologies and sentiments usually don't survive contact with the real world. You also learn a lot more about yourself.
Football spokesperson on Sky for a club saying the Government should bail out the EFL by "just" £250 million because in context the Government spent £500 million in order to support hospitality with EOTHO so its not much money.
WTF kind of logic is that?
The EOTHO scheme was for thousands of businesses not a few clubs and was matching customer expenditure not a gift to the businesses involved.
There's a lot of good there, but unfortunately he drops a clanger in his first point on testing.
A negative test for the Covid cannot be used as a get-out from isolation if you have symptoms or are a close contact of a positive case. It might be a false negative, or you may still be incubating the virus.
The test is used to identify more positive cases so that their contacts can also be traced and put into isolation. There have been lots of cases in Ireland of close contacts testing negative on their day zero test, going merrily about their business, and then testing positive on their day seven test - having risked spreading the infection on due to not isolating.
It's really frustrating that even someone relatively sensible, rational and one would have hoped intelligent and well-informed gets this important part of the basic public health approach of test, trace, isolate so wrong.
Sadly he's not alone. Starmer makes the same error. And yet, both have more merit than the present incumbents.
You make a fair point, but I'm not sure it's decisive. False negatives can partly be corrected for by requiring two or three tests before you're given the all-clear. And even if that wasn't the case, it's arguable that it would be better to accept that you are going to allow some infected people out into the community as a result of false negatives, because a policy based on such testing would be more acceptable to the public and therefore people would be more prepared to isolate. That could well reduce the net number of infectious people out in the community even with the false negatives, and also be more sustainable because of the reduced economic hit.
If the Duchess of Sussex does have presidential ambitions, would she have to drop the title? The constitution only forbids someone in office from accepting one, I don't think it forbids people who already have one.
If she became President a descendant of King George III would be First Man which would be amusing, though it is highly unlikely
Thanks for that. The conclusion ends.... "it does indicate that Labour’s current position in voting intent, whether a small Labour lead, tied or close behind the Conservatives, is more grounded and solid than the contradictory figures we were seeing in the Miliband-Cameron days. A contradiction that, of course, ended with the leader ratings being proved correct and vote share incorrect."
Here's a thought for the government. Instead of worrying about young people being indoctrinated into anti-Tory thinking, why don't they produce some policies which don't indoctrinate them into anti-Tory thinking? Such as ones that don't shaft them in favour of the old at every turn and opportunity.
There's a lot of good there, but unfortunately he drops a clanger in his first point on testing.
A negative test for the Covid cannot be used as a get-out from isolation if you have symptoms or are a close contact of a positive case. It might be a false negative, or you may still be incubating the virus.
The test is used to identify more positive cases so that their contacts can also be traced and put into isolation. There have been lots of cases in Ireland of close contacts testing negative on their day zero test, going merrily about their business, and then testing positive on their day seven test - having risked spreading the infection on due to not isolating.
It's really frustrating that even someone relatively sensible, rational and one would have hoped intelligent and well-informed gets this important part of the basic public health approach of test, trace, isolate so wrong.
Sadly he's not alone. Starmer makes the same error. And yet, both have more merit than the present incumbents.
I think we underestimate the ability of people (particularly young people, who we are always scared of due to their youth, energy and physicality) to sniff out bullshit.
It's the "no-platforming", "safe space" and avoiding "discomfort" that I'm far more worried about than any specific text because, without it, anyone can be exposed to anything and work it out for themselves.
Yes, having your prejudices and views challenged is uncomfortable. That's precisely why they should be.
I think the problem is that this type of propaganda is making it into classrooms and lecture halls and then being presented as fact by teachers and lecturers. Yes, young people have bullshit detectors but they are also impressionable and if their lecturer with years of experience presents SWP literature as fact and says that communism is great and it just hasn't really been tried properly lots of them will accept it.
Also, things like XR use legitimate environmental concerns as cover to push their Marxist solutions. Again, it is the bad faith actors, as we have discussed before.
BLM too, I am against racism, I don't support BLM.
I support the sentiment behind BLM. Black lives do matter and I'm not afraid to show it or express it, and clearly there are some, especially in America, who don't seem to think that black lives do matter. I don't support "the organisation" because "the organisation" is not relevant.
Well, you - as a presumably typical Tory - are always talking about sending the tanks into Scotland and the task forces to invade Spain.
I don't believe HYUFD is a "typical Tory".
Well I am more so than you are certainly
I don't claim to be typical.
I am me. I don't want to be typical.
How typical is that?
Good question.
My philosophy is one where I fundamentally believe in individualism and not communitarianism.
As such fitting in a mould as HYUFD tries to do as a "typical Tory" seems to be rather counter-intuitive to my philosophy.
Indeed you are more a Liberal or libertarian than a traditional Tory.
The Tory Party was originally the party of the monarchy, landed gentry and the Anglican church and as you are a republican atheist you can never really be a true Tory
Indeed. But the Conservatives have long appealed to traditional liberals and libertarians. If the Conservatives only won the votes of traditional landed gentry like yourself then the party would long since have faded away to being a tiny minority of the electorate.
Since the Liberal Democrats are as a truly liberal as a Democratic Republic is truly a democracy that leaves me nowhere else to go.
I guess a strong libertarian might consider UKIP? For Liberals, there is the Liberal Party, but they only stand a handful of candidates. So the LibDems it continues to be for me as they are more liberal than the Conservative Party and, of course, Labour.
I agree with you that the LibDems, since the SDP infiltration I think, have steadily moved in the Labour direction. I`m hoping that Davey will reposition the party equidistant between the two major parties and redefine liberalism along J S Mill lines.
The traditional tired old quip againt voting LibDem is the "wasted vote" jibe, but those making it don`t seem to realise that all votes are wasted in FPTP when there has never in history been a constituency whose outcome has been settled by one vote.
Well, you - as a presumably typical Tory - are always talking about sending the tanks into Scotland and the task forces to invade Spain.
I don't believe HYUFD is a "typical Tory".
Well I am more so than you are certainly
I don't claim to be typical.
I am me. I don't want to be typical.
How typical is that?
Good question.
My philosophy is one where I fundamentally believe in individualism and not communitarianism.
As such fitting in a mould as HYUFD tries to do as a "typical Tory" seems to be rather counter-intuitive to my philosophy.
Indeed you are more a Liberal or libertarian than a traditional Tory.
The Tory Party was originally the party of the monarchy, landed gentry and the Anglican church and as you are a republican atheist you can never really be a true Tory
Indeed. But the Conservatives have long appealed to traditional liberals and libertarians. If the Conservatives only won the votes of traditional landed gentry like yourself then the party would long since have faded away to being a tiny minority of the electorate.
Since the Liberal Democrats are as a truly liberal as a Democratic Republic is truly a democracy that leaves me nowhere else to go.
I guess a strong libertarian might consider UKIP? For Liberals, there is the Liberal Party, but they only stand a handful of candidates. So the LibDems it continues to be for me as they are more liberal than the Conservative Party and, of course, Labour.
I agree with you that the LibDems, since the SDP infiltration I think, have steadily moved in the Labour direction. I`m hoping that Davey will reposition the party equidistant between the two major parties and redefine liberalism along J S Mill lines.
The traditional tired old quip againt voting LibDem is the "wasted vote" jibe, but those making it don`t seem to realise that all votes are wasted in FPTP when there has never in history been a constituency whose outcome has been settled by one vote.
David Steel was always on the left - more so than David Owen .
I think we underestimate the ability of people (particularly young people, who we are always scared of due to their youth, energy and physicality) to sniff out bullshit.
It's the "no-platforming", "safe space" and avoiding "discomfort" that I'm far more worried about than any specific text because, without it, anyone can be exposed to anything and work it out for themselves.
Yes, having your prejudices and views challenged is uncomfortable. That's precisely why they should be.
Yes. And this should apply to all shibboleths not just modern woke ones. For example, that the British Empire was so "complicated" that it is not possible to discern and decry its racist foundation and legacy - challenging this widely held view is difficult and unpopular, but it has to be done. ☺
Yup, absolutely. For example, we've tried challenging your dogmatic (and ignorant) views on this in the past but you simply dismiss any arguments to the contrary and demand the other 'educates' themselves.
You're a victim of this too, and I feel sorry for you. The system let you down.
There's a lot of good there, but unfortunately he drops a clanger in his first point on testing.
A negative test for the Covid cannot be used as a get-out from isolation if you have symptoms or are a close contact of a positive case. It might be a false negative, or you may still be incubating the virus.
The test is used to identify more positive cases so that their contacts can also be traced and put into isolation. There have been lots of cases in Ireland of close contacts testing negative on their day zero test, going merrily about their business, and then testing positive on their day seven test - having risked spreading the infection on due to not isolating.
It's really frustrating that even someone relatively sensible, rational and one would have hoped intelligent and well-informed gets this important part of the basic public health approach of test, trace, isolate so wrong.
Sadly he's not alone. Starmer makes the same error. And yet, both have more merit than the present incumbents.
You make a fair point, but I'm not sure it's decisive. False negatives can partly be corrected for by requiring two or three tests before you're given the all-clear. And even if that wasn't the case, it's arguable that it would be better to accept that you are going to allow some infected people out into the community as a result of false negatives, because a policy based on such testing would be more acceptable to the public and therefore people would be more prepared to isolate. That could well reduce the net number of infectious people out in the community even with the false negatives.
It entirely misses the real point that with a mass increase in tests, the ‘false negatives’ are largely going to be an alternative to what is currently no test at all. The number of people correctly isolated because they have tested positive will be much larger.
Well, you - as a presumably typical Tory - are always talking about sending the tanks into Scotland and the task forces to invade Spain.
I don't believe HYUFD is a "typical Tory".
Well I am more so than you are certainly
I don't claim to be typical.
I am me. I don't want to be typical.
How typical is that?
Good question.
My philosophy is one where I fundamentally believe in individualism and not communitarianism.
As such fitting in a mould as HYUFD tries to do as a "typical Tory" seems to be rather counter-intuitive to my philosophy.
Indeed you are more a Liberal or libertarian than a traditional Tory.
The Tory Party was originally the party of the monarchy, landed gentry and the Anglican church and as you are a republican atheist you can never really be a true Tory
Indeed. But the Conservatives have long appealed to traditional liberals and libertarians. If the Conservatives only won the votes of traditional landed gentry like yourself then the party would long since have faded away to being a tiny minority of the electorate.
Since the Liberal Democrats are as a truly liberal as a Democratic Republic is truly a democracy that leaves me nowhere else to go.
Davey is more in the traditional Liberal mould but yes I do agree both the Tories and Labour need to appeal beyond their conservative and socialist core vote to win enough liberal support to win a general election
We were reminded in one session at the recent Lib Dem Conference about the standpoint of Jo Grimond on this: I don´t like the Tories and I don´t trust Labour. Nowadays one might well add: I don´t trust the Tories either.
Poor old HY is totally confused on this. There is no way that the despicable, shambolic and oppressive Johnson-Cummings government could ever appeal to liberals.
It did for many last year when the alternative was Corbyn
No one likes spam (hyperbole I know) however if you have to eat and you are offered spam or a huge steaming pile of camel faeces I think most humans will pick spam. While the choice wasn't quite so extreme liberals voting tory in preference to Corbyn shouldn't be taken as a sign that they don't despise you. Merely they despised you less than the alternative
In a previous existence, fairly recently, I had cause to scrutinise teaching materials and library stock in a wide number of schools and colleges. The idea that there's a whole load of subversive, extremist material out there is just risible. Pretty much everything is mainstream.
The only cause for concern, actually, was some faith schools, where some views that some may regard as extremist crept in to materials. Any by faith schools, I mean of all faiths.
Universities may be a different matter, but then university students should be taught by that age to judge for themselves.
Williamson doesn't know what he's talking about, but that's no surprise.
I think those holding onto their Witty / Valance published a nonsense example chart, the reality is massively different, are going to be disappearing it down the rabbit hole in 6 weeks time. The ramp might not be as steep as their chart, but cases are increasing significantly.
If the Duchess of Sussex does have presidential ambitions, would she have to drop the title? The constitution only forbids someone in office from accepting one, I don't think it forbids people who already have one.
If she became President a descendant of King George III would be First Man which would be amusing, though it is highly unlikely
Scottish cases as 11.3% of UK cases is notable, with 8.2% of the population. How long do Sturgeon's ratings survive contact with reality?
Yesterday's was only 36% of the non prediction, the biggest difference yet, but the two days either side of it are the 2nd and 3rd lowest by quite a distance. Hopefully they called it, or didnt call it, wrong
In a previous existence, fairly recently, I had cause to scrutinise teaching materials and library stock in a wide number of schools and colleges. The idea that there's a whole load of subversive, extremist material out there is just risible. Pretty much everything is mainstream.
The only cause for concern, actually, was some faith schools, where some views that some may regard as extremist crept in to materials. Any by faith schools, I mean of all faiths.
Universities may be a different matter, but then university students should be taught by that age to judge for themselves.
Williamson doesn't know what he's talking about, but that's no surprise.
The real comedy is the need for universality and dilution. The problem with extremist material is small and limited in location. But if you actually targeted the problem, the outrage....
Bit like the police, back in the day, carefully stopping as many suited City types for a knife search as they could....
Well, you - as a presumably typical Tory - are always talking about sending the tanks into Scotland and the task forces to invade Spain.
I don't believe HYUFD is a "typical Tory".
Well I am more so than you are certainly
I don't claim to be typical.
I am me. I don't want to be typical.
How typical is that?
Good question.
My philosophy is one where I fundamentally believe in individualism and not communitarianism.
As such fitting in a mould as HYUFD tries to do as a "typical Tory" seems to be rather counter-intuitive to my philosophy.
How on earth can anyone not believe in both the significance of the individual and the significance of communities?
I believe in both. A community is made up of many individuals.
You don't. Your knee jerk espousal of the term nimby outs you as a communitarian through and through. The thinking behind the term is, how dare individual ants own private property, seek to protect its value, and seek to preserve the amenity of their own particular part of the environment, when the requirements of the hive dictate otherwise?
This has nothing at all to do with the substantive merits of any discussion about housebuilding. It's the terminology which damns you.
Sigh. The weekend effect, reporting day effect etc.....
It's Murder Tuesday. The day when all the murders that Boris and Cummings personally commit at the weekend are recorded.
Basically weekend effect unwind is massive. I am generating the "specimen date" data right now...
4926 last Tuesday. So a big jump in a week.
Again, looking at the trend the 24th looks bad but we knew that already. Since then the incomplete data doesn't look as terrible, definitely no sign of an exponential increase.
I think we underestimate the ability of people (particularly young people, who we are always scared of due to their youth, energy and physicality) to sniff out bullshit.
It's the "no-platforming", "safe space" and avoiding "discomfort" that I'm far more worried about than any specific text because, without it, anyone can be exposed to anything and work it out for themselves.
Yes, having your prejudices and views challenged is uncomfortable. That's precisely why they should be.
Very, very well said.
Especially at universities that is precisely where challenging thoughts should be debated.
It is just as important outside universities. Perhaps more so. That's where most people hang out and where most groupthink and prejudice flourishes - in places other than universities and in people who are anything but young.
Well, you - as a presumably typical Tory - are always talking about sending the tanks into Scotland and the task forces to invade Spain.
I don't believe HYUFD is a "typical Tory".
Well I am more so than you are certainly
I don't claim to be typical.
I am me. I don't want to be typical.
How typical is that?
Good question.
My philosophy is one where I fundamentally believe in individualism and not communitarianism.
As such fitting in a mould as HYUFD tries to do as a "typical Tory" seems to be rather counter-intuitive to my philosophy.
Indeed you are more a Liberal or libertarian than a traditional Tory.
The Tory Party was originally the party of the monarchy, landed gentry and the Anglican church and as you are a republican atheist you can never really be a true Tory
Indeed. But the Conservatives have long appealed to traditional liberals and libertarians. If the Conservatives only won the votes of traditional landed gentry like yourself then the party would long since have faded away to being a tiny minority of the electorate.
Since the Liberal Democrats are as a truly liberal as a Democratic Republic is truly a democracy that leaves me nowhere else to go.
Davey is more in the traditional Liberal mould but yes I do agree both the Tories and Labour need to appeal beyond their conservative and socialist core vote to win enough liberal support to win a general election
We were reminded in one session at the recent Lib Dem Conference about the standpoint of Jo Grimond on this: I don´t like the Tories and I don´t trust Labour. Nowadays one might well add: I don´t trust the Tories either.
Poor old HY is totally confused on this. There is no way that the despicable, shambolic and oppressive Johnson-Cummings government could ever appeal to liberals.
It did for many last year when the alternative was Corbyn
No one likes spam (hyperbole I know) however if you have to eat and you are offered spam or a huge steaming pile of camel faeces I think most humans will pick spam. While the choice wasn't quite so extreme liberals voting tory in preference to Corbyn shouldn't be taken as a sign that they don't despise you. Merely they despised you less than the alternative
I bloody love spam. Spam fritters on white bread and butter with red sauce? Bloody hell that's living.
Sigh. The weekend effect, reporting day effect etc.....
It's Murder Tuesday. The day when all the murders that Boris and Cummings personally commit at the weekend are recorded.
Basically weekend effect unwind is massive. I am generating the "specimen date" data right now...
4926 last Tuesday. So a big jump in a week.
Again, looking at the trend the 24th looks bad but we knew that already. Since then the incomplete data doesn't look as terrible, definitely no sign of an exponential increase.
Don't worry, the media already reporting large number of positives daily cases ever...obviously no consideration of sample dates.
Well, you - as a presumably typical Tory - are always talking about sending the tanks into Scotland and the task forces to invade Spain.
I don't believe HYUFD is a "typical Tory".
Well I am more so than you are certainly
I don't claim to be typical.
I am me. I don't want to be typical.
How typical is that?
Good question.
My philosophy is one where I fundamentally believe in individualism and not communitarianism.
As such fitting in a mould as HYUFD tries to do as a "typical Tory" seems to be rather counter-intuitive to my philosophy.
Indeed you are more a Liberal or libertarian than a traditional Tory.
The Tory Party was originally the party of the monarchy, landed gentry and the Anglican church and as you are a republican atheist you can never really be a true Tory
Indeed. But the Conservatives have long appealed to traditional liberals and libertarians. If the Conservatives only won the votes of traditional landed gentry like yourself then the party would long since have faded away to being a tiny minority of the electorate.
Since the Liberal Democrats are as a truly liberal as a Democratic Republic is truly a democracy that leaves me nowhere else to go.
Davey is more in the traditional Liberal mould but yes I do agree both the Tories and Labour need to appeal beyond their conservative and socialist core vote to win enough liberal support to win a general election
We were reminded in one session at the recent Lib Dem Conference about the standpoint of Jo Grimond on this: I don´t like the Tories and I don´t trust Labour. Nowadays one might well add: I don´t trust the Tories either.
Poor old HY is totally confused on this. There is no way that the despicable, shambolic and oppressive Johnson-Cummings government could ever appeal to liberals.
It did for many last year when the alternative was Corbyn
No one likes spam (hyperbole I know) however if you have to eat and you are offered spam or a huge steaming pile of camel faeces I think most humans will pick spam. While the choice wasn't quite so extreme liberals voting tory in preference to Corbyn shouldn't be taken as a sign that they don't despise you. Merely they despised you less than the alternative
I bloody love spam. Spam fritters on white bread and butter with red sauce? Bloody hell that's living.
Washed down with a glass or two of Léoville Las Cases?
Well, you - as a presumably typical Tory - are always talking about sending the tanks into Scotland and the task forces to invade Spain.
I don't believe HYUFD is a "typical Tory".
Well I am more so than you are certainly
I don't claim to be typical.
I am me. I don't want to be typical.
How typical is that?
Good question.
My philosophy is one where I fundamentally believe in individualism and not communitarianism.
As such fitting in a mould as HYUFD tries to do as a "typical Tory" seems to be rather counter-intuitive to my philosophy.
How on earth can anyone not believe in both the significance of the individual and the significance of communities?
I believe in both. A community is made up of many individuals.
You don't. Your knee jerk espousal of the term nimby outs you as a communitarian through and through. The thinking behind the term is, how dare individual ants own private property, seek to protect its value, and seek to preserve the amenity of their own particular part of the environment, when the requirements of the hive dictate otherwise?
This has nothing at all to do with the substantive merits of any discussion about housebuilding. It's the terminology which damns you.
Don't be ridiculous.
NIMBYs are the communitarian ones wanting to halt other people developing their land in order to protect the value of the NIMBYs home.
If you don't want someone else developing their land then you buy it yourself. Otherwise its not your land and the owner should be able to do as they please.
Well, you - as a presumably typical Tory - are always talking about sending the tanks into Scotland and the task forces to invade Spain.
I don't believe HYUFD is a "typical Tory".
Well I am more so than you are certainly
I don't claim to be typical.
I am me. I don't want to be typical.
How typical is that?
Good question.
My philosophy is one where I fundamentally believe in individualism and not communitarianism.
As such fitting in a mould as HYUFD tries to do as a "typical Tory" seems to be rather counter-intuitive to my philosophy.
Indeed you are more a Liberal or libertarian than a traditional Tory.
The Tory Party was originally the party of the monarchy, landed gentry and the Anglican church and as you are a republican atheist you can never really be a true Tory
Indeed. But the Conservatives have long appealed to traditional liberals and libertarians. If the Conservatives only won the votes of traditional landed gentry like yourself then the party would long since have faded away to being a tiny minority of the electorate.
Since the Liberal Democrats are as a truly liberal as a Democratic Republic is truly a democracy that leaves me nowhere else to go.
Davey is more in the traditional Liberal mould but yes I do agree both the Tories and Labour need to appeal beyond their conservative and socialist core vote to win enough liberal support to win a general election
We were reminded in one session at the recent Lib Dem Conference about the standpoint of Jo Grimond on this: I don´t like the Tories and I don´t trust Labour. Nowadays one might well add: I don´t trust the Tories either.
Poor old HY is totally confused on this. There is no way that the despicable, shambolic and oppressive Johnson-Cummings government could ever appeal to liberals.
It did for many last year when the alternative was Corbyn
No one likes spam (hyperbole I know) however if you have to eat and you are offered spam or a huge steaming pile of camel faeces I think most humans will pick spam. While the choice wasn't quite so extreme liberals voting tory in preference to Corbyn shouldn't be taken as a sign that they don't despise you. Merely they despised you less than the alternative
I bloody love spam. Spam fritters on white bread and butter with red sauce? Bloody hell that's living.
Positivity rates still rising which is a red flag. The idea that the cases are diverting from Whitty's graph I would take with a pinch of salt unless or until the positivity rate goes back down to what it was. Otherwise with the positivity rate up its likely we are catching a smaller proportion of cases now.
Well, you - as a presumably typical Tory - are always talking about sending the tanks into Scotland and the task forces to invade Spain.
I don't believe HYUFD is a "typical Tory".
Well I am more so than you are certainly
I don't claim to be typical.
I am me. I don't want to be typical.
How typical is that?
Good question.
My philosophy is one where I fundamentally believe in individualism and not communitarianism.
As such fitting in a mould as HYUFD tries to do as a "typical Tory" seems to be rather counter-intuitive to my philosophy.
Indeed you are more a Liberal or libertarian than a traditional Tory.
The Tory Party was originally the party of the monarchy, landed gentry and the Anglican church and as you are a republican atheist you can never really be a true Tory
Indeed. But the Conservatives have long appealed to traditional liberals and libertarians. If the Conservatives only won the votes of traditional landed gentry like yourself then the party would long since have faded away to being a tiny minority of the electorate.
Since the Liberal Democrats are as a truly liberal as a Democratic Republic is truly a democracy that leaves me nowhere else to go.
Davey is more in the traditional Liberal mould but yes I do agree both the Tories and Labour need to appeal beyond their conservative and socialist core vote to win enough liberal support to win a general election
We were reminded in one session at the recent Lib Dem Conference about the standpoint of Jo Grimond on this: I don´t like the Tories and I don´t trust Labour. Nowadays one might well add: I don´t trust the Tories either.
Poor old HY is totally confused on this. There is no way that the despicable, shambolic and oppressive Johnson-Cummings government could ever appeal to liberals.
It did for many last year when the alternative was Corbyn
No one likes spam (hyperbole I know) however if you have to eat and you are offered spam or a huge steaming pile of camel faeces I think most humans will pick spam. While the choice wasn't quite so extreme liberals voting tory in preference to Corbyn shouldn't be taken as a sign that they don't despise you. Merely they despised you less than the alternative
I bloody love spam. Spam fritters on white bread and butter with red sauce? Bloody hell that's living.
Something I can agree with you on.
Spam and eggs are delicious.
Spam and eggs without the spam; now you are talking....
Well, you - as a presumably typical Tory - are always talking about sending the tanks into Scotland and the task forces to invade Spain.
I don't believe HYUFD is a "typical Tory".
Well I am more so than you are certainly
I don't claim to be typical.
I am me. I don't want to be typical.
How typical is that?
Good question.
My philosophy is one where I fundamentally believe in individualism and not communitarianism.
As such fitting in a mould as HYUFD tries to do as a "typical Tory" seems to be rather counter-intuitive to my philosophy.
Indeed you are more a Liberal or libertarian than a traditional Tory.
The Tory Party was originally the party of the monarchy, landed gentry and the Anglican church and as you are a republican atheist you can never really be a true Tory
Indeed. But the Conservatives have long appealed to traditional liberals and libertarians. If the Conservatives only won the votes of traditional landed gentry like yourself then the party would long since have faded away to being a tiny minority of the electorate.
Since the Liberal Democrats are as a truly liberal as a Democratic Republic is truly a democracy that leaves me nowhere else to go.
Davey is more in the traditional Liberal mould but yes I do agree both the Tories and Labour need to appeal beyond their conservative and socialist core vote to win enough liberal support to win a general election
We were reminded in one session at the recent Lib Dem Conference about the standpoint of Jo Grimond on this: I don´t like the Tories and I don´t trust Labour. Nowadays one might well add: I don´t trust the Tories either.
Poor old HY is totally confused on this. There is no way that the despicable, shambolic and oppressive Johnson-Cummings government could ever appeal to liberals.
It did for many last year when the alternative was Corbyn
No one likes spam (hyperbole I know) however if you have to eat and you are offered spam or a huge steaming pile of camel faeces I think most humans will pick spam. While the choice wasn't quite so extreme liberals voting tory in preference to Corbyn shouldn't be taken as a sign that they don't despise you. Merely they despised you less than the alternative
I bloody love spam. Spam fritters on white bread and butter with red sauce? Bloody hell that's living.
Well, you - as a presumably typical Tory - are always talking about sending the tanks into Scotland and the task forces to invade Spain.
I don't believe HYUFD is a "typical Tory".
Well I am more so than you are certainly
I don't claim to be typical.
I am me. I don't want to be typical.
How typical is that?
Good question.
My philosophy is one where I fundamentally believe in individualism and not communitarianism.
As such fitting in a mould as HYUFD tries to do as a "typical Tory" seems to be rather counter-intuitive to my philosophy.
Indeed you are more a Liberal or libertarian than a traditional Tory.
The Tory Party was originally the party of the monarchy, landed gentry and the Anglican church and as you are a republican atheist you can never really be a true Tory
Indeed. But the Conservatives have long appealed to traditional liberals and libertarians. If the Conservatives only won the votes of traditional landed gentry like yourself then the party would long since have faded away to being a tiny minority of the electorate.
Since the Liberal Democrats are as a truly liberal as a Democratic Republic is truly a democracy that leaves me nowhere else to go.
Davey is more in the traditional Liberal mould but yes I do agree both the Tories and Labour need to appeal beyond their conservative and socialist core vote to win enough liberal support to win a general election
We were reminded in one session at the recent Lib Dem Conference about the standpoint of Jo Grimond on this: I don´t like the Tories and I don´t trust Labour. Nowadays one might well add: I don´t trust the Tories either.
Poor old HY is totally confused on this. There is no way that the despicable, shambolic and oppressive Johnson-Cummings government could ever appeal to liberals.
It did for many last year when the alternative was Corbyn
No one likes spam (hyperbole I know) however if you have to eat and you are offered spam or a huge steaming pile of camel faeces I think most humans will pick spam. While the choice wasn't quite so extreme liberals voting tory in preference to Corbyn shouldn't be taken as a sign that they don't despise you. Merely they despised you less than the alternative
I bloody love spam. Spam fritters on white bread and butter with red sauce? Bloody hell that's living.
Washed down with a glass or two of Léoville Las Cases?
Well, you - as a presumably typical Tory - are always talking about sending the tanks into Scotland and the task forces to invade Spain.
I don't believe HYUFD is a "typical Tory".
Well I am more so than you are certainly
I don't claim to be typical.
I am me. I don't want to be typical.
How typical is that?
Good question.
My philosophy is one where I fundamentally believe in individualism and not communitarianism.
As such fitting in a mould as HYUFD tries to do as a "typical Tory" seems to be rather counter-intuitive to my philosophy.
Indeed you are more a Liberal or libertarian than a traditional Tory.
The Tory Party was originally the party of the monarchy, landed gentry and the Anglican church and as you are a republican atheist you can never really be a true Tory
Indeed. But the Conservatives have long appealed to traditional liberals and libertarians. If the Conservatives only won the votes of traditional landed gentry like yourself then the party would long since have faded away to being a tiny minority of the electorate.
Since the Liberal Democrats are as a truly liberal as a Democratic Republic is truly a democracy that leaves me nowhere else to go.
Davey is more in the traditional Liberal mould but yes I do agree both the Tories and Labour need to appeal beyond their conservative and socialist core vote to win enough liberal support to win a general election
We were reminded in one session at the recent Lib Dem Conference about the standpoint of Jo Grimond on this: I don´t like the Tories and I don´t trust Labour. Nowadays one might well add: I don´t trust the Tories either.
Poor old HY is totally confused on this. There is no way that the despicable, shambolic and oppressive Johnson-Cummings government could ever appeal to liberals.
It did for many last year when the alternative was Corbyn
No one likes spam (hyperbole I know) however if you have to eat and you are offered spam or a huge steaming pile of camel faeces I think most humans will pick spam. While the choice wasn't quite so extreme liberals voting tory in preference to Corbyn shouldn't be taken as a sign that they don't despise you. Merely they despised you less than the alternative
I bloody love spam. Spam fritters on white bread and butter with red sauce? Bloody hell that's living.
I go for Pek. Spam is too posh for me.
I like Pek, I always assumed it was just an alternative brand name for Spam.
Well, you - as a presumably typical Tory - are always talking about sending the tanks into Scotland and the task forces to invade Spain.
I don't believe HYUFD is a "typical Tory".
Well I am more so than you are certainly
I don't claim to be typical.
I am me. I don't want to be typical.
How typical is that?
Good question.
My philosophy is one where I fundamentally believe in individualism and not communitarianism.
As such fitting in a mould as HYUFD tries to do as a "typical Tory" seems to be rather counter-intuitive to my philosophy.
Indeed you are more a Liberal or libertarian than a traditional Tory.
The Tory Party was originally the party of the monarchy, landed gentry and the Anglican church and as you are a republican atheist you can never really be a true Tory
Indeed. But the Conservatives have long appealed to traditional liberals and libertarians. If the Conservatives only won the votes of traditional landed gentry like yourself then the party would long since have faded away to being a tiny minority of the electorate.
Since the Liberal Democrats are as a truly liberal as a Democratic Republic is truly a democracy that leaves me nowhere else to go.
Davey is more in the traditional Liberal mould but yes I do agree both the Tories and Labour need to appeal beyond their conservative and socialist core vote to win enough liberal support to win a general election
We were reminded in one session at the recent Lib Dem Conference about the standpoint of Jo Grimond on this: I don´t like the Tories and I don´t trust Labour. Nowadays one might well add: I don´t trust the Tories either.
Poor old HY is totally confused on this. There is no way that the despicable, shambolic and oppressive Johnson-Cummings government could ever appeal to liberals.
It did for many last year when the alternative was Corbyn
No one likes spam (hyperbole I know) however if you have to eat and you are offered spam or a huge steaming pile of camel faeces I think most humans will pick spam. While the choice wasn't quite so extreme liberals voting tory in preference to Corbyn shouldn't be taken as a sign that they don't despise you. Merely they despised you less than the alternative
I bloody love spam. Spam fritters on white bread and butter with red sauce? Bloody hell that's living.
If the Duchess of Sussex does have presidential ambitions, would she have to drop the title? The constitution only forbids someone in office from accepting one, I don't think it forbids people who already have one.
If she became President a descendant of King George III would be First Man which would be amusing, though it is highly unlikely
It's a cunning plan to bring the rebellious American dependencies back under our control.
Well, you - as a presumably typical Tory - are always talking about sending the tanks into Scotland and the task forces to invade Spain.
I don't believe HYUFD is a "typical Tory".
Well I am more so than you are certainly
I don't claim to be typical.
I am me. I don't want to be typical.
How typical is that?
Good question.
My philosophy is one where I fundamentally believe in individualism and not communitarianism.
As such fitting in a mould as HYUFD tries to do as a "typical Tory" seems to be rather counter-intuitive to my philosophy.
How on earth can anyone not believe in both the significance of the individual and the significance of communities?
I believe in both. A community is made up of many individuals.
You don't. Your knee jerk espousal of the term nimby outs you as a communitarian through and through. The thinking behind the term is, how dare individual ants own private property, seek to protect its value, and seek to preserve the amenity of their own particular part of the environment, when the requirements of the hive dictate otherwise?
This has nothing at all to do with the substantive merits of any discussion about housebuilding. It's the terminology which damns you.
Don't be ridiculous.
NIMBYs are the communitarian ones wanting to halt other people developing their land in order to protect the value of the NIMBYs home.
If you don't want someone else developing their land then you buy it yourself. Otherwise its not your land and the owner should be able to do as they please.
You're doing it again. You don't recognise individuals as individuals, only as crude economic actors. You are neither an individualist nor a conservative.
I think we underestimate the ability of people (particularly young people, who we are always scared of due to their youth, energy and physicality) to sniff out bullshit.
It's the "no-platforming", "safe space" and avoiding "discomfort" that I'm far more worried about than any specific text because, without it, anyone can be exposed to anything and work it out for themselves.
Yes, having your prejudices and views challenged is uncomfortable. That's precisely why they should be.
Yes. And this should apply to all shibboleths not just modern woke ones. For example, that the British Empire was so "complicated" that it is not possible to discern and decry its racist foundation and legacy - challenging this widely held view is difficult and unpopular, but it has to be done. ☺
Yup, absolutely. For example, we've tried challenging your dogmatic (and ignorant) views on this in the past but you simply dismiss any arguments to the contrary and demand the other 'educates' themselves.
You're a victim of this too, and I feel sorry for you. The system let you down.
You illustrate my point. People by and large dislike having their core beliefs challenged. I do. You do even more. The idea that it's mainly the "woke" who succumb to dogma and comfort-blanket-thinking is a nonsense and is itself a trope.
Looking at the hospital admission data for England I think it's fair to say that for now the infection rate is fairly stable.
Edit: Hospital admissions in England were highest on the 23rd and new cases on the 24th, that lines up. Since the 23rd new hospital admissions have fallen each day and that's now feeding through into total hospitalisations.
I actually think we're at R=1 just with a high base of cases.
- and the debate negotiations continue.....Trump has requested that a third party should inspect whether Trump or Biden are wearing any kind of earpiece.....Trump assented, but Biden said NO.
Straws that I will clutch at: 1.English hospital admissions declining. 2. Weekend dip in number of cases by specimen date largely eliminated is a good sign that the testing system is continuing to be improved.
Well, you - as a presumably typical Tory - are always talking about sending the tanks into Scotland and the task forces to invade Spain.
I don't believe HYUFD is a "typical Tory".
Well I am more so than you are certainly
I don't claim to be typical.
I am me. I don't want to be typical.
How typical is that?
Good question.
My philosophy is one where I fundamentally believe in individualism and not communitarianism.
As such fitting in a mould as HYUFD tries to do as a "typical Tory" seems to be rather counter-intuitive to my philosophy.
How on earth can anyone not believe in both the significance of the individual and the significance of communities?
I believe in both. A community is made up of many individuals.
You don't. Your knee jerk espousal of the term nimby outs you as a communitarian through and through. The thinking behind the term is, how dare individual ants own private property, seek to protect its value, and seek to preserve the amenity of their own particular part of the environment, when the requirements of the hive dictate otherwise?
This has nothing at all to do with the substantive merits of any discussion about housebuilding. It's the terminology which damns you.
Don't be ridiculous.
NIMBYs are the communitarian ones wanting to halt other people developing their land in order to protect the value of the NIMBYs home.
If you don't want someone else developing their land then you buy it yourself. Otherwise its not your land and the owner should be able to do as they please.
You're doing it again. You don't recognise individuals as individuals, only as crude economic actors. You are neither an individualist nor a conservative.
Of course I recognise individuals as individuals and those individuals should be free to do what they want with their land.
You think telling people they can't build homes in order to protect the value of existing homes like some dodgy cartel is a good thing. I do not.
Well, you - as a presumably typical Tory - are always talking about sending the tanks into Scotland and the task forces to invade Spain.
I don't believe HYUFD is a "typical Tory".
Well I am more so than you are certainly
I don't claim to be typical.
I am me. I don't want to be typical.
How typical is that?
Good question.
My philosophy is one where I fundamentally believe in individualism and not communitarianism.
As such fitting in a mould as HYUFD tries to do as a "typical Tory" seems to be rather counter-intuitive to my philosophy.
Indeed you are more a Liberal or libertarian than a traditional Tory.
The Tory Party was originally the party of the monarchy, landed gentry and the Anglican church and as you are a republican atheist you can never really be a true Tory
Indeed. But the Conservatives have long appealed to traditional liberals and libertarians. If the Conservatives only won the votes of traditional landed gentry like yourself then the party would long since have faded away to being a tiny minority of the electorate.
Since the Liberal Democrats are as a truly liberal as a Democratic Republic is truly a democracy that leaves me nowhere else to go.
Davey is more in the traditional Liberal mould but yes I do agree both the Tories and Labour need to appeal beyond their conservative and socialist core vote to win enough liberal support to win a general election
We were reminded in one session at the recent Lib Dem Conference about the standpoint of Jo Grimond on this: I don´t like the Tories and I don´t trust Labour. Nowadays one might well add: I don´t trust the Tories either.
Poor old HY is totally confused on this. There is no way that the despicable, shambolic and oppressive Johnson-Cummings government could ever appeal to liberals.
It did for many last year when the alternative was Corbyn
No one likes spam (hyperbole I know) however if you have to eat and you are offered spam or a huge steaming pile of camel faeces I think most humans will pick spam. While the choice wasn't quite so extreme liberals voting tory in preference to Corbyn shouldn't be taken as a sign that they don't despise you. Merely they despised you less than the alternative
I bloody love spam. Spam fritters on white bread and butter with red sauce? Bloody hell that's living.
Washed down with a glass or two of Léoville Las Cases?
Poyferre, not to overwhelm the spam completely.
I believe Chateau de Chasselas is the tipple you are looking for.
504 new cases reported, but I think new cases are still rising judging by the specimen day data while it seems to have stabilised in the wider country.
Well, you - as a presumably typical Tory - are always talking about sending the tanks into Scotland and the task forces to invade Spain.
I don't believe HYUFD is a "typical Tory".
Well I am more so than you are certainly
I don't claim to be typical.
I am me. I don't want to be typical.
How typical is that?
Good question.
My philosophy is one where I fundamentally believe in individualism and not communitarianism.
As such fitting in a mould as HYUFD tries to do as a "typical Tory" seems to be rather counter-intuitive to my philosophy.
How on earth can anyone not believe in both the significance of the individual and the significance of communities?
I believe in both. A community is made up of many individuals.
You don't. Your knee jerk espousal of the term nimby outs you as a communitarian through and through. The thinking behind the term is, how dare individual ants own private property, seek to protect its value, and seek to preserve the amenity of their own particular part of the environment, when the requirements of the hive dictate otherwise?
This has nothing at all to do with the substantive merits of any discussion about housebuilding. It's the terminology which damns you.
Don't be ridiculous.
NIMBYs are the communitarian ones wanting to halt other people developing their land in order to protect the value of the NIMBYs home.
If you don't want someone else developing their land then you buy it yourself. Otherwise its not your land and the owner should be able to do as they please.
You're doing it again. You don't recognise individuals as individuals, only as crude economic actors. You are neither an individualist nor a conservative.
Of course I recognise individuals as individuals and those individuals should be free to do what they want with their land.
You think telling people they can't build homes in order to protect the value of existing homes like some dodgy cartel is a good thing. I do not.
A very weak article by NS standards, without a trace of originality, deep analysis of facts or insight. A load of journalistic guesswork based on piling up a series of well established and much canvassed possibilities.
Well, you - as a presumably typical Tory - are always talking about sending the tanks into Scotland and the task forces to invade Spain.
I don't believe HYUFD is a "typical Tory".
Well I am more so than you are certainly
I don't claim to be typical.
I am me. I don't want to be typical.
How typical is that?
Good question.
My philosophy is one where I fundamentally believe in individualism and not communitarianism.
As such fitting in a mould as HYUFD tries to do as a "typical Tory" seems to be rather counter-intuitive to my philosophy.
How on earth can anyone not believe in both the significance of the individual and the significance of communities?
I believe in both. A community is made up of many individuals.
You don't. Your knee jerk espousal of the term nimby outs you as a communitarian through and through. The thinking behind the term is, how dare individual ants own private property, seek to protect its value, and seek to preserve the amenity of their own particular part of the environment, when the requirements of the hive dictate otherwise?
This has nothing at all to do with the substantive merits of any discussion about housebuilding. It's the terminology which damns you.
Don't be ridiculous.
NIMBYs are the communitarian ones wanting to halt other people developing their land in order to protect the value of the NIMBYs home.
If you don't want someone else developing their land then you buy it yourself. Otherwise its not your land and the owner should be able to do as they please.
You're doing it again. You don't recognise individuals as individuals, only as crude economic actors. You are neither an individualist nor a conservative.
Of course I recognise individuals as individuals and those individuals should be free to do what they want with their land.
You think telling people they can't build homes in order to protect the value of existing homes like some dodgy cartel is a good thing. I do not.
So no planning controls at all, then?
Only those that are absolutely necessary for safety etc.
Not for preventing competition and the free market bringing down the prices of homes.
Well, you - as a presumably typical Tory - are always talking about sending the tanks into Scotland and the task forces to invade Spain.
I don't believe HYUFD is a "typical Tory".
Well I am more so than you are certainly
I don't claim to be typical.
I am me. I don't want to be typical.
How typical is that?
Good question.
My philosophy is one where I fundamentally believe in individualism and not communitarianism.
As such fitting in a mould as HYUFD tries to do as a "typical Tory" seems to be rather counter-intuitive to my philosophy.
How on earth can anyone not believe in both the significance of the individual and the significance of communities?
I believe in both. A community is made up of many individuals.
You don't. Your knee jerk espousal of the term nimby outs you as a communitarian through and through. The thinking behind the term is, how dare individual ants own private property, seek to protect its value, and seek to preserve the amenity of their own particular part of the environment, when the requirements of the hive dictate otherwise?
This has nothing at all to do with the substantive merits of any discussion about housebuilding. It's the terminology which damns you.
Don't be ridiculous.
NIMBYs are the communitarian ones wanting to halt other people developing their land in order to protect the value of the NIMBYs home.
If you don't want someone else developing their land then you buy it yourself. Otherwise its not your land and the owner should be able to do as they please.
You're doing it again. You don't recognise individuals as individuals, only as crude economic actors. You are neither an individualist nor a conservative.
Of course I recognise individuals as individuals and those individuals should be free to do what they want with their land.
You think telling people they can't build homes in order to protect the value of existing homes like some dodgy cartel is a good thing. I do not.
So no planning controls at all, then?
Classic libertarian position: my home is my castle. I couldn`t disagree more with PT over this.
- and the debate negotiations continue.....Trump has requested that a third party should inspect whether Trump or Biden are wearing any kind of earpiece.....Trump assented, but Biden said NO.
How can Trump both request something AND assent to it?
If the Duchess of Sussex does have presidential ambitions, would she have to drop the title? The constitution only forbids someone in office from accepting one, I don't think it forbids people who already have one.
If she didn't specifically renounce it before running, I suspect that the Titles of Nobility amendment might get resurrected from its constitutional slumber and quickly acrue enough state ratifications to be adopted.
I certainly hope not though, as its prohibition on American citizens from accepting "any pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power", on pain of losing citizenship, would be a disaster for me as I'd have to chose between taking my UK local government and state pensions when I retire or retaining my American citizenship.
BTW, while the US citizenship process includes having to renounce one's previous "allegiance" the US does not require new citizens whose current country allows dual citizenship to actually go through any process with the other country to renounce that nor show evidence that they have. However, the application form also includes a question on whether one has a title of nobility and if you tick "yes" you do have to renounce it and show that you have done so before you can become a US citizen.
If the Duchess of Sussex does have presidential ambitions, would she have to drop the title? The constitution only forbids someone in office from accepting one, I don't think it forbids people who already have one.
If she didn't specifically renounce it before running, I suspect that the Titles of Nobility amendment might get resurrected from its constitutional slumber and quickly acrue enough state ratifications to be adopted.
I certainly hope not though, as its prohibition on American citizens from accepting "any pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power", on pain of losing citizenship, would be a disaster for me as I'd have to chose between taking my UK local government and state pensions when I retire or retaining my American citizenship.
BTW, while the US citizenship process includes having to renounce one's previous "allegiance" the US does not require new citizens whose current country allows dual citizenship to actually go through any process with the other country to renounce that nor show evidence that they have. However, the application form also includes a question on whether one has a title of nobility and if you tick "yes" you do have to renounce it and show that you have done so before you can become a US citizen.
She's effectively getting a pension from a prince, isn't she?
Well, you - as a presumably typical Tory - are always talking about sending the tanks into Scotland and the task forces to invade Spain.
I don't believe HYUFD is a "typical Tory".
Well I am more so than you are certainly
I don't claim to be typical.
I am me. I don't want to be typical.
How typical is that?
Good question.
My philosophy is one where I fundamentally believe in individualism and not communitarianism.
As such fitting in a mould as HYUFD tries to do as a "typical Tory" seems to be rather counter-intuitive to my philosophy.
How on earth can anyone not believe in both the significance of the individual and the significance of communities?
I believe in both. A community is made up of many individuals.
You don't. Your knee jerk espousal of the term nimby outs you as a communitarian through and through. The thinking behind the term is, how dare individual ants own private property, seek to protect its value, and seek to preserve the amenity of their own particular part of the environment, when the requirements of the hive dictate otherwise?
This has nothing at all to do with the substantive merits of any discussion about housebuilding. It's the terminology which damns you.
Don't be ridiculous.
NIMBYs are the communitarian ones wanting to halt other people developing their land in order to protect the value of the NIMBYs home.
If you don't want someone else developing their land then you buy it yourself. Otherwise its not your land and the owner should be able to do as they please.
You're doing it again. You don't recognise individuals as individuals, only as crude economic actors. You are neither an individualist nor a conservative.
Of course I recognise individuals as individuals and those individuals should be free to do what they want with their land.
You think telling people they can't build homes in order to protect the value of existing homes like some dodgy cartel is a good thing. I do not.
So no planning controls at all, then?
Classic libertarian position: my home is my castle. I couldn`t disagree more with PT over this.
I am a little disappointed that Gavin Williamson's burning of seditious books in English schools has been more or less ignored. My reading is great works like Robert Tressell's "The Ragged Trousered Philanthopists" will be consigned to the dustbin. English schoolchildren under Williamson's proposals will be able to read Mein Kampf at school but not Das Kapital.
When I was chairman of Warwick University Tories we had Lord Hurd to speak and he was excellent, would have been a great PM had he won the Tory leadership in 1990, he was a heavyweight Foreign Secretary and not as flashy as Heseltine and brighter than Major but with similar policies
His behaviour over the civil war in Bosnia was an utter disgrace and a stain on his record.
Engaging British troops in a civil war would not really have achieved much other than mass British casualties and he had an excellent Gulf War
Why do you think that was the choice? Allowing the Bosnians to defend themselves was the right moral choice, one which Hurd - disgracefully IMO - set his face against, for no good reason. I mean, it’s not as if Britain has ever had qualms about selling arms to all sorts of disgusting despotic regimes. But apparently selling arms to poor Muslims being slaughtered by a genocidal fascist regime was a step too far.
There was no real national interest in selling British arms to Bosnian rebels in a civil war they were fighting against the Serbs to break up Yugoslavia.
Britain does sell arms abroad but not regularly to one side only in the middle of a civil war to prolong the conflict
Yes there was. One result of Britain’s failure (though not just hers) was the worst war crime in Europe since WW2 - Srebenica - and countless other smaller war crimes.
The Bosnian civil war radicalised a number of young Muslims. See the histories of some of those who later got involved in Al Qaeda and IS and similar groups.
We had every interest in stopping a breeding ground for terrorism.
We had every interest in showing that Muslims who had lived in Europe for centuries would be protected - not slaughtered by a fascist regime, by their ostensibly Christian neighbours.
We had every interest in stopping genocide and war crimes in Europe.
If you do not understand why it was in Britain’s interest to stop these things .... well, I give up.
9/11 still occurred despite US and UK interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo against the Serbs
Interventions which occurred far too late. The damage had been done. The Tory government at the time behaved utterly disgracefully over Bosnia. Even Mrs Thatcher said so at the time.
The idea that intervening on behalf of the Muslim population any earlier against the Serbs would have stopped 9/11 is absurd, Blair was cheered by Kosovan Muslims in 1999 but still 9/11 occurred in 2001 and 7/7 in 2005 and after he backed the US in the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars he was loathed by most Muslims.
As Syria and Libya showed too there is rarely much to be gained from British interventions in civil wars, especially against the incumbent regime and if the rebels are radicals
I didn’t say it would have. I did say that the failure to act did play a part in radicalising some Muslims and that preventing that was in Britain’s interest.
I note also that you utterly ignore the British interest in stopping genocidal war crimes happening in Europe.
But that’s today’s Tories: all for praying in aid WW2 and Britain doing the right thing to claim how only they are patriotic but utter moral cowards when it came to helping people on the ground during our lifetimes by allowing the legitimate government of Bosnia to defend itself and its people from slaughter.
The Tories have traditionally always been the party of realpolitik and national interest first, it is the Liberals from Gladstone and his opposition to Turkey over the Balkans massacres to Blair (who was basically a Liberal PM) who have been the party most in favour of moral interventions in foreign conflicts and civil wars, as also Ashdown was in Bosnia
Since when did you care about the national interest? All you’re interested in is what is in the Conservative Party interest and that is not always the same thing.
- and the debate negotiations continue.....Trump has requested that a third party should inspect whether Trump or Biden are wearing any kind of earpiece.....Trump assented, but Biden said NO.
Biden isn't going to be nobodies bitch.
The point of these Trump demands is not to throw doubt and mud on proceedings (although it is a positive side effect for him) it is purely a power play to show who is in command.
- and the debate negotiations continue.....Trump has requested that a third party should inspect whether Trump or Biden are wearing any kind of earpiece.....Trump assented, but Biden said NO.
How can Trump both request something AND assent to it?
That was my clumsy word economy. The campaign requested it, so when asked he obviously said Yes and Biden was seen to say No. It's all part of getting into the other guy's head.
Sigh. The weekend effect, reporting day effect etc.....
It's Murder Tuesday. The day when all the murders that Boris and Cummings personally commit at the weekend are recorded.
Basically weekend effect unwind is massive. I am generating the "specimen date" data right now...
4926 last Tuesday. So a big jump in a week.
40%. So doubling in 2 weeks. Also the cases have been very laggy with lots of backdating. Still probably better to look at rolling averages though.
But we have specimen day data, why look at anything else? Data for the 24th and before is basically complete now.
A 5 day lag means we are always looking back at the past and trying to extrapolate the present. They need to do something about the lag.
It would be good if someone could work out the average fraction of specimens processed as a function of time before reporting, and then use this information to predict the final tally for each day from the reported numbers. Obviously this would be fairly inaccurate for recent days, but it would give a better indication of the trend in cases than simply looking at the specimen day data.
So we haven't slowed down and we're continuing to head for disaster. Lockdown 2.0 incoming
Only if the government panics. There is no need for it.
This represents a modest reduction of R for a second day (based on reporting date and 7 day rolling comparison with last week), from just shy of 1.30 on Sunday, to 1.23 today.
We need to get it pretty damn close to 1 for at least the next month, having been too high over the last couple of weeks, and don't mind a bit of undershoot on that value, which does suggest the sort of incremental tightening again this week that is in line with what is being talked about.
Sigh. The weekend effect, reporting day effect etc.....
It's Murder Tuesday. The day when all the murders that Boris and Cummings personally commit at the weekend are recorded.
Basically weekend effect unwind is massive. I am generating the "specimen date" data right now...
4926 last Tuesday. So a big jump in a week.
40%. So doubling in 2 weeks. Also the cases have been very laggy with lots of backdating. Still probably better to look at rolling averages though.
But we have specimen day data, why look at anything else? Data for the 24th and before is basically complete now.
A 5 day lag means we are always looking back at the past and trying to extrapolate the present. They need to do something about the lag.
It would be good if someone could work out the average fraction of specimens processed as a function of time before reporting, and then use this information to predict the final tally for each day from the reported numbers. Obviously this would be fairly inaccurate for recent days, but it would give a better indication of the trend in cases than simply looking at the specimen day data.
I had a model which did that for deaths by event day, might see if I can adapt it to cases.
Well, you - as a presumably typical Tory - are always talking about sending the tanks into Scotland and the task forces to invade Spain.
I don't believe HYUFD is a "typical Tory".
Well I am more so than you are certainly
I don't claim to be typical.
I am me. I don't want to be typical.
How typical is that?
Good question.
My philosophy is one where I fundamentally believe in individualism and not communitarianism.
As such fitting in a mould as HYUFD tries to do as a "typical Tory" seems to be rather counter-intuitive to my philosophy.
How on earth can anyone not believe in both the significance of the individual and the significance of communities?
I believe in both. A community is made up of many individuals.
You don't. Your knee jerk espousal of the term nimby outs you as a communitarian through and through. The thinking behind the term is, how dare individual ants own private property, seek to protect its value, and seek to preserve the amenity of their own particular part of the environment, when the requirements of the hive dictate otherwise?
This has nothing at all to do with the substantive merits of any discussion about housebuilding. It's the terminology which damns you.
Don't be ridiculous.
NIMBYs are the communitarian ones wanting to halt other people developing their land in order to protect the value of the NIMBYs home.
If you don't want someone else developing their land then you buy it yourself. Otherwise its not your land and the owner should be able to do as they please.
You're doing it again. You don't recognise individuals as individuals, only as crude economic actors. You are neither an individualist nor a conservative.
Of course I recognise individuals as individuals and those individuals should be free to do what they want with their land.
You think telling people they can't build homes in order to protect the value of existing homes like some dodgy cartel is a good thing. I do not.
So no planning controls at all, then?
Classic libertarian position: my home is my castle. I couldn`t disagree more with PT over this.
Your home absolutely. Not other people's homes.
Thing is, you hold individuals in higher regard than I do. If you allow people to do what they want with their property, lack of good taste and poor choices and poor quality of workmanship works to the detriment of everyone in the communty and the environment in general.
Some of my neighbours in our village take your view and moan like heck when a conservation or planning officer refuses them permission to proceed with some abomination or another. In contrast, I see these officers as arbiters of good taste.
Comments
I think the bigger challenge with being young is that in the absence of "experience" (1) you're a bit of sponge, (2) you want to learn about the world - quickly, as you'll be in it in months and (3) you therefore look for white & black explanations of how things are and people to emulate as you haven't fully discovered yourself yet.
I've seen (and met) equally radical young libertarian or neo-Thatcherite Conservatives, who modelled themselves accordingly, although there are fewer of them.
As you get older, you realise how very grey and blurred everything is, and how radical ideologies and sentiments usually don't survive contact with the real world. You also learn a lot more about yourself.
WTF kind of logic is that?
The EOTHO scheme was for thousands of businesses not a few clubs and was matching customer expenditure not a gift to the businesses involved.
Such as ones that don't shaft them in favour of the old at every turn and opportunity.
You're a victim of this too, and I feel sorry for you. The system let you down.
The number of people correctly isolated because they have tested positive will be much larger.
https://www.boston.com/news/national-news-2/2020/09/26/ebay-stalking-scandal
In a previous existence, fairly recently, I had cause to scrutinise teaching materials and library stock in a wide number of schools and colleges. The idea that there's a whole load of subversive, extremist material out there is just risible. Pretty much everything is mainstream.
The only cause for concern, actually, was some faith schools, where some views that some may regard as extremist crept in to materials. Any by faith schools, I mean of all faiths.
Universities may be a different matter, but then university students should be taught by that age to judge for themselves.
Williamson doesn't know what he's talking about, but that's no surprise.
10k by the end of the week?
It's Murder Tuesday. The day when all the murders that Boris and Cummings personally commit at the weekend are recorded.
Basically weekend effect unwind is massive. I am generating the "specimen date" data right now...
https://twitter.com/profshanecrotty/status/1310955730011328514
Scottish cases as 11.3% of UK cases is notable, with 8.2% of the population. How long do Sturgeon's ratings survive contact with reality?
Bit like the police, back in the day, carefully stopping as many suited City types for a knife search as they could....
This has nothing at all to do with the substantive merits of any discussion about housebuilding. It's the terminology which damns you.
NIMBYs are the communitarian ones wanting to halt other people developing their land in order to protect the value of the NIMBYs home.
If you don't want someone else developing their land then you buy it yourself. Otherwise its not your land and the owner should be able to do as they please.
Spam and eggs are delicious.
Edit: Hospital admissions in England were highest on the 23rd and new cases on the 24th, that lines up. Since the 23rd new hospital admissions have fallen each day and that's now feeding through into total hospitalisations.
I actually think we're at R=1 just with a high base of cases.
1.English hospital admissions declining.
2. Weekend dip in number of cases by specimen date largely eliminated is a good sign that the testing system is continuing to be improved.
I am trying to use The Force to see if I can make the numbers loop-the-loop, then go backwards on the time axis.
I think that my approach is that of a Stable Genius.
You think telling people they can't build homes in order to protect the value of existing homes like some dodgy cartel is a good thing. I do not.
Not for preventing competition and the free market bringing down the prices of homes.
I certainly hope not though, as its prohibition on American citizens from accepting "any pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power", on pain of losing citizenship, would be a disaster for me as I'd have to chose between taking my UK local government and state pensions when I retire or retaining my American citizenship.
BTW, while the US citizenship process includes having to renounce one's previous "allegiance" the US does not require new citizens whose current country allows dual citizenship to actually go through any process with the other country to renounce that nor show evidence that they have. However, the application form also includes a question on whether one has a title of nobility and if you tick "yes" you do have to renounce it and show that you have done so before you can become a US citizen.
The point of these Trump demands is not to throw doubt and mud on proceedings (although it is a positive side effect for him) it is purely a power play to show who is in command.
So Biden will say no to everything.
https://twitter.com/joebiden/status/1310962034813485057?s=21
We need to get it pretty damn close to 1 for at least the next month, having been too high over the last couple of weeks, and don't mind a bit of undershoot on that value, which does suggest the sort of incremental tightening again this week that is in line with what is being talked about.
Some of my neighbours in our village take your view and moan like heck when a conservation or planning officer refuses them permission to proceed with some abomination or another. In contrast, I see these officers as arbiters of good taste.
https://twitter.com/IsaacDovere/status/1310947647092555777?s=19