How can any PM justify relaxing the rules in these circumstances, this is absolutely nuts.
Are we relaxing the rules though?
Schools are off - that's about 0.4 off R if I recall from the statistics.
That might actually reduce the spread more than the extra infections from some people meeting Granny at Christmas. The main risk I suppose is if the age profile of the infected moves up.
Besides, would changing the rules actually change any behaviour?
Those r rates in the South and East are severe. Wholly overshadowing the national rate. Hopefully schools closing won't encourage folk to cram into shopping centres. Not at all optimistic.
I'm not an LD, I'm a liberal. That's why I'm in the Conservative Party.
The thing is, a lot of people seem happy to describe themselves as "liberal" and all seem to have different interpretations of what the term "liberal" actually means.
I've encountered liberals in the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in my time and I suppose the real schism in 20th century politics was within liberalism. The emergence of social democracy in the 1930s and notions of the Welfare State, begun under Asquith and continued by Beveridge, have defined or re-defined liberalism and moved it away from the Gladstonian notion or, as it is sometimes termed, "classical liberalism".
Despite that, the superficial synergies between liberalism and social democracy masked some strong philosophical divergences . In the same way, Cameron's notion of "liberal conservatism", for all it appeared similar to Orange Book Liberalism, wasn't and the divergence after 2010 was rapid.
Looking at it now from the outside, it's not something over which to lose sleep. How political thought responds to growing environmental concerns, notions of AI and the place of the individual, not so much via-a-vis the State but in terms of the notion of individuality in the Information Age is the kind of areas of debate for liberals, conservatives and socialists alike.
Yes to that. But you can`t get away from ideological underpinnings completely: that the unit of importance for liberalism is the individual/liberty, for collectivists it is groups/communities and for conservatives it is family unit/nation.
Given that the LibDems are supposed to be representing the former, it is regrettable that people like PT (and Truss for that matter) are not LibDems.
You've hit the nail on the head about individualism v collectivism v family/nationalism.
I believe firmly in individualism/liberty first and foremost. Can you say the same about LDs? Clegg, Davey, Alexander maybe which is why they worked well in the Coalition.
But not the Cable, Farron, Swinson wing who are more collectivists.
You have a massive Nation State thing going on too. This is clear.
Actually I have a small Nation State thing going on. It's why I support Sindy etc.
Smaller is better. Closer to the people.
Ha. Very good. But you know what I mean, I think. You're quite nationalistic.
It depends upon how you define nationalism.
I think citizens of a nation should vote for that nations laws absolutely. But that's democracy not nationalism.
I also believe people should be able (within reason) to choose which nation they want to be their nation.
I despise things like birtherism. I like relatively open borders globally. Let people who want to come and become citizens of this nation.
Spot on. My personal view - which seems to be unpopular with both sides of the Brexit debate and is certainly a minority view - is that we should not be restricting those who want to come to this country if their intent is to become a citizen. I would not even say they need to adopt all of our traditions and customs and certainly not our religions even though I have a deep love for our customs and traditions (if not for religion in any form). There is room enough for different customs and traditions living side by side.
They would however have to adopt some of the fundamental principles and ethical positions that underlie our democracy. Belief in democracy, adherence to the law which can only be changed by the traditional means of the democratic process, acceptance of equality of gender, race, sexuality and any other equalities passed by our Parliament. Our judicial and Governmental principles (although the practices are open to debate and reform). Also absolute acceptance of freedom of speech and association and the laws and customs that underpin all these things.
This is just a list off the top of my head and I am sure there would be others. But if people are willing to accept these things and wish to become British/English/Scottish etc then I would be welcoming them.
For concrete examples I would be encouraging EU nationals to stay and be welcome. I would also welcome any from Hong Kong who wish to come here.
You`re not concerned about overall population size?
One thing that is interesting in the immigration debate is the refusal of a number of people to engage with the idea of what population size is optimal for the country.
Yet, the same people argue for planning (for decades in advance) for schools, hospitals, roads, railways, airports, house building, reservoir, electricity generation etc etc.
All of which depend on the size of the population.
I personally prefer the frankness of one Deep Green of my acquaintance - she was quite clear that she expected the population to be ever increasing, with a steady reduction in allowed housing space per person.
Your acquaintance laments this trend, presumably?
Personally, I believe that the government should have population target which is lower than now for environmental reasons, with incentives to reduce birth rate and a ban on building on green field sites. I realise that we deep ecologists are in a small minority on this. Most of us have given up, as it sounds like your acquaintance has.
She's getting good headlines as far as the Tory faithful are concerned lately, and seems to be flavour of the week, but there's a longer term picture. Overall, she has a mediocre performance as a minister, and her conference speeches are noted only for how poor they are. She's okay at staying out of trouble, but there isn't a "Truss faction" in the Parliamentary party, and she isn't charismatic.
Frankly, she'd need a lot to go right from here to take the crown, and I just don't see it.
Jeez. I`m getting fed up of this. You`re nor comparing apples with apples. The tip was 100/1 for next PM. She has been chopped down by most bookies, but you can still get 100/1 for Next PM. I`ve just had a tenner on with Victor Chandler (they reduced me from £20 the cowards).
Truss is 33/1 for Next Conservative leader. Different market.
That £20 at 100s can be laid off right now on Betfair at 50s.
That's a real 'smug city' opportunity (unless you think 50 is still too long).
Yes, there is a big arb available. Back at 100/1 with VC and lay at 1/49 with BF.
Trouble is, as the arb is across two different bookies I`d have to tie up a heck of a lot of money until 2024 to lay it off.
That's true. You'd need to have a Betfair lay portfolio going, or be planning one.
There will be quite a few other similar arb bets before this is settled. The big exposure is on Betfair, and you only need that once, as you can lay all the runners with the same cash. Adding the bookie stakes as they come along for whatever you are allowed to get on, which lets face it wont be much, is just a means of enforced saving.
Yep. That's what I meant. If you are planning that approach - and it's a good one - then kicking off with a lay of Truss at 50s when the bookies have 100s is a stonking start.
Certainly not into French trawlers from 1st January.....
Ha! The Spirit of Brexit, right there.
No, not you, Richard Tyndall, before you leap in. You are the Accidental Brexiteer.
LOL. Actually I already have a solution for the fishing issue as I have stated on here but no one is interested. At least no one in power. Even though it is rather elegant. But it involves being nice to the French so TSE would hate it for a start.
She's getting good headlines as far as the Tory faithful are concerned lately, and seems to be flavour of the week, but there's a longer term picture. Overall, she has a mediocre performance as a minister, and her conference speeches are noted only for how poor they are. She's okay at staying out of trouble, but there isn't a "Truss faction" in the Parliamentary party, and she isn't charismatic.
Frankly, she'd need a lot to go right from here to take the crown, and I just don't see it.
Jeez. I`m getting fed up of this. You`re nor comparing apples with apples. The tip was 100/1 for next PM. She has been chopped down by most bookies, but you can still get 100/1 for Next PM. I`ve just had a tenner on with Victor Chandler (they reduced me from £20 the cowards).
Truss is 33/1 for Next Conservative leader. Different market.
That £20 at 100s can be laid off right now on Betfair at 50s.
That's a real 'smug city' opportunity (unless you think 50 is still too long).
Yes, there is a big arb available. Back at 100/1 with VC and lay at 1/49 with BF.
Trouble is, as the arb is across two different bookies I`d have to tie up a heck of a lot of money until 2024 to lay it off.
That's true. You'd need to have a Betfair lay portfolio going, or be planning one.
What`s a Betfair lay portfolio?
A list of the people Truss has slept with?
No - enough! - she`s a married woman with two children.
Well, it can’t be a list of the people Johnson has slept with, as that’s not a portfolio it’s an entire fucking database.
I'm not an LD, I'm a liberal. That's why I'm in the Conservative Party.
The thing is, a lot of people seem happy to describe themselves as "liberal" and all seem to have different interpretations of what the term "liberal" actually means.
I've encountered liberals in the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in my time and I suppose the real schism in 20th century politics was within liberalism. The emergence of social democracy in the 1930s and notions of the Welfare State, begun under Asquith and continued by Beveridge, have defined or re-defined liberalism and moved it away from the Gladstonian notion or, as it is sometimes termed, "classical liberalism".
Despite that, the superficial synergies between liberalism and social democracy masked some strong philosophical divergences . In the same way, Cameron's notion of "liberal conservatism", for all it appeared similar to Orange Book Liberalism, wasn't and the divergence after 2010 was rapid.
Looking at it now from the outside, it's not something over which to lose sleep. How political thought responds to growing environmental concerns, notions of AI and the place of the individual, not so much via-a-vis the State but in terms of the notion of individuality in the Information Age is the kind of areas of debate for liberals, conservatives and socialists alike.
Yes to that. But you can`t get away from ideological underpinnings completely: that the unit of importance for liberalism is the individual/liberty, for collectivists it is groups/communities and for conservatives it is family unit/nation.
Given that the LibDems are supposed to be representing the former, it is regrettable that people like PT (and Truss for that matter) are not LibDems.
You've hit the nail on the head about individualism v collectivism v family/nationalism.
I believe firmly in individualism/liberty first and foremost. Can you say the same about LDs? Clegg, Davey, Alexander maybe which is why they worked well in the Coalition.
But not the Cable, Farron, Swinson wing who are more collectivists.
You have a massive Nation State thing going on too. This is clear.
Actually I have a small Nation State thing going on. It's why I support Sindy etc.
Smaller is better. Closer to the people.
Ha. Very good. But you know what I mean, I think. You're quite nationalistic.
It depends upon how you define nationalism.
I think citizens of a nation should vote for that nations laws absolutely. But that's democracy not nationalism.
I also believe people should be able (within reason) to choose which nation they want to be their nation.
I despise things like birtherism. I like relatively open borders globally. Let people who want to come and become citizens of this nation.
Spot on. My personal view - which seems to be unpopular with both sides of the Brexit debate and is certainly a minority view - is that we should not be restricting those who want to come to this country if their intent is to become a citizen. I would not even say they need to adopt all of our traditions and customs and certainly not our religions even though I have a deep love for our customs and traditions (if not for religion in any form). There is room enough for different customs and traditions living side by side.
They would however have to adopt some of the fundamental principles and ethical positions that underlie our democracy. Belief in democracy, adherence to the law which can only be changed by the traditional means of the democratic process, acceptance of equality of gender, race, sexuality and any other equalities passed by our Parliament. Our judicial and Governmental principles (although the practices are open to debate and reform). Also absolute acceptance of freedom of speech and association and the laws and customs that underpin all these things.
This is just a list off the top of my head and I am sure there would be others. But if people are willing to accept these things and wish to become British/English/Scottish etc then I would be welcoming them.
For concrete examples I would be encouraging EU nationals to stay and be welcome. I would also welcome any from Hong Kong who wish to come here.
Woud you apply those same basic principles to the members of Johnson´s Cabinet, Mr Tyndall?
Certainly not into French trawlers from 1st January.....
Ha! The Spirit of Brexit, right there.
No, not you, Richard Tyndall, before you leap in. You are the Accidental Brexiteer.
LOL. Actually I already have a solution for the fishing issue as I have stated on here but no one is interested. At least no one in power. Even though it is rather elegant. But it involves being nice to the French so TSE would hate it for a start.
I think we should be nice to the French fishermen, with a caveat: blockade Calais and you're never coming back in British waters.
I'm not an LD, I'm a liberal. That's why I'm in the Conservative Party.
The thing is, a lot of people seem happy to describe themselves as "liberal" and all seem to have different interpretations of what the term "liberal" actually means.
I've encountered liberals in the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in my time and I suppose the real schism in 20th century politics was within liberalism. The emergence of social democracy in the 1930s and notions of the Welfare State, begun under Asquith and continued by Beveridge, have defined or re-defined liberalism and moved it away from the Gladstonian notion or, as it is sometimes termed, "classical liberalism".
Despite that, the superficial synergies between liberalism and social democracy masked some strong philosophical divergences . In the same way, Cameron's notion of "liberal conservatism", for all it appeared similar to Orange Book Liberalism, wasn't and the divergence after 2010 was rapid.
Looking at it now from the outside, it's not something over which to lose sleep. How political thought responds to growing environmental concerns, notions of AI and the place of the individual, not so much via-a-vis the State but in terms of the notion of individuality in the Information Age is the kind of areas of debate for liberals, conservatives and socialists alike.
Yes to that. But you can`t get away from ideological underpinnings completely: that the unit of importance for liberalism is the individual/liberty, for collectivists it is groups/communities and for conservatives it is family unit/nation.
Given that the LibDems are supposed to be representing the former, it is regrettable that people like PT (and Truss for that matter) are not LibDems.
You've hit the nail on the head about individualism v collectivism v family/nationalism.
I believe firmly in individualism/liberty first and foremost. Can you say the same about LDs? Clegg, Davey, Alexander maybe which is why they worked well in the Coalition.
But not the Cable, Farron, Swinson wing who are more collectivists.
You have a massive Nation State thing going on too. This is clear.
Actually I have a small Nation State thing going on. It's why I support Sindy etc.
Smaller is better. Closer to the people.
Ha. Very good. But you know what I mean, I think. You're quite nationalistic.
It depends upon how you define nationalism.
I think citizens of a nation should vote for that nations laws absolutely. But that's democracy not nationalism.
I also believe people should be able (within reason) to choose which nation they want to be their nation.
I despise things like birtherism. I like relatively open borders globally. Let people who want to come and become citizens of this nation.
Spot on. My personal view - which seems to be unpopular with both sides of the Brexit debate and is certainly a minority view - is that we should not be restricting those who want to come to this country if their intent is to become a citizen. I would not even say they need to adopt all of our traditions and customs and certainly not our religions even though I have a deep love for our customs and traditions (if not for religion in any form). There is room enough for different customs and traditions living side by side.
They would however have to adopt some of the fundamental principles and ethical positions that underlie our democracy. Belief in democracy, adherence to the law which can only be changed by the traditional means of the democratic process, acceptance of equality of gender, race, sexuality and any other equalities passed by our Parliament. Our judicial and Governmental principles (although the practices are open to debate and reform). Also absolute acceptance of freedom of speech and association and the laws and customs that underpin all these things.
This is just a list off the top of my head and I am sure there would be others. But if people are willing to accept these things and wish to become British/English/Scottish etc then I would be welcoming them.
For concrete examples I would be encouraging EU nationals to stay and be welcome. I would also welcome any from Hong Kong who wish to come here.
You`re not concerned about overall population size?
One thing that is interesting in the immigration debate is the refusal of a number of people to engage with the idea of what population size is optimal for the country.
Yet, the same people argue for planning (for decades in advance) for schools, hospitals, roads, railways, airports, house building, reservoir, electricity generation etc etc.
All of which depend on the size of the population.
I personally prefer the frankness of one Deep Green of my acquaintance - she was quite clear that she expected the population to be ever increasing, with a steady reduction in allowed housing space per person.
Your acquaintance laments this trend, presumably?
Personally, I believe that the government should have population target which is lower than now for environmental reasons, with incentives to reduce birth rate and a ban on building on green field sites. I realise that we deep ecologists are in a small minority on this. Most of us have given up, as it sounds like your acquaintance has.
She came from the position that limiting immigration in any way = racism
Unlike many who make that judgement, she had actually thought about the consequences of this idea.
1) The birth rate in this country is below replacement. 2) The increase in population is from immigration.
That these 2 facts are in any way controversial is part of the problem.
I'm not an LD, I'm a liberal. That's why I'm in the Conservative Party.
The thing is, a lot of people seem happy to describe themselves as "liberal" and all seem to have different interpretations of what the term "liberal" actually means.
I've encountered liberals in the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in my time and I suppose the real schism in 20th century politics was within liberalism. The emergence of social democracy in the 1930s and notions of the Welfare State, begun under Asquith and continued by Beveridge, have defined or re-defined liberalism and moved it away from the Gladstonian notion or, as it is sometimes termed, "classical liberalism".
Despite that, the superficial synergies between liberalism and social democracy masked some strong philosophical divergences . In the same way, Cameron's notion of "liberal conservatism", for all it appeared similar to Orange Book Liberalism, wasn't and the divergence after 2010 was rapid.
Looking at it now from the outside, it's not something over which to lose sleep. How political thought responds to growing environmental concerns, notions of AI and the place of the individual, not so much via-a-vis the State but in terms of the notion of individuality in the Information Age is the kind of areas of debate for liberals, conservatives and socialists alike.
Yes to that. But you can`t get away from ideological underpinnings completely: that the unit of importance for liberalism is the individual/liberty, for collectivists it is groups/communities and for conservatives it is family unit/nation.
Given that the LibDems are supposed to be representing the former, it is regrettable that people like PT (and Truss for that matter) are not LibDems.
You've hit the nail on the head about individualism v collectivism v family/nationalism.
I believe firmly in individualism/liberty first and foremost. Can you say the same about LDs? Clegg, Davey, Alexander maybe which is why they worked well in the Coalition.
But not the Cable, Farron, Swinson wing who are more collectivists.
You have a massive Nation State thing going on too. This is clear.
Actually I have a small Nation State thing going on. It's why I support Sindy etc.
Smaller is better. Closer to the people.
Ha. Very good. But you know what I mean, I think. You're quite nationalistic.
It depends upon how you define nationalism.
I think citizens of a nation should vote for that nations laws absolutely. But that's democracy not nationalism.
I also believe people should be able (within reason) to choose which nation they want to be their nation.
I despise things like birtherism. I like relatively open borders globally. Let people who want to come and become citizens of this nation.
Spot on. My personal view - which seems to be unpopular with both sides of the Brexit debate and is certainly a minority view - is that we should not be restricting those who want to come to this country if their intent is to become a citizen. I would not even say they need to adopt all of our traditions and customs and certainly not our religions even though I have a deep love for our customs and traditions (if not for religion in any form). There is room enough for different customs and traditions living side by side.
They would however have to adopt some of the fundamental principles and ethical positions that underlie our democracy. Belief in democracy, adherence to the law which can only be changed by the traditional means of the democratic process, acceptance of equality of gender, race, sexuality and any other equalities passed by our Parliament. Our judicial and Governmental principles (although the practices are open to debate and reform). Also absolute acceptance of freedom of speech and association and the laws and customs that underpin all these things.
This is just a list off the top of my head and I am sure there would be others. But if people are willing to accept these things and wish to become British/English/Scottish etc then I would be welcoming them.
For concrete examples I would be encouraging EU nationals to stay and be welcome. I would also welcome any from Hong Kong who wish to come here.
Would you apply those same basic principles to the members of Johnson´s Cabinet, Mr Tyndall?
When I look at some of our politicians of all parties including many in the Cabinet I am sorry that the UN makes it illegal to make someone stateless. I would gladly bring back the principles of exile.
I'm not an LD, I'm a liberal. That's why I'm in the Conservative Party.
The thing is, a lot of people seem happy to describe themselves as "liberal" and all seem to have different interpretations of what the term "liberal" actually means.
I've encountered liberals in the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in my time and I suppose the real schism in 20th century politics was within liberalism. The emergence of social democracy in the 1930s and notions of the Welfare State, begun under Asquith and continued by Beveridge, have defined or re-defined liberalism and moved it away from the Gladstonian notion or, as it is sometimes termed, "classical liberalism".
Despite that, the superficial synergies between liberalism and social democracy masked some strong philosophical divergences . In the same way, Cameron's notion of "liberal conservatism", for all it appeared similar to Orange Book Liberalism, wasn't and the divergence after 2010 was rapid.
Looking at it now from the outside, it's not something over which to lose sleep. How political thought responds to growing environmental concerns, notions of AI and the place of the individual, not so much via-a-vis the State but in terms of the notion of individuality in the Information Age is the kind of areas of debate for liberals, conservatives and socialists alike.
Yes to that. But you can`t get away from ideological underpinnings completely: that the unit of importance for liberalism is the individual/liberty, for collectivists it is groups/communities and for conservatives it is family unit/nation.
Given that the LibDems are supposed to be representing the former, it is regrettable that people like PT (and Truss for that matter) are not LibDems.
You've hit the nail on the head about individualism v collectivism v family/nationalism.
I believe firmly in individualism/liberty first and foremost. Can you say the same about LDs? Clegg, Davey, Alexander maybe which is why they worked well in the Coalition.
But not the Cable, Farron, Swinson wing who are more collectivists.
You have a massive Nation State thing going on too. This is clear.
Actually I have a small Nation State thing going on. It's why I support Sindy etc.
Smaller is better. Closer to the people.
Ha. Very good. But you know what I mean, I think. You're quite nationalistic.
It depends upon how you define nationalism.
I think citizens of a nation should vote for that nations laws absolutely. But that's democracy not nationalism.
I also believe people should be able (within reason) to choose which nation they want to be their nation.
I despise things like birtherism. I like relatively open borders globally. Let people who want to come and become citizens of this nation.
Spot on. My personal view - which seems to be unpopular with both sides of the Brexit debate and is certainly a minority view - is that we should not be restricting those who want to come to this country if their intent is to become a citizen. I would not even say they need to adopt all of our traditions and customs and certainly not our religions even though I have a deep love for our customs and traditions (if not for religion in any form). There is room enough for different customs and traditions living side by side.
They would however have to adopt some of the fundamental principles and ethical positions that underlie our democracy. Belief in democracy, adherence to the law which can only be changed by the traditional means of the democratic process, acceptance of equality of gender, race, sexuality and any other equalities passed by our Parliament. Our judicial and Governmental principles (although the practices are open to debate and reform). Also absolute acceptance of freedom of speech and association and the laws and customs that underpin all these things.
This is just a list off the top of my head and I am sure there would be others. But if people are willing to accept these things and wish to become British/English/Scottish etc then I would be welcoming them.
For concrete examples I would be encouraging EU nationals to stay and be welcome. I would also welcome any from Hong Kong who wish to come here.
You`re not concerned about overall population size?
One thing that is interesting in the immigration debate is the refusal of a number of people to engage with the idea of what population size is optimal for the country.
Yet, the same people argue for planning (for decades in advance) for schools, hospitals, roads, railways, airports, house building, reservoir, electricity generation etc etc.
All of which depend on the size of the population.
I personally prefer the frankness of one Deep Green of my acquaintance - she was quite clear that she expected the population to be ever increasing, with a steady reduction in allowed housing space per person.
Your acquaintance laments this trend, presumably?
Personally, I believe that the government should have population target which is lower than now for environmental reasons, with incentives to reduce birth rate and a ban on building on green field sites. I realise that we deep ecologists are in a small minority on this. Most of us have given up, as it sounds like your acquaintance has.
It is unsurprising that people give up. The temptation to keep going with the population Ponzi scheme - import younger workers to prop up the old crocs, rather than expecting them to work longer or live off less - is close to overwhelming, especially as the old crocs become an ever larger and more dominant section of the electorate.
Certainly not into French trawlers from 1st January.....
I tested the waters (erm) with my in-laws this afternoon. Keen brexiteers. I asked how they would feel if a trade deal was agreed which involved Johnson capitulating on the fishing territories. They both said "he`d be finished".
It is a totemic issue and I think No Deal is likelier than many think (though, on balance, I think Johnson will agree a deal as he`s more frit of no deal than risking the ire of many leavers).
The other thing is that, if Bozza agrees a deal that turns to dust, or even a big pile of "meh", it's unambiguously his responsibility because it's his deal. If no deal turns out to be bad, the PM can try to blame those terrible Europeans, which gives him a chance to wash his hands of the blame.
Bottom line is that Johnson has two options from here. One is to accept roughly the deal on the table. It's not brilliant, it will annoy a chunk of his support, but it's survivable and has some non-trivial gains. The other is to reject the deal and step into the great unknown. His fanclub will love it, but it's likely to have horrible impacts going forward.
The story was always leading to this point. It's ultimately his choice. Will the real Boris Johnson please stand up?
She's getting good headlines as far as the Tory faithful are concerned lately, and seems to be flavour of the week, but there's a longer term picture. Overall, she has a mediocre performance as a minister, and her conference speeches are noted only for how poor they are. She's okay at staying out of trouble, but there isn't a "Truss faction" in the Parliamentary party, and she isn't charismatic.
Frankly, she'd need a lot to go right from here to take the crown, and I just don't see it.
Jeez. I`m getting fed up of this. You`re nor comparing apples with apples. The tip was 100/1 for next PM. She has been chopped down by most bookies, but you can still get 100/1 for Next PM. I`ve just had a tenner on with Victor Chandler (they reduced me from £20 the cowards).
Truss is 33/1 for Next Conservative leader. Different market.
That £20 at 100s can be laid off right now on Betfair at 50s.
That's a real 'smug city' opportunity (unless you think 50 is still too long).
Yes, there is a big arb available. Back at 100/1 with VC and lay at 1/49 with BF.
Trouble is, as the arb is across two different bookies I`d have to tie up a heck of a lot of money until 2024 to lay it off.
That's true. You'd need to have a Betfair lay portfolio going, or be planning one.
What`s a Betfair lay portfolio?
A list of the people Truss has slept with?
No - enough! - she`s a married woman with two children.
Well, it can’t be a list of the people Johnson has slept with, as that’s not a portfolio it’s an entire fucking database.
Do you think that the right get more nookie?
About even. I mean, Lloyd George and Stephen Byers on their own drag the left to dizzy heights. It’s just the right aren’t as good at covering up afterwards.
I'm not surprised she's moved in, she's excellent. Really done a tremendous job this year and is a standout star performer.
I considered submitting a piece recommending a bet on her at 100/1 but then Casino and OGH said it first and I missed placing one myself. But yes it was an excellent tip Casino and OGH well done.
And a blast from the past but well done bunnco too for tipping her over a decade ago.
I'm not an LD, I'm a liberal. That's why I'm in the Conservative Party.
The thing is, a lot of people seem happy to describe themselves as "liberal" and all seem to have different interpretations of what the term "liberal" actually means.
I've encountered liberals in the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in my time and I suppose the real schism in 20th century politics was within liberalism. The emergence of social democracy in the 1930s and notions of the Welfare State, begun under Asquith and continued by Beveridge, have defined or re-defined liberalism and moved it away from the Gladstonian notion or, as it is sometimes termed, "classical liberalism".
Despite that, the superficial synergies between liberalism and social democracy masked some strong philosophical divergences . In the same way, Cameron's notion of "liberal conservatism", for all it appeared similar to Orange Book Liberalism, wasn't and the divergence after 2010 was rapid.
Looking at it now from the outside, it's not something over which to lose sleep. How political thought responds to growing environmental concerns, notions of AI and the place of the individual, not so much via-a-vis the State but in terms of the notion of individuality in the Information Age is the kind of areas of debate for liberals, conservatives and socialists alike.
Yes to that. But you can`t get away from ideological underpinnings completely: that the unit of importance for liberalism is the individual/liberty, for collectivists it is groups/communities and for conservatives it is family unit/nation.
Given that the LibDems are supposed to be representing the former, it is regrettable that people like PT (and Truss for that matter) are not LibDems.
You've hit the nail on the head about individualism v collectivism v family/nationalism.
I believe firmly in individualism/liberty first and foremost. Can you say the same about LDs? Clegg, Davey, Alexander maybe which is why they worked well in the Coalition.
But not the Cable, Farron, Swinson wing who are more collectivists.
You have a massive Nation State thing going on too. This is clear.
Actually I have a small Nation State thing going on. It's why I support Sindy etc.
Smaller is better. Closer to the people.
Ha. Very good. But you know what I mean, I think. You're quite nationalistic.
It depends upon how you define nationalism.
I think citizens of a nation should vote for that nations laws absolutely. But that's democracy not nationalism.
I also believe people should be able (within reason) to choose which nation they want to be their nation.
I despise things like birtherism. I like relatively open borders globally. Let people who want to come and become citizens of this nation.
Spot on. My personal view - which seems to be unpopular with both sides of the Brexit debate and is certainly a minority view - is that we should not be restricting those who want to come to this country if their intent is to become a citizen. I would not even say they need to adopt all of our traditions and customs and certainly not our religions even though I have a deep love for our customs and traditions (if not for religion in any form). There is room enough for different customs and traditions living side by side.
They would however have to adopt some of the fundamental principles and ethical positions that underlie our democracy. Belief in democracy, adherence to the law which can only be changed by the traditional means of the democratic process, acceptance of equality of gender, race, sexuality and any other equalities passed by our Parliament. Our judicial and Governmental principles (although the practices are open to debate and reform). Also absolute acceptance of freedom of speech and association and the laws and customs that underpin all these things.
This is just a list off the top of my head and I am sure there would be others. But if people are willing to accept these things and wish to become British/English/Scottish etc then I would be welcoming them.
For concrete examples I would be encouraging EU nationals to stay and be welcome. I would also welcome any from Hong Kong who wish to come here.
You`re not concerned about overall population size?
Not at the moment no. And it will to some extent be self regulating. Of course at some point in the future it might become an issue but at that point you change policy. Right now in the UK the issue is a demographic timebomb where by we have an aging population and a falling birthrate. Nice if you are independently wealthy but for anyone else it means more likelihood of being poor in old age when the state can no longer afford to look after you.
Yes I get you. And the vast majority of humans will agree. GDP is all. But what about the planet and its other species and habitats?
On fish I'd have thought it'd be the Spanish and Dutch who end up getting stiffed, not the French, because at the end of the day the former fish off Cornwall and Scotland where the UK needs more but they won't veto - whereas the French will, and they matter more in the EU.
Those r rates in the South and East are severe. Wholly overshadowing the national rate. Hopefully schools closing won't encourage folk to cram into shopping centres. Not at all optimistic.
R is rising everywhere -
Yes. I appreciate that. Was merely drawing attention to the SE in particular being rampant right now.
I'm not surprised she's moved in, she's excellent. Really done a tremendous job this year and is a standout star performer.
I considered submitting a piece recommending a bet on her at 100/1 but then Casino and OGH said it first and I missed placing one myself. But yes it was an excellent tip Casino and OGH well done.
And a blast from the past but well done bunnco too for tipping her over a decade ago.
She's getting good headlines as far as the Tory faithful are concerned lately, and seems to be flavour of the week, but there's a longer term picture. Overall, she has a mediocre performance as a minister, and her conference speeches are noted only for how poor they are. She's okay at staying out of trouble, but there isn't a "Truss faction" in the Parliamentary party, and she isn't charismatic.
Frankly, she'd need a lot to go right from here to take the crown, and I just don't see it.
Jeez. I`m getting fed up of this. You`re nor comparing apples with apples. The tip was 100/1 for next PM. She has been chopped down by most bookies, but you can still get 100/1 for Next PM. I`ve just had a tenner on with Victor Chandler (they reduced me from £20 the cowards).
Truss is 33/1 for Next Conservative leader. Different market.
That £20 at 100s can be laid off right now on Betfair at 50s.
That's a real 'smug city' opportunity (unless you think 50 is still too long).
Yes, there is a big arb available. Back at 100/1 with VC and lay at 1/49 with BF.
Trouble is, as the arb is across two different bookies I`d have to tie up a heck of a lot of money until 2024 to lay it off.
That's true. You'd need to have a Betfair lay portfolio going, or be planning one.
What`s a Betfair lay portfolio?
A list of the people Truss has slept with?
No - enough! - she`s a married woman with two children.
Well, it can’t be a list of the people Johnson has slept with, as that’s not a portfolio it’s an entire fucking database.
Do you think that the right get more nookie?
About even. I mean, Lloyd George and Stephen Byers on their own drag the left to dizzy heights. It’s just the right aren’t as good at covering up afterwards.
Stephen Byers was a bit of a swordsman! I didn`t know that.
Then of course there is Cleggy getting his leggy for the liberals.
Certainly not into French trawlers from 1st January.....
I tested the waters (erm) with my in-laws this afternoon. Keen brexiteers. I asked how they would feel if a trade deal was agreed which involved Johnson capitulating on the fishing territories. They both said "he`d be finished".
It is a totemic issue and I think No Deal is likelier than many think (though, on balance, I think Johnson will agree a deal as he`s more frit of no deal than risking the ire of many leavers).
The other thing is that, if Bozza agrees a deal that turns to dust, or even a big pile of "meh", it's unambiguously his responsibility because it's his deal. If no deal turns out to be bad, the PM can try to blame those terrible Europeans, which gives him a chance to wash his hands of the blame.
Bottom line is that Johnson has two options from here. One is to accept roughly the deal on the table. It's not brilliant, it will annoy a chunk of his support, but it's survivable and has some non-trivial gains. The other is to reject the deal and step into the great unknown. His fanclub will love it, but it's likely to have horrible impacts going forward.
The story was always leading to this point. It's ultimately his choice. Will the real Boris Johnson please stand up?
I'm not an LD, I'm a liberal. That's why I'm in the Conservative Party.
The thing is, a lot of people seem happy to describe themselves as "liberal" and all seem to have different interpretations of what the term "liberal" actually means.
I've encountered liberals in the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in my time and I suppose the real schism in 20th century politics was within liberalism. The emergence of social democracy in the 1930s and notions of the Welfare State, begun under Asquith and continued by Beveridge, have defined or re-defined liberalism and moved it away from the Gladstonian notion or, as it is sometimes termed, "classical liberalism".
Despite that, the superficial synergies between liberalism and social democracy masked some strong philosophical divergences . In the same way, Cameron's notion of "liberal conservatism", for all it appeared similar to Orange Book Liberalism, wasn't and the divergence after 2010 was rapid.
Looking at it now from the outside, it's not something over which to lose sleep. How political thought responds to growing environmental concerns, notions of AI and the place of the individual, not so much via-a-vis the State but in terms of the notion of individuality in the Information Age is the kind of areas of debate for liberals, conservatives and socialists alike.
Yes to that. But you can`t get away from ideological underpinnings completely: that the unit of importance for liberalism is the individual/liberty, for collectivists it is groups/communities and for conservatives it is family unit/nation.
Given that the LibDems are supposed to be representing the former, it is regrettable that people like PT (and Truss for that matter) are not LibDems.
You've hit the nail on the head about individualism v collectivism v family/nationalism.
I believe firmly in individualism/liberty first and foremost. Can you say the same about LDs? Clegg, Davey, Alexander maybe which is why they worked well in the Coalition.
But not the Cable, Farron, Swinson wing who are more collectivists.
You have a massive Nation State thing going on too. This is clear.
Actually I have a small Nation State thing going on. It's why I support Sindy etc.
Smaller is better. Closer to the people.
Ha. Very good. But you know what I mean, I think. You're quite nationalistic.
It depends upon how you define nationalism.
I think citizens of a nation should vote for that nations laws absolutely. But that's democracy not nationalism.
I also believe people should be able (within reason) to choose which nation they want to be their nation.
I despise things like birtherism. I like relatively open borders globally. Let people who want to come and become citizens of this nation.
Spot on. My personal view - which seems to be unpopular with both sides of the Brexit debate and is certainly a minority view - is that we should not be restricting those who want to come to this country if their intent is to become a citizen. I would not even say they need to adopt all of our traditions and customs and certainly not our religions even though I have a deep love for our customs and traditions (if not for religion in any form). There is room enough for different customs and traditions living side by side.
They would however have to adopt some of the fundamental principles and ethical positions that underlie our democracy. Belief in democracy, adherence to the law which can only be changed by the traditional means of the democratic process, acceptance of equality of gender, race, sexuality and any other equalities passed by our Parliament. Our judicial and Governmental principles (although the practices are open to debate and reform). Also absolute acceptance of freedom of speech and association and the laws and customs that underpin all these things.
This is just a list off the top of my head and I am sure there would be others. But if people are willing to accept these things and wish to become British/English/Scottish etc then I would be welcoming them.
For concrete examples I would be encouraging EU nationals to stay and be welcome. I would also welcome any from Hong Kong who wish to come here.
You`re not concerned about overall population size?
One thing that is interesting in the immigration debate is the refusal of a number of people to engage with the idea of what population size is optimal for the country.
Yet, the same people argue for planning (for decades in advance) for schools, hospitals, roads, railways, airports, house building, reservoir, electricity generation etc etc.
All of which depend on the size of the population.
I personally prefer the frankness of one Deep Green of my acquaintance - she was quite clear that she expected the population to be ever increasing, with a steady reduction in allowed housing space per person.
Your acquaintance laments this trend, presumably?
Personally, I believe that the government should have population target which is lower than now for environmental reasons, with incentives to reduce birth rate and a ban on building on green field sites. I realise that we deep ecologists are in a small minority on this. Most of us have given up, as it sounds like your acquaintance has.
It is unsurprising that people give up. The temptation to keep going with the population Ponzi scheme - import younger workers to prop up the old crocs, rather than expecting them to work longer or live off less - is close to overwhelming, especially as the old crocs become an ever larger and more dominant section of the electorate.
I certainly agree with people working longer. Compared to 50 years ago we not only live longer but are healthier and fitter for longer as well. But that still doesn't compensate for the reduced birthrate. Having a target for population is not something I am opposed to but we have to accept that that target can only be met by the welcome addition of people who were not born in this country. If not then we are in for a pretty rotten old age.
Certainly not into French trawlers from 1st January.....
I tested the waters (erm) with my in-laws this afternoon. Keen brexiteers. I asked how they would feel if a trade deal was agreed which involved Johnson capitulating on the fishing territories. They both said "he`d be finished".
It is a totemic issue and I think No Deal is likelier than many think (though, on balance, I think Johnson will agree a deal as he`s more frit of no deal than risking the ire of many leavers).
Just as totemic to French, Dutch, Belgian etc fishing communities too. Remember, these were international waters prior to EU entry and fished internationally for centuries.
I'm not an LD, I'm a liberal. That's why I'm in the Conservative Party.
The thing is, a lot of people seem happy to describe themselves as "liberal" and all seem to have different interpretations of what the term "liberal" actually means.
I've encountered liberals in the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in my time and I suppose the real schism in 20th century politics was within liberalism. The emergence of social democracy in the 1930s and notions of the Welfare State, begun under Asquith and continued by Beveridge, have defined or re-defined liberalism and moved it away from the Gladstonian notion or, as it is sometimes termed, "classical liberalism".
Despite that, the superficial synergies between liberalism and social democracy masked some strong philosophical divergences . In the same way, Cameron's notion of "liberal conservatism", for all it appeared similar to Orange Book Liberalism, wasn't and the divergence after 2010 was rapid.
Looking at it now from the outside, it's not something over which to lose sleep. How political thought responds to growing environmental concerns, notions of AI and the place of the individual, not so much via-a-vis the State but in terms of the notion of individuality in the Information Age is the kind of areas of debate for liberals, conservatives and socialists alike.
Yes to that. But you can`t get away from ideological underpinnings completely: that the unit of importance for liberalism is the individual/liberty, for collectivists it is groups/communities and for conservatives it is family unit/nation.
Given that the LibDems are supposed to be representing the former, it is regrettable that people like PT (and Truss for that matter) are not LibDems.
You've hit the nail on the head about individualism v collectivism v family/nationalism.
I believe firmly in individualism/liberty first and foremost. Can you say the same about LDs? Clegg, Davey, Alexander maybe which is why they worked well in the Coalition.
But not the Cable, Farron, Swinson wing who are more collectivists.
You have a massive Nation State thing going on too. This is clear.
Actually I have a small Nation State thing going on. It's why I support Sindy etc.
Smaller is better. Closer to the people.
Ha. Very good. But you know what I mean, I think. You're quite nationalistic.
It depends upon how you define nationalism.
I think citizens of a nation should vote for that nations laws absolutely. But that's democracy not nationalism.
I also believe people should be able (within reason) to choose which nation they want to be their nation.
I despise things like birtherism. I like relatively open borders globally. Let people who want to come and become citizens of this nation.
Spot on. My personal view - which seems to be unpopular with both sides of the Brexit debate and is certainly a minority view - is that we should not be restricting those who want to come to this country if their intent is to become a citizen. I would not even say they need to adopt all of our traditions and customs and certainly not our religions even though I have a deep love for our customs and traditions (if not for religion in any form). There is room enough for different customs and traditions living side by side.
They would however have to adopt some of the fundamental principles and ethical positions that underlie our democracy. Belief in democracy, adherence to the law which can only be changed by the traditional means of the democratic process, acceptance of equality of gender, race, sexuality and any other equalities passed by our Parliament. Our judicial and Governmental principles (although the practices are open to debate and reform). Also absolute acceptance of freedom of speech and association and the laws and customs that underpin all these things.
This is just a list off the top of my head and I am sure there would be others. But if people are willing to accept these things and wish to become British/English/Scottish etc then I would be welcoming them.
For concrete examples I would be encouraging EU nationals to stay and be welcome. I would also welcome any from Hong Kong who wish to come here.
You`re not concerned about overall population size?
One thing that is interesting in the immigration debate is the refusal of a number of people to engage with the idea of what population size is optimal for the country.
Yet, the same people argue for planning (for decades in advance) for schools, hospitals, roads, railways, airports, house building, reservoir, electricity generation etc etc.
All of which depend on the size of the population.
I personally prefer the frankness of one Deep Green of my acquaintance - she was quite clear that she expected the population to be ever increasing, with a steady reduction in allowed housing space per person.
Your acquaintance laments this trend, presumably?
Personally, I believe that the government should have population target which is lower than now for environmental reasons, with incentives to reduce birth rate and a ban on building on green field sites. I realise that we deep ecologists are in a small minority on this. Most of us have given up, as it sounds like your acquaintance has.
It is unsurprising that people give up. The temptation to keep going with the population Ponzi scheme - import younger workers to prop up the old crocs, rather than expecting them to work longer or live off less - is close to overwhelming, especially as the old crocs become an ever larger and more dominant section of the electorate.
A tremendously funny experience was talking with a friend who went to Japan for the rugby.
He and his wife toured around - went to the smaller games, so saw quite a bit of Japan.
The Japanese approach to the population time bomb, immigration etc was completely against everything he believed in. So he was constantly remarking "how can this be?"
She's getting good headlines as far as the Tory faithful are concerned lately, and seems to be flavour of the week, but there's a longer term picture. Overall, she has a mediocre performance as a minister, and her conference speeches are noted only for how poor they are. She's okay at staying out of trouble, but there isn't a "Truss faction" in the Parliamentary party, and she isn't charismatic.
Frankly, she'd need a lot to go right from here to take the crown, and I just don't see it.
Jeez. I`m getting fed up of this. You`re nor comparing apples with apples. The tip was 100/1 for next PM. She has been chopped down by most bookies, but you can still get 100/1 for Next PM. I`ve just had a tenner on with Victor Chandler (they reduced me from £20 the cowards).
Truss is 33/1 for Next Conservative leader. Different market.
That £20 at 100s can be laid off right now on Betfair at 50s.
That's a real 'smug city' opportunity (unless you think 50 is still too long).
Yes, there is a big arb available. Back at 100/1 with VC and lay at 1/49 with BF.
Trouble is, as the arb is across two different bookies I`d have to tie up a heck of a lot of money until 2024 to lay it off.
That's true. You'd need to have a Betfair lay portfolio going, or be planning one.
What`s a Betfair lay portfolio?
A list of the people Truss has slept with?
No - enough! - she`s a married woman with two children.
Well, it can’t be a list of the people Johnson has slept with, as that’s not a portfolio it’s an entire fucking database.
Do you think that the right get more nookie?
About even. I mean, Lloyd George and Stephen Byers on their own drag the left to dizzy heights. It’s just the right aren’t as good at covering up afterwards.
Stephen Byers was a bit of a swordsman! I didn`t know that.
Then of course there is Cleggy getting his leggy for the liberals.
He was famous for sleeping around.
And lying to Parliament.
And describing himself as a ‘cab for hire’ when offered cash to table questions.
Those r rates in the South and East are severe. Wholly overshadowing the national rate. Hopefully schools closing won't encourage folk to cram into shopping centres. Not at all optimistic.
R is rising everywhere -
Yes. I appreciate that. Was merely drawing attention to the SE in particular being rampant right now.
At a guess it looks like the new Covid variant spreading from Kent into East London, and then starting to infiltrate the Home Counties: the number for the East looks especially worrying, but it's all the more so when you consider that the cases are disproportionately concentrated in only parts of the region. Norfolk and Suffolk don't look nearly so bad.
I'm afraid that it's eventually going to spread everywhere and cause pandemonium, but frankly who knows?
I'm not an LD, I'm a liberal. That's why I'm in the Conservative Party.
The thing is, a lot of people seem happy to describe themselves as "liberal" and all seem to have different interpretations of what the term "liberal" actually means.
I've encountered liberals in the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in my time and I suppose the real schism in 20th century politics was within liberalism. The emergence of social democracy in the 1930s and notions of the Welfare State, begun under Asquith and continued by Beveridge, have defined or re-defined liberalism and moved it away from the Gladstonian notion or, as it is sometimes termed, "classical liberalism".
Despite that, the superficial synergies between liberalism and social democracy masked some strong philosophical divergences . In the same way, Cameron's notion of "liberal conservatism", for all it appeared similar to Orange Book Liberalism, wasn't and the divergence after 2010 was rapid.
Looking at it now from the outside, it's not something over which to lose sleep. How political thought responds to growing environmental concerns, notions of AI and the place of the individual, not so much via-a-vis the State but in terms of the notion of individuality in the Information Age is the kind of areas of debate for liberals, conservatives and socialists alike.
Yes to that. But you can`t get away from ideological underpinnings completely: that the unit of importance for liberalism is the individual/liberty, for collectivists it is groups/communities and for conservatives it is family unit/nation.
Given that the LibDems are supposed to be representing the former, it is regrettable that people like PT (and Truss for that matter) are not LibDems.
You've hit the nail on the head about individualism v collectivism v family/nationalism.
I believe firmly in individualism/liberty first and foremost. Can you say the same about LDs? Clegg, Davey, Alexander maybe which is why they worked well in the Coalition.
But not the Cable, Farron, Swinson wing who are more collectivists.
You have a massive Nation State thing going on too. This is clear.
Actually I have a small Nation State thing going on. It's why I support Sindy etc.
Smaller is better. Closer to the people.
Ha. Very good. But you know what I mean, I think. You're quite nationalistic.
It depends upon how you define nationalism.
I think citizens of a nation should vote for that nations laws absolutely. But that's democracy not nationalism.
I also believe people should be able (within reason) to choose which nation they want to be their nation.
I despise things like birtherism. I like relatively open borders globally. Let people who want to come and become citizens of this nation.
Spot on. My personal view - which seems to be unpopular with both sides of the Brexit debate and is certainly a minority view - is that we should not be restricting those who want to come to this country if their intent is to become a citizen. I would not even say they need to adopt all of our traditions and customs and certainly not our religions even though I have a deep love for our customs and traditions (if not for religion in any form). There is room enough for different customs and traditions living side by side.
They would however have to adopt some of the fundamental principles and ethical positions that underlie our democracy. Belief in democracy, adherence to the law which can only be changed by the traditional means of the democratic process, acceptance of equality of gender, race, sexuality and any other equalities passed by our Parliament. Our judicial and Governmental principles (although the practices are open to debate and reform). Also absolute acceptance of freedom of speech and association and the laws and customs that underpin all these things.
This is just a list off the top of my head and I am sure there would be others. But if people are willing to accept these things and wish to become British/English/Scottish etc then I would be welcoming them.
For concrete examples I would be encouraging EU nationals to stay and be welcome. I would also welcome any from Hong Kong who wish to come here.
You`re not concerned about overall population size?
Not at the moment no. And it will to some extent be self regulating. Of course at some point in the future it might become an issue but at that point you change policy. Right now in the UK the issue is a demographic timebomb where by we have an aging population and a falling birthrate. Nice if you are independently wealthy but for anyone else it means more likelihood of being poor in old age when the state can no longer afford to look after you.
Yes I get you. And the vast majority of humans will agree. GDP is all. But what about the planet and its other species and habitats?
I would love to see the population stabilise or fall overall in the world. But the only way to make that happen short of something nasty is to increase the wealth of the developing world. It is only at that point that populations stabilise.
The UK is not contributing to the increase in population. This is a function of a developed society and is the same across much of the first world. Stopping people coming here will not save the environment overall. Only making people rich enough and secure enough that they no longer need to have large families will do that.
I'm not an LD, I'm a liberal. That's why I'm in the Conservative Party.
The thing is, a lot of people seem happy to describe themselves as "liberal" and all seem to have different interpretations of what the term "liberal" actually means.
I've encountered liberals in the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in my time and I suppose the real schism in 20th century politics was within liberalism. The emergence of social democracy in the 1930s and notions of the Welfare State, begun under Asquith and continued by Beveridge, have defined or re-defined liberalism and moved it away from the Gladstonian notion or, as it is sometimes termed, "classical liberalism".
Despite that, the superficial synergies between liberalism and social democracy masked some strong philosophical divergences . In the same way, Cameron's notion of "liberal conservatism", for all it appeared similar to Orange Book Liberalism, wasn't and the divergence after 2010 was rapid.
Looking at it now from the outside, it's not something over which to lose sleep. How political thought responds to growing environmental concerns, notions of AI and the place of the individual, not so much via-a-vis the State but in terms of the notion of individuality in the Information Age is the kind of areas of debate for liberals, conservatives and socialists alike.
Yes to that. But you can`t get away from ideological underpinnings completely: that the unit of importance for liberalism is the individual/liberty, for collectivists it is groups/communities and for conservatives it is family unit/nation.
Given that the LibDems are supposed to be representing the former, it is regrettable that people like PT (and Truss for that matter) are not LibDems.
You've hit the nail on the head about individualism v collectivism v family/nationalism.
I believe firmly in individualism/liberty first and foremost. Can you say the same about LDs? Clegg, Davey, Alexander maybe which is why they worked well in the Coalition.
But not the Cable, Farron, Swinson wing who are more collectivists.
You have a massive Nation State thing going on too. This is clear.
Actually I have a small Nation State thing going on. It's why I support Sindy etc.
Smaller is better. Closer to the people.
Ha. Very good. But you know what I mean, I think. You're quite nationalistic.
It depends upon how you define nationalism.
I think citizens of a nation should vote for that nations laws absolutely. But that's democracy not nationalism.
I also believe people should be able (within reason) to choose which nation they want to be their nation.
I despise things like birtherism. I like relatively open borders globally. Let people who want to come and become citizens of this nation.
Spot on. My personal view - which seems to be unpopular with both sides of the Brexit debate and is certainly a minority view - is that we should not be restricting those who want to come to this country if their intent is to become a citizen. I would not even say they need to adopt all of our traditions and customs and certainly not our religions even though I have a deep love for our customs and traditions (if not for religion in any form). There is room enough for different customs and traditions living side by side.
They would however have to adopt some of the fundamental principles and ethical positions that underlie our democracy. Belief in democracy, adherence to the law which can only be changed by the traditional means of the democratic process, acceptance of equality of gender, race, sexuality and any other equalities passed by our Parliament. Our judicial and Governmental principles (although the practices are open to debate and reform). Also absolute acceptance of freedom of speech and association and the laws and customs that underpin all these things.
This is just a list off the top of my head and I am sure there would be others. But if people are willing to accept these things and wish to become British/English/Scottish etc then I would be welcoming them.
For concrete examples I would be encouraging EU nationals to stay and be welcome. I would also welcome any from Hong Kong who wish to come here.
You`re not concerned about overall population size?
Not at the moment no. And it will to some extent be self regulating. Of course at some point in the future it might become an issue but at that point you change policy. Right now in the UK the issue is a demographic timebomb where by we have an aging population and a falling birthrate. Nice if you are independently wealthy but for anyone else it means more likelihood of being poor in old age when the state can no longer afford to look after you.
Yes I get you. And the vast majority of humans will agree. GDP is all. But what about the planet and its other species and habitats?
Laying Farage for next PM is a more solid bet, IMO. Ties the money up for a while (perhaps), but a decent foundation for a lay portfolio.
He will probably trade a fair bit shorter than 60 at some point. The London Mayor equivalent, Brian Rose @ 7, I think it was quincel who tipped it up earlier, is a much better choice for taking on an outsider. And payout likely much quicker.
As Rees Mogg said, Brexit is a process that might take ~ 50 years to realise the benefits of. A 10 year lease to the EU on our waters is neither here nor there in the grand scheme of things, if that's what it takes to get a deal over the line.
Well done to @Casino_Royale for getting ahead of the game with this.
His Hunt tip was also not terrible.
Thanks.
You are most welcome. Plenty of excellent betting steers on here if you concentrate.
On which topic, I do hope some PBers have followed me on the laying like a lion of the Not & Never Happening Events I sometimes identify. The Big 4 recent ones being -
A 2nd EU referendum. A no deal "WTO" Brexit. Jeremy Corbyn PM. A 2nd term for President Donald J Trump.
I'm not surprised she's moved in, she's excellent. Really done a tremendous job this year and is a standout star performer.
I considered submitting a piece recommending a bet on her at 100/1 but then Casino and OGH said it first and I missed placing one myself. But yes it was an excellent tip Casino and OGH well done.
And a blast from the past but well done bunnco too for tipping her over a decade ago.
Sorry!
Never be sorry!
It was a great tip and you shared it. Hopefully others got on it too. Well done.
I'm not an LD, I'm a liberal. That's why I'm in the Conservative Party.
The thing is, a lot of people seem happy to describe themselves as "liberal" and all seem to have different interpretations of what the term "liberal" actually means.
I've encountered liberals in the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in my time and I suppose the real schism in 20th century politics was within liberalism. The emergence of social democracy in the 1930s and notions of the Welfare State, begun under Asquith and continued by Beveridge, have defined or re-defined liberalism and moved it away from the Gladstonian notion or, as it is sometimes termed, "classical liberalism".
Despite that, the superficial synergies between liberalism and social democracy masked some strong philosophical divergences . In the same way, Cameron's notion of "liberal conservatism", for all it appeared similar to Orange Book Liberalism, wasn't and the divergence after 2010 was rapid.
Looking at it now from the outside, it's not something over which to lose sleep. How political thought responds to growing environmental concerns, notions of AI and the place of the individual, not so much via-a-vis the State but in terms of the notion of individuality in the Information Age is the kind of areas of debate for liberals, conservatives and socialists alike.
Yes to that. But you can`t get away from ideological underpinnings completely: that the unit of importance for liberalism is the individual/liberty, for collectivists it is groups/communities and for conservatives it is family unit/nation.
Given that the LibDems are supposed to be representing the former, it is regrettable that people like PT (and Truss for that matter) are not LibDems.
You've hit the nail on the head about individualism v collectivism v family/nationalism.
I believe firmly in individualism/liberty first and foremost. Can you say the same about LDs? Clegg, Davey, Alexander maybe which is why they worked well in the Coalition.
But not the Cable, Farron, Swinson wing who are more collectivists.
You have a massive Nation State thing going on too. This is clear.
Actually I have a small Nation State thing going on. It's why I support Sindy etc.
Smaller is better. Closer to the people.
Ha. Very good. But you know what I mean, I think. You're quite nationalistic.
It depends upon how you define nationalism.
I think citizens of a nation should vote for that nations laws absolutely. But that's democracy not nationalism.
I also believe people should be able (within reason) to choose which nation they want to be their nation.
I despise things like birtherism. I like relatively open borders globally. Let people who want to come and become citizens of this nation.
Spot on. My personal view - which seems to be unpopular with both sides of the Brexit debate and is certainly a minority view - is that we should not be restricting those who want to come to this country if their intent is to become a citizen. I would not even say they need to adopt all of our traditions and customs and certainly not our religions even though I have a deep love for our customs and traditions (if not for religion in any form). There is room enough for different customs and traditions living side by side.
They would however have to adopt some of the fundamental principles and ethical positions that underlie our democracy. Belief in democracy, adherence to the law which can only be changed by the traditional means of the democratic process, acceptance of equality of gender, race, sexuality and any other equalities passed by our Parliament. Our judicial and Governmental principles (although the practices are open to debate and reform). Also absolute acceptance of freedom of speech and association and the laws and customs that underpin all these things.
This is just a list off the top of my head and I am sure there would be others. But if people are willing to accept these things and wish to become British/English/Scottish etc then I would be welcoming them.
For concrete examples I would be encouraging EU nationals to stay and be welcome. I would also welcome any from Hong Kong who wish to come here.
You`re not concerned about overall population size?
Not at the moment no. And it will to some extent be self regulating. Of course at some point in the future it might become an issue but at that point you change policy. Right now in the UK the issue is a demographic timebomb where by we have an aging population and a falling birthrate. Nice if you are independently wealthy but for anyone else it means more likelihood of being poor in old age when the state can no longer afford to look after you.
Yes I get you. And the vast majority of humans will agree. GDP is all. But what about the planet and its other species and habitats?
I would love to see the population stabilise or fall overall in the world. But the only way to make that happen short of something nasty is to increase the wealth of the developing world. It is only at that point that populations stabilise.
The UK is not contributing to the increase in population. This is a function of a developed society and is the same across much of the first world. Stopping people coming here will not save the environment overall. Only making people rich enough and secure enough that they no longer need to have large families will do that.
But they use more resources.
I`ve come to agree with Monbiot`s comment, made over ten years ago, that the only way is some form of global governance run on non-democratic lines and led by scientists, philosophers and naturalists charged with the job of reducing homo sapiens population worldwide and protecting remaining habitats. Again, I realise that I`m in a tiny minority on this. Which is why the planet is doomed for so many non-human species (and eventually humans too).
I'm very much on the side of "matter of principle". The LPF stuff is a little bit of a red herring*, because if we want to diverge in future, you know what, we can serve notice that we wish to end the trade agreement. (Just as, if there was no LPF, the EU could in the future choose to end the agreement because they felt we'd diverged to a level where it was no longer in their interests to continue having an FTA with us.)
Re fish, though, if you want to negotiate a price - a financial price - for temporary access, then yes we can talk about it. But the principle that these are British territorial waters needs to be sacrosanct.
I'm not an LD, I'm a liberal. That's why I'm in the Conservative Party.
The thing is, a lot of people seem happy to describe themselves as "liberal" and all seem to have different interpretations of what the term "liberal" actually means.
I've encountered liberals in the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in my time and I suppose the real schism in 20th century politics was within liberalism. The emergence of social democracy in the 1930s and notions of the Welfare State, begun under Asquith and continued by Beveridge, have defined or re-defined liberalism and moved it away from the Gladstonian notion or, as it is sometimes termed, "classical liberalism".
Despite that, the superficial synergies between liberalism and social democracy masked some strong philosophical divergences . In the same way, Cameron's notion of "liberal conservatism", for all it appeared similar to Orange Book Liberalism, wasn't and the divergence after 2010 was rapid.
Looking at it now from the outside, it's not something over which to lose sleep. How political thought responds to growing environmental concerns, notions of AI and the place of the individual, not so much via-a-vis the State but in terms of the notion of individuality in the Information Age is the kind of areas of debate for liberals, conservatives and socialists alike.
Yes to that. But you can`t get away from ideological underpinnings completely: that the unit of importance for liberalism is the individual/liberty, for collectivists it is groups/communities and for conservatives it is family unit/nation.
Given that the LibDems are supposed to be representing the former, it is regrettable that people like PT (and Truss for that matter) are not LibDems.
You've hit the nail on the head about individualism v collectivism v family/nationalism.
I believe firmly in individualism/liberty first and foremost. Can you say the same about LDs? Clegg, Davey, Alexander maybe which is why they worked well in the Coalition.
But not the Cable, Farron, Swinson wing who are more collectivists.
You have a massive Nation State thing going on too. This is clear.
Actually I have a small Nation State thing going on. It's why I support Sindy etc.
Smaller is better. Closer to the people.
Ha. Very good. But you know what I mean, I think. You're quite nationalistic.
It depends upon how you define nationalism.
I think citizens of a nation should vote for that nations laws absolutely. But that's democracy not nationalism.
I also believe people should be able (within reason) to choose which nation they want to be their nation.
I despise things like birtherism. I like relatively open borders globally. Let people who want to come and become citizens of this nation.
Spot on. My personal view - which seems to be unpopular with both sides of the Brexit debate and is certainly a minority view - is that we should not be restricting those who want to come to this country if their intent is to become a citizen. I would not even say they need to adopt all of our traditions and customs and certainly not our religions even though I have a deep love for our customs and traditions (if not for religion in any form). There is room enough for different customs and traditions living side by side.
They would however have to adopt some of the fundamental principles and ethical positions that underlie our democracy. Belief in democracy, adherence to the law which can only be changed by the traditional means of the democratic process, acceptance of equality of gender, race, sexuality and any other equalities passed by our Parliament. Our judicial and Governmental principles (although the practices are open to debate and reform). Also absolute acceptance of freedom of speech and association and the laws and customs that underpin all these things.
This is just a list off the top of my head and I am sure there would be others. But if people are willing to accept these things and wish to become British/English/Scottish etc then I would be welcoming them.
For concrete examples I would be encouraging EU nationals to stay and be welcome. I would also welcome any from Hong Kong who wish to come here.
You`re not concerned about overall population size?
Not at the moment no. And it will to some extent be self regulating. Of course at some point in the future it might become an issue but at that point you change policy. Right now in the UK the issue is a demographic timebomb where by we have an aging population and a falling birthrate. Nice if you are independently wealthy but for anyone else it means more likelihood of being poor in old age when the state can no longer afford to look after you.
Yes I get you. And the vast majority of humans will agree. GDP is all. But what about the planet and its other species and habitats?
I would love to see the population stabilise or fall overall in the world. But the only way to make that happen short of something nasty is to increase the wealth of the developing world. It is only at that point that populations stabilise.
The UK is not contributing to the increase in population. This is a function of a developed society and is the same across much of the first world. Stopping people coming here will not save the environment overall. Only making people rich enough and secure enough that they no longer need to have large families will do that.
The book "factfulness" is excellent on this. World population starts to stabilise quite quickly over the next few decades just through economics. Births are already levelling off.
Those r rates in the South and East are severe. Wholly overshadowing the national rate. Hopefully schools closing won't encourage folk to cram into shopping centres. Not at all optimistic.
R is rising everywhere -
Yes. I appreciate that. Was merely drawing attention to the SE in particular being rampant right now.
At a guess it looks like the new Covid variant spreading from Kent into East London, and then starting to infiltrate the Home Counties: the number for the East looks especially worrying, but it's all the more so when you consider that the cases are disproportionately concentrated in only parts of the region. Norfolk and Suffolk don't look nearly so bad.
I'm afraid that it's eventually going to spread everywhere and cause pandemonium, but frankly who knows?
Still to be proven that it is the new variant rather than just a deadly mixture of complacency and Christmas shopping.
I'm not an LD, I'm a liberal. That's why I'm in the Conservative Party.
The thing is, a lot of people seem happy to describe themselves as "liberal" and all seem to have different interpretations of what the term "liberal" actually means.
I've encountered liberals in the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in my time and I suppose the real schism in 20th century politics was within liberalism. The emergence of social democracy in the 1930s and notions of the Welfare State, begun under Asquith and continued by Beveridge, have defined or re-defined liberalism and moved it away from the Gladstonian notion or, as it is sometimes termed, "classical liberalism".
Despite that, the superficial synergies between liberalism and social democracy masked some strong philosophical divergences . In the same way, Cameron's notion of "liberal conservatism", for all it appeared similar to Orange Book Liberalism, wasn't and the divergence after 2010 was rapid.
Looking at it now from the outside, it's not something over which to lose sleep. How political thought responds to growing environmental concerns, notions of AI and the place of the individual, not so much via-a-vis the State but in terms of the notion of individuality in the Information Age is the kind of areas of debate for liberals, conservatives and socialists alike.
Yes to that. But you can`t get away from ideological underpinnings completely: that the unit of importance for liberalism is the individual/liberty, for collectivists it is groups/communities and for conservatives it is family unit/nation.
Given that the LibDems are supposed to be representing the former, it is regrettable that people like PT (and Truss for that matter) are not LibDems.
You've hit the nail on the head about individualism v collectivism v family/nationalism.
I believe firmly in individualism/liberty first and foremost. Can you say the same about LDs? Clegg, Davey, Alexander maybe which is why they worked well in the Coalition.
But not the Cable, Farron, Swinson wing who are more collectivists.
You have a massive Nation State thing going on too. This is clear.
Actually I have a small Nation State thing going on. It's why I support Sindy etc.
Smaller is better. Closer to the people.
Ha. Very good. But you know what I mean, I think. You're quite nationalistic.
It depends upon how you define nationalism.
I think citizens of a nation should vote for that nations laws absolutely. But that's democracy not nationalism.
I also believe people should be able (within reason) to choose which nation they want to be their nation.
I despise things like birtherism. I like relatively open borders globally. Let people who want to come and become citizens of this nation.
Spot on. My personal view - which seems to be unpopular with both sides of the Brexit debate and is certainly a minority view - is that we should not be restricting those who want to come to this country if their intent is to become a citizen. I would not even say they need to adopt all of our traditions and customs and certainly not our religions even though I have a deep love for our customs and traditions (if not for religion in any form). There is room enough for different customs and traditions living side by side.
They would however have to adopt some of the fundamental principles and ethical positions that underlie our democracy. Belief in democracy, adherence to the law which can only be changed by the traditional means of the democratic process, acceptance of equality of gender, race, sexuality and any other equalities passed by our Parliament. Our judicial and Governmental principles (although the practices are open to debate and reform). Also absolute acceptance of freedom of speech and association and the laws and customs that underpin all these things.
This is just a list off the top of my head and I am sure there would be others. But if people are willing to accept these things and wish to become British/English/Scottish etc then I would be welcoming them.
For concrete examples I would be encouraging EU nationals to stay and be welcome. I would also welcome any from Hong Kong who wish to come here.
You`re not concerned about overall population size?
Not at the moment no. And it will to some extent be self regulating. Of course at some point in the future it might become an issue but at that point you change policy. Right now in the UK the issue is a demographic timebomb where by we have an aging population and a falling birthrate. Nice if you are independently wealthy but for anyone else it means more likelihood of being poor in old age when the state can no longer afford to look after you.
Yes I get you. And the vast majority of humans will agree. GDP is all. But what about the planet and its other species and habitats?
I would love to see the population stabilise or fall overall in the world. But the only way to make that happen short of something nasty is to increase the wealth of the developing world. It is only at that point that populations stabilise.
The UK is not contributing to the increase in population. This is a function of a developed society and is the same across much of the first world. Stopping people coming here will not save the environment overall. Only making people rich enough and secure enough that they no longer need to have large families will do that.
But they use more resources.
I`ve come to agree with Monbiot`s comment, made over ten years ago, that the only way is some form of global governance run on non-democratic grounds and led by scientists, philosophers and naturalists charged with the job of reducing homo sapiens population worldwide and protecting remaining habitats. Again, I realise that I`m in a tiny minority on this. Which is why the planet is doomed for so many non-human species (and eventually humans too).
Ah yes - the philosopher-kings of Plato again.
Note that Monbiot forgets to mention he will be in the ruling caste.
"Both vaccines are supposed to be administered in two doses, a prime and a booster, 21 days apart for Pfizer and 28 days for Moderna. However, in data provided to the F.D.A., there are clues for a tantalizing possibility: that even a single dose may provide significant levels of protection against the disease.
If that’s shown to be the case, this would be a game changer, allowing us to vaccinate up to twice the number of people and greatly alleviating the suffering not just in the United States, but also in countries where vaccine shortages may take years to resolve."
FYI, Sean Thomas's father has now also had the vaccine.
I called my parents today for a chat and they were keen to get off the phone because they wanted it free for the vax call from the surgery. That's how keen they are to get it.
They do usually want to talk to me, honest.
Have you told them that the best place to reach you is on pb?
I'm not an LD, I'm a liberal. That's why I'm in the Conservative Party.
The thing is, a lot of people seem happy to describe themselves as "liberal" and all seem to have different interpretations of what the term "liberal" actually means.
I've encountered liberals in the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in my time and I suppose the real schism in 20th century politics was within liberalism. The emergence of social democracy in the 1930s and notions of the Welfare State, begun under Asquith and continued by Beveridge, have defined or re-defined liberalism and moved it away from the Gladstonian notion or, as it is sometimes termed, "classical liberalism".
Despite that, the superficial synergies between liberalism and social democracy masked some strong philosophical divergences . In the same way, Cameron's notion of "liberal conservatism", for all it appeared similar to Orange Book Liberalism, wasn't and the divergence after 2010 was rapid.
Looking at it now from the outside, it's not something over which to lose sleep. How political thought responds to growing environmental concerns, notions of AI and the place of the individual, not so much via-a-vis the State but in terms of the notion of individuality in the Information Age is the kind of areas of debate for liberals, conservatives and socialists alike.
Yes to that. But you can`t get away from ideological underpinnings completely: that the unit of importance for liberalism is the individual/liberty, for collectivists it is groups/communities and for conservatives it is family unit/nation.
Given that the LibDems are supposed to be representing the former, it is regrettable that people like PT (and Truss for that matter) are not LibDems.
You've hit the nail on the head about individualism v collectivism v family/nationalism.
I believe firmly in individualism/liberty first and foremost. Can you say the same about LDs? Clegg, Davey, Alexander maybe which is why they worked well in the Coalition.
But not the Cable, Farron, Swinson wing who are more collectivists.
You have a massive Nation State thing going on too. This is clear.
Actually I have a small Nation State thing going on. It's why I support Sindy etc.
Smaller is better. Closer to the people.
Ha. Very good. But you know what I mean, I think. You're quite nationalistic.
It depends upon how you define nationalism.
I think citizens of a nation should vote for that nations laws absolutely. But that's democracy not nationalism.
I also believe people should be able (within reason) to choose which nation they want to be their nation.
I despise things like birtherism. I like relatively open borders globally. Let people who want to come and become citizens of this nation.
Spot on. My personal view - which seems to be unpopular with both sides of the Brexit debate and is certainly a minority view - is that we should not be restricting those who want to come to this country if their intent is to become a citizen. I would not even say they need to adopt all of our traditions and customs and certainly not our religions even though I have a deep love for our customs and traditions (if not for religion in any form). There is room enough for different customs and traditions living side by side.
They would however have to adopt some of the fundamental principles and ethical positions that underlie our democracy. Belief in democracy, adherence to the law which can only be changed by the traditional means of the democratic process, acceptance of equality of gender, race, sexuality and any other equalities passed by our Parliament. Our judicial and Governmental principles (although the practices are open to debate and reform). Also absolute acceptance of freedom of speech and association and the laws and customs that underpin all these things.
This is just a list off the top of my head and I am sure there would be others. But if people are willing to accept these things and wish to become British/English/Scottish etc then I would be welcoming them.
For concrete examples I would be encouraging EU nationals to stay and be welcome. I would also welcome any from Hong Kong who wish to come here.
You`re not concerned about overall population size?
Not at the moment no. And it will to some extent be self regulating. Of course at some point in the future it might become an issue but at that point you change policy. Right now in the UK the issue is a demographic timebomb where by we have an aging population and a falling birthrate. Nice if you are independently wealthy but for anyone else it means more likelihood of being poor in old age when the state can no longer afford to look after you.
Yes I get you. And the vast majority of humans will agree. GDP is all. But what about the planet and its other species and habitats?
I would love to see the population stabilise or fall overall in the world. But the only way to make that happen short of something nasty is to increase the wealth of the developing world. It is only at that point that populations stabilise.
The UK is not contributing to the increase in population. This is a function of a developed society and is the same across much of the first world. Stopping people coming here will not save the environment overall. Only making people rich enough and secure enough that they no longer need to have large families will do that.
But they use more resources.
I`ve come to agree with Monbiot`s comment, made over ten years ago, that the only way is some form of global governance run on non-democratic grounds and led by scientists, philosophers and naturalists charged with the job of reducing homo sapiens population worldwide and protecting remaining habitats. Again, I realise that I`m in a tiny minority on this. Which is why the planet is doomed for so many non-human species (and eventually humans too).
Ah yes - the philosopher-kings of Plato again.
Note that Monbiot forgets to mention he will be in the ruling caste.
I'm not an LD, I'm a liberal. That's why I'm in the Conservative Party.
The thing is, a lot of people seem happy to describe themselves as "liberal" and all seem to have different interpretations of what the term "liberal" actually means.
I've encountered liberals in the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in my time and I suppose the real schism in 20th century politics was within liberalism. The emergence of social democracy in the 1930s and notions of the Welfare State, begun under Asquith and continued by Beveridge, have defined or re-defined liberalism and moved it away from the Gladstonian notion or, as it is sometimes termed, "classical liberalism".
Despite that, the superficial synergies between liberalism and social democracy masked some strong philosophical divergences . In the same way, Cameron's notion of "liberal conservatism", for all it appeared similar to Orange Book Liberalism, wasn't and the divergence after 2010 was rapid.
Looking at it now from the outside, it's not something over which to lose sleep. How political thought responds to growing environmental concerns, notions of AI and the place of the individual, not so much via-a-vis the State but in terms of the notion of individuality in the Information Age is the kind of areas of debate for liberals, conservatives and socialists alike.
Yes to that. But you can`t get away from ideological underpinnings completely: that the unit of importance for liberalism is the individual/liberty, for collectivists it is groups/communities and for conservatives it is family unit/nation.
Given that the LibDems are supposed to be representing the former, it is regrettable that people like PT (and Truss for that matter) are not LibDems.
You've hit the nail on the head about individualism v collectivism v family/nationalism.
I believe firmly in individualism/liberty first and foremost. Can you say the same about LDs? Clegg, Davey, Alexander maybe which is why they worked well in the Coalition.
But not the Cable, Farron, Swinson wing who are more collectivists.
You have a massive Nation State thing going on too. This is clear.
Actually I have a small Nation State thing going on. It's why I support Sindy etc.
Smaller is better. Closer to the people.
Ha. Very good. But you know what I mean, I think. You're quite nationalistic.
It depends upon how you define nationalism.
I think citizens of a nation should vote for that nations laws absolutely. But that's democracy not nationalism.
I also believe people should be able (within reason) to choose which nation they want to be their nation.
I despise things like birtherism. I like relatively open borders globally. Let people who want to come and become citizens of this nation.
Spot on. My personal view - which seems to be unpopular with both sides of the Brexit debate and is certainly a minority view - is that we should not be restricting those who want to come to this country if their intent is to become a citizen. I would not even say they need to adopt all of our traditions and customs and certainly not our religions even though I have a deep love for our customs and traditions (if not for religion in any form). There is room enough for different customs and traditions living side by side.
They would however have to adopt some of the fundamental principles and ethical positions that underlie our democracy. Belief in democracy, adherence to the law which can only be changed by the traditional means of the democratic process, acceptance of equality of gender, race, sexuality and any other equalities passed by our Parliament. Our judicial and Governmental principles (although the practices are open to debate and reform). Also absolute acceptance of freedom of speech and association and the laws and customs that underpin all these things.
This is just a list off the top of my head and I am sure there would be others. But if people are willing to accept these things and wish to become British/English/Scottish etc then I would be welcoming them.
For concrete examples I would be encouraging EU nationals to stay and be welcome. I would also welcome any from Hong Kong who wish to come here.
You`re not concerned about overall population size?
Not at the moment no. And it will to some extent be self regulating. Of course at some point in the future it might become an issue but at that point you change policy. Right now in the UK the issue is a demographic timebomb where by we have an aging population and a falling birthrate. Nice if you are independently wealthy but for anyone else it means more likelihood of being poor in old age when the state can no longer afford to look after you.
I feel the same. Alan Johnson got into trouble with his "not losing sleep over 70m" but neither do I. And I wouldn't even if I was Home Secretary like he was when he said it.
Surprisingly bad numbers for Brexit. To go from those kind of numbers towards a No-Deal over fish would appear like some form of political hara-kiri, so I can't believe he would do it.
On the other hand, the Great Conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn on Monday hasn't been seen since 1623, so who can say.
She's getting good headlines as far as the Tory faithful are concerned lately, and seems to be flavour of the week, but there's a longer term picture. Overall, she has a mediocre performance as a minister, and her conference speeches are noted only for how poor they are. She's okay at staying out of trouble, but there isn't a "Truss faction" in the Parliamentary party, and she isn't charismatic.
Frankly, she'd need a lot to go right from here to take the crown, and I just don't see it.
Jeez. I`m getting fed up of this. You`re nor comparing apples with apples. The tip was 100/1 for next PM. She has been chopped down by most bookies, but you can still get 100/1 for Next PM. I`ve just had a tenner on with Victor Chandler (they reduced me from £20 the cowards).
Truss is 33/1 for Next Conservative leader. Different market.
That £20 at 100s can be laid off right now on Betfair at 50s.
That's a real 'smug city' opportunity (unless you think 50 is still too long).
Yes, there is a big arb available. Back at 100/1 with VC and lay at 1/49 with BF.
Trouble is, as the arb is across two different bookies I`d have to tie up a heck of a lot of money until 2024 to lay it off.
That's true. You'd need to have a Betfair lay portfolio going, or be planning one.
What`s a Betfair lay portfolio?
That's where you've got several candidates laid. Then if you lay a new one - Truss say - unless it's to lose more than your existing net exposure it will not tie up any new money. It's free in that respect. In fact it will likely REDUCE your exposure (by the amount of the new bet) and UP your cash balance. It's a great thing to get going on long term markets where there are lots of runners and riders.
Oh, I see - you mean lays in the same market, yes?
I'm not an LD, I'm a liberal. That's why I'm in the Conservative Party.
The thing is, a lot of people seem happy to describe themselves as "liberal" and all seem to have different interpretations of what the term "liberal" actually means.
I've encountered liberals in the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in my time and I suppose the real schism in 20th century politics was within liberalism. The emergence of social democracy in the 1930s and notions of the Welfare State, begun under Asquith and continued by Beveridge, have defined or re-defined liberalism and moved it away from the Gladstonian notion or, as it is sometimes termed, "classical liberalism".
Despite that, the superficial synergies between liberalism and social democracy masked some strong philosophical divergences . In the same way, Cameron's notion of "liberal conservatism", for all it appeared similar to Orange Book Liberalism, wasn't and the divergence after 2010 was rapid.
Looking at it now from the outside, it's not something over which to lose sleep. How political thought responds to growing environmental concerns, notions of AI and the place of the individual, not so much via-a-vis the State but in terms of the notion of individuality in the Information Age is the kind of areas of debate for liberals, conservatives and socialists alike.
Yes to that. But you can`t get away from ideological underpinnings completely: that the unit of importance for liberalism is the individual/liberty, for collectivists it is groups/communities and for conservatives it is family unit/nation.
Given that the LibDems are supposed to be representing the former, it is regrettable that people like PT (and Truss for that matter) are not LibDems.
You've hit the nail on the head about individualism v collectivism v family/nationalism.
I believe firmly in individualism/liberty first and foremost. Can you say the same about LDs? Clegg, Davey, Alexander maybe which is why they worked well in the Coalition.
But not the Cable, Farron, Swinson wing who are more collectivists.
You have a massive Nation State thing going on too. This is clear.
Actually I have a small Nation State thing going on. It's why I support Sindy etc.
Smaller is better. Closer to the people.
Ha. Very good. But you know what I mean, I think. You're quite nationalistic.
It depends upon how you define nationalism.
I think citizens of a nation should vote for that nations laws absolutely. But that's democracy not nationalism.
I also believe people should be able (within reason) to choose which nation they want to be their nation.
I despise things like birtherism. I like relatively open borders globally. Let people who want to come and become citizens of this nation.
Spot on. My personal view - which seems to be unpopular with both sides of the Brexit debate and is certainly a minority view - is that we should not be restricting those who want to come to this country if their intent is to become a citizen. I would not even say they need to adopt all of our traditions and customs and certainly not our religions even though I have a deep love for our customs and traditions (if not for religion in any form). There is room enough for different customs and traditions living side by side.
They would however have to adopt some of the fundamental principles and ethical positions that underlie our democracy. Belief in democracy, adherence to the law which can only be changed by the traditional means of the democratic process, acceptance of equality of gender, race, sexuality and any other equalities passed by our Parliament. Our judicial and Governmental principles (although the practices are open to debate and reform). Also absolute acceptance of freedom of speech and association and the laws and customs that underpin all these things.
This is just a list off the top of my head and I am sure there would be others. But if people are willing to accept these things and wish to become British/English/Scottish etc then I would be welcoming them.
For concrete examples I would be encouraging EU nationals to stay and be welcome. I would also welcome any from Hong Kong who wish to come here.
You`re not concerned about overall population size?
Not at the moment no. And it will to some extent be self regulating. Of course at some point in the future it might become an issue but at that point you change policy. Right now in the UK the issue is a demographic timebomb where by we have an aging population and a falling birthrate. Nice if you are independently wealthy but for anyone else it means more likelihood of being poor in old age when the state can no longer afford to look after you.
Yes I get you. And the vast majority of humans will agree. GDP is all. But what about the planet and its other species and habitats?
I would love to see the population stabilise or fall overall in the world. But the only way to make that happen short of something nasty is to increase the wealth of the developing world. It is only at that point that populations stabilise.
The UK is not contributing to the increase in population. This is a function of a developed society and is the same across much of the first world. Stopping people coming here will not save the environment overall. Only making people rich enough and secure enough that they no longer need to have large families will do that.
But they use more resources.
I`ve come to agree with Monbiot`s comment, made over ten years ago, that the only way is some form of global governance run on non-democratic lines and led by scientists, philosophers and naturalists charged with the job of reducing homo sapiens population worldwide and protecting remaining habitats. Again, I realise that I`m in a tiny minority on this. Which is why the planet is doomed for so many non-human species (and eventually humans too).
That's rather pessimistic. On current trends, medium projections are for the global population to hit a peak of about 11-12 billion at around the end of the century before starting to fall again. This is primarily due to the rapidly falling birth rates as countries develop and women gain working and reproductive rights. So long as this process continues (foreign aid helps here), we can reasonably expect not to completely overrun the planet before the pressure starts to ease.
I'm not an LD, I'm a liberal. That's why I'm in the Conservative Party.
The thing is, a lot of people seem happy to describe themselves as "liberal" and all seem to have different interpretations of what the term "liberal" actually means.
I've encountered liberals in the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in my time and I suppose the real schism in 20th century politics was within liberalism. The emergence of social democracy in the 1930s and notions of the Welfare State, begun under Asquith and continued by Beveridge, have defined or re-defined liberalism and moved it away from the Gladstonian notion or, as it is sometimes termed, "classical liberalism".
Despite that, the superficial synergies between liberalism and social democracy masked some strong philosophical divergences . In the same way, Cameron's notion of "liberal conservatism", for all it appeared similar to Orange Book Liberalism, wasn't and the divergence after 2010 was rapid.
Looking at it now from the outside, it's not something over which to lose sleep. How political thought responds to growing environmental concerns, notions of AI and the place of the individual, not so much via-a-vis the State but in terms of the notion of individuality in the Information Age is the kind of areas of debate for liberals, conservatives and socialists alike.
Yes to that. But you can`t get away from ideological underpinnings completely: that the unit of importance for liberalism is the individual/liberty, for collectivists it is groups/communities and for conservatives it is family unit/nation.
Given that the LibDems are supposed to be representing the former, it is regrettable that people like PT (and Truss for that matter) are not LibDems.
You've hit the nail on the head about individualism v collectivism v family/nationalism.
I believe firmly in individualism/liberty first and foremost. Can you say the same about LDs? Clegg, Davey, Alexander maybe which is why they worked well in the Coalition.
But not the Cable, Farron, Swinson wing who are more collectivists.
You have a massive Nation State thing going on too. This is clear.
Actually I have a small Nation State thing going on. It's why I support Sindy etc.
Smaller is better. Closer to the people.
Ha. Very good. But you know what I mean, I think. You're quite nationalistic.
It depends upon how you define nationalism.
I think citizens of a nation should vote for that nations laws absolutely. But that's democracy not nationalism.
I also believe people should be able (within reason) to choose which nation they want to be their nation.
I despise things like birtherism. I like relatively open borders globally. Let people who want to come and become citizens of this nation.
Spot on. My personal view - which seems to be unpopular with both sides of the Brexit debate and is certainly a minority view - is that we should not be restricting those who want to come to this country if their intent is to become a citizen. I would not even say they need to adopt all of our traditions and customs and certainly not our religions even though I have a deep love for our customs and traditions (if not for religion in any form). There is room enough for different customs and traditions living side by side.
They would however have to adopt some of the fundamental principles and ethical positions that underlie our democracy. Belief in democracy, adherence to the law which can only be changed by the traditional means of the democratic process, acceptance of equality of gender, race, sexuality and any other equalities passed by our Parliament. Our judicial and Governmental principles (although the practices are open to debate and reform). Also absolute acceptance of freedom of speech and association and the laws and customs that underpin all these things.
This is just a list off the top of my head and I am sure there would be others. But if people are willing to accept these things and wish to become British/English/Scottish etc then I would be welcoming them.
For concrete examples I would be encouraging EU nationals to stay and be welcome. I would also welcome any from Hong Kong who wish to come here.
You`re not concerned about overall population size?
Not at the moment no. And it will to some extent be self regulating. Of course at some point in the future it might become an issue but at that point you change policy. Right now in the UK the issue is a demographic timebomb where by we have an aging population and a falling birthrate. Nice if you are independently wealthy but for anyone else it means more likelihood of being poor in old age when the state can no longer afford to look after you.
Yes I get you. And the vast majority of humans will agree. GDP is all. But what about the planet and its other species and habitats?
I would love to see the population stabilise or fall overall in the world. But the only way to make that happen short of something nasty is to increase the wealth of the developing world. It is only at that point that populations stabilise.
The UK is not contributing to the increase in population. This is a function of a developed society and is the same across much of the first world. Stopping people coming here will not save the environment overall. Only making people rich enough and secure enough that they no longer need to have large families will do that.
But they use more resources.
I`ve come to agree with Monbiot`s comment, made over ten years ago, that the only way is some form of global governance run on non-democratic lines and led by scientists, philosophers and naturalists charged with the job of reducing homo sapiens population worldwide and protecting remaining habitats. Again, I realise that I`m in a tiny minority on this. Which is why the planet is doomed for so many non-human species (and eventually humans too).
How can any PM justify relaxing the rules in these circumstances, this is absolutely nuts.
If very large numbers of people are going to ignore those rules it will not make any difference. Clearly compliance has already dropped due to rules fatigue. 20% of the population have visited someone inside this week.
My family are now isolating ahead of meeting up with my in laws next where we will stay for a couple of days.
I don't need the government to tell me to take precautions to limit the risks, but I'm not sure that for those that do the message from the government makes much of a difference
I'm not an LD, I'm a liberal. That's why I'm in the Conservative Party.
The thing is, a lot of people seem happy to describe themselves as "liberal" and all seem to have different interpretations of what the term "liberal" actually means.
I've encountered liberals in the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in my time and I suppose the real schism in 20th century politics was within liberalism. The emergence of social democracy in the 1930s and notions of the Welfare State, begun under Asquith and continued by Beveridge, have defined or re-defined liberalism and moved it away from the Gladstonian notion or, as it is sometimes termed, "classical liberalism".
Despite that, the superficial synergies between liberalism and social democracy masked some strong philosophical divergences . In the same way, Cameron's notion of "liberal conservatism", for all it appeared similar to Orange Book Liberalism, wasn't and the divergence after 2010 was rapid.
Looking at it now from the outside, it's not something over which to lose sleep. How political thought responds to growing environmental concerns, notions of AI and the place of the individual, not so much via-a-vis the State but in terms of the notion of individuality in the Information Age is the kind of areas of debate for liberals, conservatives and socialists alike.
Yes to that. But you can`t get away from ideological underpinnings completely: that the unit of importance for liberalism is the individual/liberty, for collectivists it is groups/communities and for conservatives it is family unit/nation.
Given that the LibDems are supposed to be representing the former, it is regrettable that people like PT (and Truss for that matter) are not LibDems.
You've hit the nail on the head about individualism v collectivism v family/nationalism.
I believe firmly in individualism/liberty first and foremost. Can you say the same about LDs? Clegg, Davey, Alexander maybe which is why they worked well in the Coalition.
But not the Cable, Farron, Swinson wing who are more collectivists.
You have a massive Nation State thing going on too. This is clear.
Actually I have a small Nation State thing going on. It's why I support Sindy etc.
Smaller is better. Closer to the people.
Ha. Very good. But you know what I mean, I think. You're quite nationalistic.
It depends upon how you define nationalism.
I think citizens of a nation should vote for that nations laws absolutely. But that's democracy not nationalism.
I also believe people should be able (within reason) to choose which nation they want to be their nation.
I despise things like birtherism. I like relatively open borders globally. Let people who want to come and become citizens of this nation.
Spot on. My personal view - which seems to be unpopular with both sides of the Brexit debate and is certainly a minority view - is that we should not be restricting those who want to come to this country if their intent is to become a citizen. I would not even say they need to adopt all of our traditions and customs and certainly not our religions even though I have a deep love for our customs and traditions (if not for religion in any form). There is room enough for different customs and traditions living side by side.
They would however have to adopt some of the fundamental principles and ethical positions that underlie our democracy. Belief in democracy, adherence to the law which can only be changed by the traditional means of the democratic process, acceptance of equality of gender, race, sexuality and any other equalities passed by our Parliament. Our judicial and Governmental principles (although the practices are open to debate and reform). Also absolute acceptance of freedom of speech and association and the laws and customs that underpin all these things.
This is just a list off the top of my head and I am sure there would be others. But if people are willing to accept these things and wish to become British/English/Scottish etc then I would be welcoming them.
For concrete examples I would be encouraging EU nationals to stay and be welcome. I would also welcome any from Hong Kong who wish to come here.
You`re not concerned about overall population size?
Not at the moment no. And it will to some extent be self regulating. Of course at some point in the future it might become an issue but at that point you change policy. Right now in the UK the issue is a demographic timebomb where by we have an aging population and a falling birthrate. Nice if you are independently wealthy but for anyone else it means more likelihood of being poor in old age when the state can no longer afford to look after you.
Look at Italy and Japan if you want to see what too many old people and not enough young ones does to an economy.
I suggested to my wife that we might be able to help with the issue, but she said that while she quite likes children, and is OK with chilbirth, the whole conception thing is a bit of a turn off for her.
On thread, it's remarkable how far that embarrassment has travelled politically on the back of so little talent. Johnson has stuck with him on account of his fealty, but the 73% of the electors of South Staffordshire who last year voted for a donkey wearing a blue rosette have far less of an excuse.
Labour plans to support any deal on the basis of standards alignment, where they will use it to push up standards I assume in the hope the EU follows (?) and then future Governments cannot reduce them further.
Kind of an interesting play I guess but frankly "Labour votes for Brexit (deal)" is worth a few points on its own.
I'm not an LD, I'm a liberal. That's why I'm in the Conservative Party.
The thing is, a lot of people seem happy to describe themselves as "liberal" and all seem to have different interpretations of what the term "liberal" actually means.
I've encountered liberals in the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in my time and I suppose the real schism in 20th century politics was within liberalism. The emergence of social democracy in the 1930s and notions of the Welfare State, begun under Asquith and continued by Beveridge, have defined or re-defined liberalism and moved it away from the Gladstonian notion or, as it is sometimes termed, "classical liberalism".
Despite that, the superficial synergies between liberalism and social democracy masked some strong philosophical divergences . In the same way, Cameron's notion of "liberal conservatism", for all it appeared similar to Orange Book Liberalism, wasn't and the divergence after 2010 was rapid.
Looking at it now from the outside, it's not something over which to lose sleep. How political thought responds to growing environmental concerns, notions of AI and the place of the individual, not so much via-a-vis the State but in terms of the notion of individuality in the Information Age is the kind of areas of debate for liberals, conservatives and socialists alike.
Yes to that. But you can`t get away from ideological underpinnings completely: that the unit of importance for liberalism is the individual/liberty, for collectivists it is groups/communities and for conservatives it is family unit/nation.
Given that the LibDems are supposed to be representing the former, it is regrettable that people like PT (and Truss for that matter) are not LibDems.
You've hit the nail on the head about individualism v collectivism v family/nationalism.
I believe firmly in individualism/liberty first and foremost. Can you say the same about LDs? Clegg, Davey, Alexander maybe which is why they worked well in the Coalition.
But not the Cable, Farron, Swinson wing who are more collectivists.
You have a massive Nation State thing going on too. This is clear.
Actually I have a small Nation State thing going on. It's why I support Sindy etc.
Smaller is better. Closer to the people.
Ha. Very good. But you know what I mean, I think. You're quite nationalistic.
It depends upon how you define nationalism.
I think citizens of a nation should vote for that nations laws absolutely. But that's democracy not nationalism.
I also believe people should be able (within reason) to choose which nation they want to be their nation.
I despise things like birtherism. I like relatively open borders globally. Let people who want to come and become citizens of this nation.
Spot on. My personal view - which seems to be unpopular with both sides of the Brexit debate and is certainly a minority view - is that we should not be restricting those who want to come to this country if their intent is to become a citizen. I would not even say they need to adopt all of our traditions and customs and certainly not our religions even though I have a deep love for our customs and traditions (if not for religion in any form). There is room enough for different customs and traditions living side by side.
They would however have to adopt some of the fundamental principles and ethical positions that underlie our democracy. Belief in democracy, adherence to the law which can only be changed by the traditional means of the democratic process, acceptance of equality of gender, race, sexuality and any other equalities passed by our Parliament. Our judicial and Governmental principles (although the practices are open to debate and reform). Also absolute acceptance of freedom of speech and association and the laws and customs that underpin all these things.
This is just a list off the top of my head and I am sure there would be others. But if people are willing to accept these things and wish to become British/English/Scottish etc then I would be welcoming them.
For concrete examples I would be encouraging EU nationals to stay and be welcome. I would also welcome any from Hong Kong who wish to come here.
You`re not concerned about overall population size?
One thing that is interesting in the immigration debate is the refusal of a number of people to engage with the idea of what population size is optimal for the country.
Yet, the same people argue for planning (for decades in advance) for schools, hospitals, roads, railways, airports, house building, reservoir, electricity generation etc etc.
All of which depend on the size of the population.
I personally prefer the frankness of one Deep Green of my acquaintance - she was quite clear that she expected the population to be ever increasing, with a steady reduction in allowed housing space per person.
Your acquaintance laments this trend, presumably?
Personally, I believe that the government should have population target which is lower than now for environmental reasons, with incentives to reduce birth rate and a ban on building on green field sites. I realise that we deep ecologists are in a small minority on this. Most of us have given up, as it sounds like your acquaintance has.
The problem with that is that - unless you're a fan of euthanasia - then you end up with an increasingly small number of people of working age supporting a lot of old people.
I want to put this in context for a second. When Tony Blair became Prime Minister, pensions and health care accounted for less than a quarter of UK government expenditure. They now account for 40%.
Our ageing population - and the triple lock - means that 40% of the UK government budget is going to grow much faster than the overall economy.
Austerity is the crowding out of spending on the young, by the old.
For those raving about Liz Truss, I do recommend reading her full speech on equalities. I'll bet few have; only soundbites hit the airwaves.
The speech is shallow, intellectually incoherent, simply wrong in places, and riddled with a fair few contradictions. It is, at best, worth a grade D at A level. Is this the stuff of a future PM? I don't think so. If one were to compare it with, say, some of Macron's speeches where he is grappling with the issues currently facing French society, Truss's remarks reveal her for the lightweight she is.
Edit: so she's probably in with a very good chance of being next Tory leader.
I'm very much on the side of "matter of principle". The LPF stuff is a little bit of a red herring*, because if we want to diverge in future, you know what, we can serve notice that we wish to end the trade agreement. (Just as, if there was no LPF, the EU could in the future choose to end the agreement because they felt we'd diverged to a level where it was no longer in their interests to continue having an FTA with us.)
Re fish, though, if you want to negotiate a price - a financial price - for temporary access, then yes we can talk about it. But the principle that these are British territorial waters needs to be sacrosanct.
* Sorry.
These are different things though.
LPF is agreed with the EU and has no short-term implications.
Fish is a problem because any deal will involve cutting the remaining CFP quota that is divided between the other fishing nations which means they all want their say, and will be arguing amongst themselves. It is harder to make a fish deal other than kicking it into the long grass via an extended transition with a face-saving payment for access on current terms.
I'm curious about the 13% who think he's done a bad job on getting a vaccine. 🤔
Fatigue and impatience.
More generally, with numbers like that it's remarkable that the Tories continue mostly to enjoy narrow leads in VI polls. Down, presumably, to a combination of a divided electorate and a useless Opposition.
I'm not an LD, I'm a liberal. That's why I'm in the Conservative Party.
The thing is, a lot of people seem happy to describe themselves as "liberal" and all seem to have different interpretations of what the term "liberal" actually means.
I've encountered liberals in the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in my time and I suppose the real schism in 20th century politics was within liberalism. The emergence of social democracy in the 1930s and notions of the Welfare State, begun under Asquith and continued by Beveridge, have defined or re-defined liberalism and moved it away from the Gladstonian notion or, as it is sometimes termed, "classical liberalism".
Despite that, the superficial synergies between liberalism and social democracy masked some strong philosophical divergences . In the same way, Cameron's notion of "liberal conservatism", for all it appeared similar to Orange Book Liberalism, wasn't and the divergence after 2010 was rapid.
Looking at it now from the outside, it's not something over which to lose sleep. How political thought responds to growing environmental concerns, notions of AI and the place of the individual, not so much via-a-vis the State but in terms of the notion of individuality in the Information Age is the kind of areas of debate for liberals, conservatives and socialists alike.
Yes to that. But you can`t get away from ideological underpinnings completely: that the unit of importance for liberalism is the individual/liberty, for collectivists it is groups/communities and for conservatives it is family unit/nation.
Given that the LibDems are supposed to be representing the former, it is regrettable that people like PT (and Truss for that matter) are not LibDems.
You've hit the nail on the head about individualism v collectivism v family/nationalism.
I believe firmly in individualism/liberty first and foremost. Can you say the same about LDs? Clegg, Davey, Alexander maybe which is why they worked well in the Coalition.
But not the Cable, Farron, Swinson wing who are more collectivists.
You have a massive Nation State thing going on too. This is clear.
Actually I have a small Nation State thing going on. It's why I support Sindy etc.
Smaller is better. Closer to the people.
Ha. Very good. But you know what I mean, I think. You're quite nationalistic.
It depends upon how you define nationalism.
I think citizens of a nation should vote for that nations laws absolutely. But that's democracy not nationalism.
I also believe people should be able (within reason) to choose which nation they want to be their nation.
I despise things like birtherism. I like relatively open borders globally. Let people who want to come and become citizens of this nation.
Spot on. My personal view - which seems to be unpopular with both sides of the Brexit debate and is certainly a minority view - is that we should not be restricting those who want to come to this country if their intent is to become a citizen. I would not even say they need to adopt all of our traditions and customs and certainly not our religions even though I have a deep love for our customs and traditions (if not for religion in any form). There is room enough for different customs and traditions living side by side.
They would however have to adopt some of the fundamental principles and ethical positions that underlie our democracy. Belief in democracy, adherence to the law which can only be changed by the traditional means of the democratic process, acceptance of equality of gender, race, sexuality and any other equalities passed by our Parliament. Our judicial and Governmental principles (although the practices are open to debate and reform). Also absolute acceptance of freedom of speech and association and the laws and customs that underpin all these things.
This is just a list off the top of my head and I am sure there would be others. But if people are willing to accept these things and wish to become British/English/Scottish etc then I would be welcoming them.
For concrete examples I would be encouraging EU nationals to stay and be welcome. I would also welcome any from Hong Kong who wish to come here.
You`re not concerned about overall population size?
Not at the moment no. And it will to some extent be self regulating. Of course at some point in the future it might become an issue but at that point you change policy. Right now in the UK the issue is a demographic timebomb where by we have an aging population and a falling birthrate. Nice if you are independently wealthy but for anyone else it means more likelihood of being poor in old age when the state can no longer afford to look after you.
Yes I get you. And the vast majority of humans will agree. GDP is all. But what about the planet and its other species and habitats?
I would love to see the population stabilise or fall overall in the world. But the only way to make that happen short of something nasty is to increase the wealth of the developing world. It is only at that point that populations stabilise.
The UK is not contributing to the increase in population. This is a function of a developed society and is the same across much of the first world. Stopping people coming here will not save the environment overall. Only making people rich enough and secure enough that they no longer need to have large families will do that.
But they use more resources.
I`ve come to agree with Monbiot`s comment, made over ten years ago, that the only way is some form of global governance run on non-democratic lines and led by scientists, philosophers and naturalists charged with the job of reducing homo sapiens population worldwide and protecting remaining habitats. Again, I realise that I`m in a tiny minority on this. Which is why the planet is doomed for so many non-human species (and eventually humans too).
That's rather pessimistic. On current trends, medium projections are for the global population to hit a peak of about 11-12 billion at around the end of the century before starting to fall again. This is primarily due to the rapidly falling birth rates as countries develop and women gain working and reproductive rights. So long as this process continues (foreign aid helps here), we can reasonably expect not to completely overrun the planet before the pressure starts to ease.
We`re completely overrunning the planet already! 11-12 billion of us. Using and destroying everything.
How can you not be pessimistic about the appallingness of our strain of the species?
It all went wrong from the agricultural revolution, but I accept that mine is a minority view.
"Both vaccines are supposed to be administered in two doses, a prime and a booster, 21 days apart for Pfizer and 28 days for Moderna. However, in data provided to the F.D.A., there are clues for a tantalizing possibility: that even a single dose may provide significant levels of protection against the disease.
If that’s shown to be the case, this would be a game changer, allowing us to vaccinate up to twice the number of people and greatly alleviating the suffering not just in the United States, but also in countries where vaccine shortages may take years to resolve."
FYI, Sean Thomas's father has now also had the vaccine.
I called my parents today for a chat and they were keen to get off the phone because they wanted it free for the vax call from the surgery. That's how keen they are to get it.
They do usually want to talk to me, honest.
Have you told them that the best place to reach you is on pb?
- Actually that's food for thought. I ought to rein it back on the digital and do more flesh & blood. I will try.
I'm not an LD, I'm a liberal. That's why I'm in the Conservative Party.
The thing is, a lot of people seem happy to describe themselves as "liberal" and all seem to have different interpretations of what the term "liberal" actually means.
I've encountered liberals in the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in my time and I suppose the real schism in 20th century politics was within liberalism. The emergence of social democracy in the 1930s and notions of the Welfare State, begun under Asquith and continued by Beveridge, have defined or re-defined liberalism and moved it away from the Gladstonian notion or, as it is sometimes termed, "classical liberalism".
Despite that, the superficial synergies between liberalism and social democracy masked some strong philosophical divergences . In the same way, Cameron's notion of "liberal conservatism", for all it appeared similar to Orange Book Liberalism, wasn't and the divergence after 2010 was rapid.
Looking at it now from the outside, it's not something over which to lose sleep. How political thought responds to growing environmental concerns, notions of AI and the place of the individual, not so much via-a-vis the State but in terms of the notion of individuality in the Information Age is the kind of areas of debate for liberals, conservatives and socialists alike.
Yes to that. But you can`t get away from ideological underpinnings completely: that the unit of importance for liberalism is the individual/liberty, for collectivists it is groups/communities and for conservatives it is family unit/nation.
Given that the LibDems are supposed to be representing the former, it is regrettable that people like PT (and Truss for that matter) are not LibDems.
You've hit the nail on the head about individualism v collectivism v family/nationalism.
I believe firmly in individualism/liberty first and foremost. Can you say the same about LDs? Clegg, Davey, Alexander maybe which is why they worked well in the Coalition.
But not the Cable, Farron, Swinson wing who are more collectivists.
You have a massive Nation State thing going on too. This is clear.
Actually I have a small Nation State thing going on. It's why I support Sindy etc.
Smaller is better. Closer to the people.
Ha. Very good. But you know what I mean, I think. You're quite nationalistic.
It depends upon how you define nationalism.
I think citizens of a nation should vote for that nations laws absolutely. But that's democracy not nationalism.
I also believe people should be able (within reason) to choose which nation they want to be their nation.
I despise things like birtherism. I like relatively open borders globally. Let people who want to come and become citizens of this nation.
Spot on. My personal view - which seems to be unpopular with both sides of the Brexit debate and is certainly a minority view - is that we should not be restricting those who want to come to this country if their intent is to become a citizen. I would not even say they need to adopt all of our traditions and customs and certainly not our religions even though I have a deep love for our customs and traditions (if not for religion in any form). There is room enough for different customs and traditions living side by side.
They would however have to adopt some of the fundamental principles and ethical positions that underlie our democracy. Belief in democracy, adherence to the law which can only be changed by the traditional means of the democratic process, acceptance of equality of gender, race, sexuality and any other equalities passed by our Parliament. Our judicial and Governmental principles (although the practices are open to debate and reform). Also absolute acceptance of freedom of speech and association and the laws and customs that underpin all these things.
This is just a list off the top of my head and I am sure there would be others. But if people are willing to accept these things and wish to become British/English/Scottish etc then I would be welcoming them.
For concrete examples I would be encouraging EU nationals to stay and be welcome. I would also welcome any from Hong Kong who wish to come here.
You`re not concerned about overall population size?
One thing that is interesting in the immigration debate is the refusal of a number of people to engage with the idea of what population size is optimal for the country.
Yet, the same people argue for planning (for decades in advance) for schools, hospitals, roads, railways, airports, house building, reservoir, electricity generation etc etc.
All of which depend on the size of the population.
I personally prefer the frankness of one Deep Green of my acquaintance - she was quite clear that she expected the population to be ever increasing, with a steady reduction in allowed housing space per person.
Your acquaintance laments this trend, presumably?
Personally, I believe that the government should have population target which is lower than now for environmental reasons, with incentives to reduce birth rate and a ban on building on green field sites. I realise that we deep ecologists are in a small minority on this. Most of us have given up, as it sounds like your acquaintance has.
The problem with that is that - unless you're a fan of euthanasia - then you end up with an increasingly small number of people of working age supporting a lot of old people.
I want to put this in context for a second. When Tony Blair became Prime Minister, pensions and health care accounted for less than a quarter of UK government expenditure. They now account for 40%.
Our ageing population - and the triple lock - means that 40% of the UK government budget is going to grow much faster than the overall economy.
Austerity is the crowding out of spending on the young, by the old.
Good post, but I doubt that non-human animal species are too concerned about the economic issues of the species that is responsible for their plight. You need to take off your human lens.
"Both vaccines are supposed to be administered in two doses, a prime and a booster, 21 days apart for Pfizer and 28 days for Moderna. However, in data provided to the F.D.A., there are clues for a tantalizing possibility: that even a single dose may provide significant levels of protection against the disease.
If that’s shown to be the case, this would be a game changer, allowing us to vaccinate up to twice the number of people and greatly alleviating the suffering not just in the United States, but also in countries where vaccine shortages may take years to resolve."
FYI, Sean Thomas's father has now also had the vaccine.
I called my parents today for a chat and they were keen to get off the phone because they wanted it free for the vax call from the surgery. That's how keen they are to get it.
They do usually want to talk to me, honest.
Have you told them that the best place to reach you is on pb?
- Actually that's food for thought. I ought to rein it back on the digital and do more flesh & blood. I will try.
She's getting good headlines as far as the Tory faithful are concerned lately, and seems to be flavour of the week, but there's a longer term picture. Overall, she has a mediocre performance as a minister, and her conference speeches are noted only for how poor they are. She's okay at staying out of trouble, but there isn't a "Truss faction" in the Parliamentary party, and she isn't charismatic.
Frankly, she'd need a lot to go right from here to take the crown, and I just don't see it.
Truss is a poor speaker but she can follow Mrs Thatcher's example and take professional coaching. It is not an insurmountable problem but Truss will need to address this.
Laying Farage for next PM is a more solid bet, IMO. Ties the money up for a while (perhaps), but a decent foundation for a lay portfolio.
He will probably trade a fair bit shorter than 60 at some point. The London Mayor equivalent, Brian Rose @ 7, I think it was quincel who tipped it up earlier, is a much better choice for taking on an outsider. And payout likely much quicker.
That's a good one too. I'd go with both tbh. Farage next PM at 60 I wouldn't see that going much shorter.
Well done to @Casino_Royale for getting ahead of the game with this.
His Hunt tip was also not terrible.
Thanks.
You are most welcome. Plenty of excellent betting steers on here if you concentrate.
On which topic, I do hope some PBers have followed me on the laying like a lion of the Not & Never Happening Events I sometimes identify. The Big 4 recent ones being -
A 2nd EU referendum. A no deal "WTO" Brexit. Jeremy Corbyn PM. A 2nd term for President Donald J Trump.
I'm not an LD, I'm a liberal. That's why I'm in the Conservative Party.
The thing is, a lot of people seem happy to describe themselves as "liberal" and all seem to have different interpretations of what the term "liberal" actually means.
I've encountered liberals in the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in my time and I suppose the real schism in 20th century politics was within liberalism. The emergence of social democracy in the 1930s and notions of the Welfare State, begun under Asquith and continued by Beveridge, have defined or re-defined liberalism and moved it away from the Gladstonian notion or, as it is sometimes termed, "classical liberalism".
Despite that, the superficial synergies between liberalism and social democracy masked some strong philosophical divergences . In the same way, Cameron's notion of "liberal conservatism", for all it appeared similar to Orange Book Liberalism, wasn't and the divergence after 2010 was rapid.
Looking at it now from the outside, it's not something over which to lose sleep. How political thought responds to growing environmental concerns, notions of AI and the place of the individual, not so much via-a-vis the State but in terms of the notion of individuality in the Information Age is the kind of areas of debate for liberals, conservatives and socialists alike.
Yes to that. But you can`t get away from ideological underpinnings completely: that the unit of importance for liberalism is the individual/liberty, for collectivists it is groups/communities and for conservatives it is family unit/nation.
Given that the LibDems are supposed to be representing the former, it is regrettable that people like PT (and Truss for that matter) are not LibDems.
You've hit the nail on the head about individualism v collectivism v family/nationalism.
I believe firmly in individualism/liberty first and foremost. Can you say the same about LDs? Clegg, Davey, Alexander maybe which is why they worked well in the Coalition.
But not the Cable, Farron, Swinson wing who are more collectivists.
You have a massive Nation State thing going on too. This is clear.
Actually I have a small Nation State thing going on. It's why I support Sindy etc.
Smaller is better. Closer to the people.
Ha. Very good. But you know what I mean, I think. You're quite nationalistic.
It depends upon how you define nationalism.
I think citizens of a nation should vote for that nations laws absolutely. But that's democracy not nationalism.
I also believe people should be able (within reason) to choose which nation they want to be their nation.
I despise things like birtherism. I like relatively open borders globally. Let people who want to come and become citizens of this nation.
Spot on. My personal view - which seems to be unpopular with both sides of the Brexit debate and is certainly a minority view - is that we should not be restricting those who want to come to this country if their intent is to become a citizen. I would not even say they need to adopt all of our traditions and customs and certainly not our religions even though I have a deep love for our customs and traditions (if not for religion in any form). There is room enough for different customs and traditions living side by side.
They would however have to adopt some of the fundamental principles and ethical positions that underlie our democracy. Belief in democracy, adherence to the law which can only be changed by the traditional means of the democratic process, acceptance of equality of gender, race, sexuality and any other equalities passed by our Parliament. Our judicial and Governmental principles (although the practices are open to debate and reform). Also absolute acceptance of freedom of speech and association and the laws and customs that underpin all these things.
This is just a list off the top of my head and I am sure there would be others. But if people are willing to accept these things and wish to become British/English/Scottish etc then I would be welcoming them.
For concrete examples I would be encouraging EU nationals to stay and be welcome. I would also welcome any from Hong Kong who wish to come here.
You`re not concerned about overall population size?
One thing that is interesting in the immigration debate is the refusal of a number of people to engage with the idea of what population size is optimal for the country.
Yet, the same people argue for planning (for decades in advance) for schools, hospitals, roads, railways, airports, house building, reservoir, electricity generation etc etc.
All of which depend on the size of the population.
I personally prefer the frankness of one Deep Green of my acquaintance - she was quite clear that she expected the population to be ever increasing, with a steady reduction in allowed housing space per person.
Your acquaintance laments this trend, presumably?
Personally, I believe that the government should have population target which is lower than now for environmental reasons, with incentives to reduce birth rate and a ban on building on green field sites. I realise that we deep ecologists are in a small minority on this. Most of us have given up, as it sounds like your acquaintance has.
The problem with that is that - unless you're a fan of euthanasia - then you end up with an increasingly small number of people of working age supporting a lot of old people.
I want to put this in context for a second. When Tony Blair became Prime Minister, pensions and health care accounted for less than a quarter of UK government expenditure. They now account for 40%.
Our ageing population - and the triple lock - means that 40% of the UK government budget is going to grow much faster than the overall economy.
Austerity is the crowding out of spending on the young, by the old.
Good post, but I doubt that non-human animal species are too concerned about the economic issues of the species that is responsible for their plight. You need to take off your human lens.
I'll take off my "human lens" when my wife's dog stops trying to kill me.
I'm not an LD, I'm a liberal. That's why I'm in the Conservative Party.
The thing is, a lot of people seem happy to describe themselves as "liberal" and all seem to have different interpretations of what the term "liberal" actually means.
I've encountered liberals in the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in my time and I suppose the real schism in 20th century politics was within liberalism. The emergence of social democracy in the 1930s and notions of the Welfare State, begun under Asquith and continued by Beveridge, have defined or re-defined liberalism and moved it away from the Gladstonian notion or, as it is sometimes termed, "classical liberalism".
Despite that, the superficial synergies between liberalism and social democracy masked some strong philosophical divergences . In the same way, Cameron's notion of "liberal conservatism", for all it appeared similar to Orange Book Liberalism, wasn't and the divergence after 2010 was rapid.
Looking at it now from the outside, it's not something over which to lose sleep. How political thought responds to growing environmental concerns, notions of AI and the place of the individual, not so much via-a-vis the State but in terms of the notion of individuality in the Information Age is the kind of areas of debate for liberals, conservatives and socialists alike.
Yes to that. But you can`t get away from ideological underpinnings completely: that the unit of importance for liberalism is the individual/liberty, for collectivists it is groups/communities and for conservatives it is family unit/nation.
Given that the LibDems are supposed to be representing the former, it is regrettable that people like PT (and Truss for that matter) are not LibDems.
You've hit the nail on the head about individualism v collectivism v family/nationalism.
I believe firmly in individualism/liberty first and foremost. Can you say the same about LDs? Clegg, Davey, Alexander maybe which is why they worked well in the Coalition.
But not the Cable, Farron, Swinson wing who are more collectivists.
You have a massive Nation State thing going on too. This is clear.
Actually I have a small Nation State thing going on. It's why I support Sindy etc.
Smaller is better. Closer to the people.
Ha. Very good. But you know what I mean, I think. You're quite nationalistic.
It depends upon how you define nationalism.
I think citizens of a nation should vote for that nations laws absolutely. But that's democracy not nationalism.
I also believe people should be able (within reason) to choose which nation they want to be their nation.
I despise things like birtherism. I like relatively open borders globally. Let people who want to come and become citizens of this nation.
Spot on. My personal view - which seems to be unpopular with both sides of the Brexit debate and is certainly a minority view - is that we should not be restricting those who want to come to this country if their intent is to become a citizen. I would not even say they need to adopt all of our traditions and customs and certainly not our religions even though I have a deep love for our customs and traditions (if not for religion in any form). There is room enough for different customs and traditions living side by side.
They would however have to adopt some of the fundamental principles and ethical positions that underlie our democracy. Belief in democracy, adherence to the law which can only be changed by the traditional means of the democratic process, acceptance of equality of gender, race, sexuality and any other equalities passed by our Parliament. Our judicial and Governmental principles (although the practices are open to debate and reform). Also absolute acceptance of freedom of speech and association and the laws and customs that underpin all these things.
This is just a list off the top of my head and I am sure there would be others. But if people are willing to accept these things and wish to become British/English/Scottish etc then I would be welcoming them.
For concrete examples I would be encouraging EU nationals to stay and be welcome. I would also welcome any from Hong Kong who wish to come here.
You`re not concerned about overall population size?
One thing that is interesting in the immigration debate is the refusal of a number of people to engage with the idea of what population size is optimal for the country.
Yet, the same people argue for planning (for decades in advance) for schools, hospitals, roads, railways, airports, house building, reservoir, electricity generation etc etc.
All of which depend on the size of the population.
I personally prefer the frankness of one Deep Green of my acquaintance - she was quite clear that she expected the population to be ever increasing, with a steady reduction in allowed housing space per person.
Your acquaintance laments this trend, presumably?
Personally, I believe that the government should have population target which is lower than now for environmental reasons, with incentives to reduce birth rate and a ban on building on green field sites. I realise that we deep ecologists are in a small minority on this. Most of us have given up, as it sounds like your acquaintance has.
It is unsurprising that people give up. The temptation to keep going with the population Ponzi scheme - import younger workers to prop up the old crocs, rather than expecting them to work longer or live off less - is close to overwhelming, especially as the old crocs become an ever larger and more dominant section of the electorate.
I certainly agree with people working longer. Compared to 50 years ago we not only live longer but are healthier and fitter for longer as well. But that still doesn't compensate for the reduced birthrate. Having a target for population is not something I am opposed to but we have to accept that that target can only be met by the welcome addition of people who were not born in this country. If not then we are in for a pretty rotten old age.
I'm not an LD, I'm a liberal. That's why I'm in the Conservative Party.
The thing is, a lot of people seem happy to describe themselves as "liberal" and all seem to have different interpretations of what the term "liberal" actually means.
I've encountered liberals in the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in my time and I suppose the real schism in 20th century politics was within liberalism. The emergence of social democracy in the 1930s and notions of the Welfare State, begun under Asquith and continued by Beveridge, have defined or re-defined liberalism and moved it away from the Gladstonian notion or, as it is sometimes termed, "classical liberalism".
Despite that, the superficial synergies between liberalism and social democracy masked some strong philosophical divergences . In the same way, Cameron's notion of "liberal conservatism", for all it appeared similar to Orange Book Liberalism, wasn't and the divergence after 2010 was rapid.
Looking at it now from the outside, it's not something over which to lose sleep. How political thought responds to growing environmental concerns, notions of AI and the place of the individual, not so much via-a-vis the State but in terms of the notion of individuality in the Information Age is the kind of areas of debate for liberals, conservatives and socialists alike.
Yes to that. But you can`t get away from ideological underpinnings completely: that the unit of importance for liberalism is the individual/liberty, for collectivists it is groups/communities and for conservatives it is family unit/nation.
Given that the LibDems are supposed to be representing the former, it is regrettable that people like PT (and Truss for that matter) are not LibDems.
You've hit the nail on the head about individualism v collectivism v family/nationalism.
I believe firmly in individualism/liberty first and foremost. Can you say the same about LDs? Clegg, Davey, Alexander maybe which is why they worked well in the Coalition.
But not the Cable, Farron, Swinson wing who are more collectivists.
You have a massive Nation State thing going on too. This is clear.
Actually I have a small Nation State thing going on. It's why I support Sindy etc.
Smaller is better. Closer to the people.
Ha. Very good. But you know what I mean, I think. You're quite nationalistic.
It depends upon how you define nationalism.
I think citizens of a nation should vote for that nations laws absolutely. But that's democracy not nationalism.
I also believe people should be able (within reason) to choose which nation they want to be their nation.
I despise things like birtherism. I like relatively open borders globally. Let people who want to come and become citizens of this nation.
Spot on. My personal view - which seems to be unpopular with both sides of the Brexit debate and is certainly a minority view - is that we should not be restricting those who want to come to this country if their intent is to become a citizen. I would not even say they need to adopt all of our traditions and customs and certainly not our religions even though I have a deep love for our customs and traditions (if not for religion in any form). There is room enough for different customs and traditions living side by side.
They would however have to adopt some of the fundamental principles and ethical positions that underlie our democracy. Belief in democracy, adherence to the law which can only be changed by the traditional means of the democratic process, acceptance of equality of gender, race, sexuality and any other equalities passed by our Parliament. Our judicial and Governmental principles (although the practices are open to debate and reform). Also absolute acceptance of freedom of speech and association and the laws and customs that underpin all these things.
This is just a list off the top of my head and I am sure there would be others. But if people are willing to accept these things and wish to become British/English/Scottish etc then I would be welcoming them.
For concrete examples I would be encouraging EU nationals to stay and be welcome. I would also welcome any from Hong Kong who wish to come here.
You`re not concerned about overall population size?
Not at the moment no. And it will to some extent be self regulating. Of course at some point in the future it might become an issue but at that point you change policy. Right now in the UK the issue is a demographic timebomb where by we have an aging population and a falling birthrate. Nice if you are independently wealthy but for anyone else it means more likelihood of being poor in old age when the state can no longer afford to look after you.
Yes I get you. And the vast majority of humans will agree. GDP is all. But what about the planet and its other species and habitats?
I would love to see the population stabilise or fall overall in the world. But the only way to make that happen short of something nasty is to increase the wealth of the developing world. It is only at that point that populations stabilise.
The UK is not contributing to the increase in population. This is a function of a developed society and is the same across much of the first world. Stopping people coming here will not save the environment overall. Only making people rich enough and secure enough that they no longer need to have large families will do that.
But they use more resources.
I`ve come to agree with Monbiot`s comment, made over ten years ago, that the only way is some form of global governance run on non-democratic lines and led by scientists, philosophers and naturalists charged with the job of reducing homo sapiens population worldwide and protecting remaining habitats. Again, I realise that I`m in a tiny minority on this. Which is why the planet is doomed for so many non-human species (and eventually humans too).
That's rather pessimistic. On current trends, medium projections are for the global population to hit a peak of about 11-12 billion at around the end of the century before starting to fall again. This is primarily due to the rapidly falling birth rates as countries develop and women gain working and reproductive rights. So long as this process continues (foreign aid helps here), we can reasonably expect not to completely overrun the planet before the pressure starts to ease.
We`re completely overrunning the planet already! 11-12 billion of us. Using and destroying everything.
How can you not be pessimistic about the appallingness of our strain of the species?
It all went wrong from the agricultural revolution, but I accept that mine is a minority view.
Laying Farage for next PM is a more solid bet, IMO. Ties the money up for a while (perhaps), but a decent foundation for a lay portfolio.
He will probably trade a fair bit shorter than 60 at some point. The London Mayor equivalent, Brian Rose @ 7, I think it was quincel who tipped it up earlier, is a much better choice for taking on an outsider. And payout likely much quicker.
That's a good one too. I'd go with both tbh. Farage next PM at 60 I wouldn't see that going much shorter.
UKIP hit about 7 for an overall majority if I recall correctly.
I'm not an LD, I'm a liberal. That's why I'm in the Conservative Party.
The thing is, a lot of people seem happy to describe themselves as "liberal" and all seem to have different interpretations of what the term "liberal" actually means.
I've encountered liberals in the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in my time and I suppose the real schism in 20th century politics was within liberalism. The emergence of social democracy in the 1930s and notions of the Welfare State, begun under Asquith and continued by Beveridge, have defined or re-defined liberalism and moved it away from the Gladstonian notion or, as it is sometimes termed, "classical liberalism".
Despite that, the superficial synergies between liberalism and social democracy masked some strong philosophical divergences . In the same way, Cameron's notion of "liberal conservatism", for all it appeared similar to Orange Book Liberalism, wasn't and the divergence after 2010 was rapid.
Looking at it now from the outside, it's not something over which to lose sleep. How political thought responds to growing environmental concerns, notions of AI and the place of the individual, not so much via-a-vis the State but in terms of the notion of individuality in the Information Age is the kind of areas of debate for liberals, conservatives and socialists alike.
Yes to that. But you can`t get away from ideological underpinnings completely: that the unit of importance for liberalism is the individual/liberty, for collectivists it is groups/communities and for conservatives it is family unit/nation.
Given that the LibDems are supposed to be representing the former, it is regrettable that people like PT (and Truss for that matter) are not LibDems.
You've hit the nail on the head about individualism v collectivism v family/nationalism.
I believe firmly in individualism/liberty first and foremost. Can you say the same about LDs? Clegg, Davey, Alexander maybe which is why they worked well in the Coalition.
But not the Cable, Farron, Swinson wing who are more collectivists.
You have a massive Nation State thing going on too. This is clear.
Actually I have a small Nation State thing going on. It's why I support Sindy etc.
Smaller is better. Closer to the people.
Ha. Very good. But you know what I mean, I think. You're quite nationalistic.
It depends upon how you define nationalism.
I think citizens of a nation should vote for that nations laws absolutely. But that's democracy not nationalism.
I also believe people should be able (within reason) to choose which nation they want to be their nation.
I despise things like birtherism. I like relatively open borders globally. Let people who want to come and become citizens of this nation.
Spot on. My personal view - which seems to be unpopular with both sides of the Brexit debate and is certainly a minority view - is that we should not be restricting those who want to come to this country if their intent is to become a citizen. I would not even say they need to adopt all of our traditions and customs and certainly not our religions even though I have a deep love for our customs and traditions (if not for religion in any form). There is room enough for different customs and traditions living side by side.
They would however have to adopt some of the fundamental principles and ethical positions that underlie our democracy. Belief in democracy, adherence to the law which can only be changed by the traditional means of the democratic process, acceptance of equality of gender, race, sexuality and any other equalities passed by our Parliament. Our judicial and Governmental principles (although the practices are open to debate and reform). Also absolute acceptance of freedom of speech and association and the laws and customs that underpin all these things.
This is just a list off the top of my head and I am sure there would be others. But if people are willing to accept these things and wish to become British/English/Scottish etc then I would be welcoming them.
For concrete examples I would be encouraging EU nationals to stay and be welcome. I would also welcome any from Hong Kong who wish to come here.
You`re not concerned about overall population size?
One thing that is interesting in the immigration debate is the refusal of a number of people to engage with the idea of what population size is optimal for the country.
Yet, the same people argue for planning (for decades in advance) for schools, hospitals, roads, railways, airports, house building, reservoir, electricity generation etc etc.
All of which depend on the size of the population.
I personally prefer the frankness of one Deep Green of my acquaintance - she was quite clear that she expected the population to be ever increasing, with a steady reduction in allowed housing space per person.
Your acquaintance laments this trend, presumably?
Personally, I believe that the government should have population target which is lower than now for environmental reasons, with incentives to reduce birth rate and a ban on building on green field sites. I realise that we deep ecologists are in a small minority on this. Most of us have given up, as it sounds like your acquaintance has.
The problem with that is that - unless you're a fan of euthanasia - then you end up with an increasingly small number of people of working age supporting a lot of old people.
I want to put this in context for a second. When Tony Blair became Prime Minister, pensions and health care accounted for less than a quarter of UK government expenditure. They now account for 40%.
Our ageing population - and the triple lock - means that 40% of the UK government budget is going to grow much faster than the overall economy.
Austerity is the crowding out of spending on the young, by the old.
Good post, but I doubt that non-human animal species are too concerned about the economic issues of the species that is responsible for their plight. You need to take off your human lens.
I'll take off my "human lens" when my wife's dog stops trying to kill me.
So as an excuse for chopping down the Amazon you want to claim self-defence?
Laying Farage for next PM is a more solid bet, IMO. Ties the money up for a while (perhaps), but a decent foundation for a lay portfolio.
He will probably trade a fair bit shorter than 60 at some point. The London Mayor equivalent, Brian Rose @ 7, I think it was quincel who tipped it up earlier, is a much better choice for taking on an outsider. And payout likely much quicker.
That's a good one too. I'd go with both tbh. Farage next PM at 60 I wouldn't see that going much shorter.
UKIP hit about 7 for an overall majority if I recall correctly.
Indeed. But I think Johnson has this Brexit thing in the bag, politically, and Farage will not gain serious traction again with it, thus he will be reduced to hardcore right populism if he wants to stay in the game. And this won't work well for him here because it will turn off many of his "soft" fans who happen to also like Johnson - or the "Boris" brand rather. We'll see. You might be right. Let's track his price.
I'm not an LD, I'm a liberal. That's why I'm in the Conservative Party.
The thing is, a lot of people seem happy to describe themselves as "liberal" and all seem to have different interpretations of what the term "liberal" actually means.
I've encountered liberals in the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in my time and I suppose the real schism in 20th century politics was within liberalism. The emergence of social democracy in the 1930s and notions of the Welfare State, begun under Asquith and continued by Beveridge, have defined or re-defined liberalism and moved it away from the Gladstonian notion or, as it is sometimes termed, "classical liberalism".
Despite that, the superficial synergies between liberalism and social democracy masked some strong philosophical divergences . In the same way, Cameron's notion of "liberal conservatism", for all it appeared similar to Orange Book Liberalism, wasn't and the divergence after 2010 was rapid.
Looking at it now from the outside, it's not something over which to lose sleep. How political thought responds to growing environmental concerns, notions of AI and the place of the individual, not so much via-a-vis the State but in terms of the notion of individuality in the Information Age is the kind of areas of debate for liberals, conservatives and socialists alike.
Yes to that. But you can`t get away from ideological underpinnings completely: that the unit of importance for liberalism is the individual/liberty, for collectivists it is groups/communities and for conservatives it is family unit/nation.
Given that the LibDems are supposed to be representing the former, it is regrettable that people like PT (and Truss for that matter) are not LibDems.
You've hit the nail on the head about individualism v collectivism v family/nationalism.
I believe firmly in individualism/liberty first and foremost. Can you say the same about LDs? Clegg, Davey, Alexander maybe which is why they worked well in the Coalition.
But not the Cable, Farron, Swinson wing who are more collectivists.
You have a massive Nation State thing going on too. This is clear.
Actually I have a small Nation State thing going on. It's why I support Sindy etc.
Smaller is better. Closer to the people.
Ha. Very good. But you know what I mean, I think. You're quite nationalistic.
It depends upon how you define nationalism.
I think citizens of a nation should vote for that nations laws absolutely. But that's democracy not nationalism.
I also believe people should be able (within reason) to choose which nation they want to be their nation.
I despise things like birtherism. I like relatively open borders globally. Let people who want to come and become citizens of this nation.
Spot on. My personal view - which seems to be unpopular with both sides of the Brexit debate and is certainly a minority view - is that we should not be restricting those who want to come to this country if their intent is to become a citizen. I would not even say they need to adopt all of our traditions and customs and certainly not our religions even though I have a deep love for our customs and traditions (if not for religion in any form). There is room enough for different customs and traditions living side by side.
They would however have to adopt some of the fundamental principles and ethical positions that underlie our democracy. Belief in democracy, adherence to the law which can only be changed by the traditional means of the democratic process, acceptance of equality of gender, race, sexuality and any other equalities passed by our Parliament. Our judicial and Governmental principles (although the practices are open to debate and reform). Also absolute acceptance of freedom of speech and association and the laws and customs that underpin all these things.
This is just a list off the top of my head and I am sure there would be others. But if people are willing to accept these things and wish to become British/English/Scottish etc then I would be welcoming them.
For concrete examples I would be encouraging EU nationals to stay and be welcome. I would also welcome any from Hong Kong who wish to come here.
You`re not concerned about overall population size?
Not at the moment no. And it will to some extent be self regulating. Of course at some point in the future it might become an issue but at that point you change policy. Right now in the UK the issue is a demographic timebomb where by we have an aging population and a falling birthrate. Nice if you are independently wealthy but for anyone else it means more likelihood of being poor in old age when the state can no longer afford to look after you.
Yes I get you. And the vast majority of humans will agree. GDP is all. But what about the planet and its other species and habitats?
I would love to see the population stabilise or fall overall in the world. But the only way to make that happen short of something nasty is to increase the wealth of the developing world. It is only at that point that populations stabilise.
The UK is not contributing to the increase in population. This is a function of a developed society and is the same across much of the first world. Stopping people coming here will not save the environment overall. Only making people rich enough and secure enough that they no longer need to have large families will do that.
But they use more resources.
I`ve come to agree with Monbiot`s comment, made over ten years ago, that the only way is some form of global governance run on non-democratic lines and led by scientists, philosophers and naturalists charged with the job of reducing homo sapiens population worldwide and protecting remaining habitats. Again, I realise that I`m in a tiny minority on this. Which is why the planet is doomed for so many non-human species (and eventually humans too).
I am afraid that I disagree with every single thing you have said there. And of course with Monbiot as I almost always do.
I'm not an LD, I'm a liberal. That's why I'm in the Conservative Party.
The thing is, a lot of people seem happy to describe themselves as "liberal" and all seem to have different interpretations of what the term "liberal" actually means.
I've encountered liberals in the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in my time and I suppose the real schism in 20th century politics was within liberalism. The emergence of social democracy in the 1930s and notions of the Welfare State, begun under Asquith and continued by Beveridge, have defined or re-defined liberalism and moved it away from the Gladstonian notion or, as it is sometimes termed, "classical liberalism".
Despite that, the superficial synergies between liberalism and social democracy masked some strong philosophical divergences . In the same way, Cameron's notion of "liberal conservatism", for all it appeared similar to Orange Book Liberalism, wasn't and the divergence after 2010 was rapid.
Looking at it now from the outside, it's not something over which to lose sleep. How political thought responds to growing environmental concerns, notions of AI and the place of the individual, not so much via-a-vis the State but in terms of the notion of individuality in the Information Age is the kind of areas of debate for liberals, conservatives and socialists alike.
Yes to that. But you can`t get away from ideological underpinnings completely: that the unit of importance for liberalism is the individual/liberty, for collectivists it is groups/communities and for conservatives it is family unit/nation.
Given that the LibDems are supposed to be representing the former, it is regrettable that people like PT (and Truss for that matter) are not LibDems.
You've hit the nail on the head about individualism v collectivism v family/nationalism.
I believe firmly in individualism/liberty first and foremost. Can you say the same about LDs? Clegg, Davey, Alexander maybe which is why they worked well in the Coalition.
But not the Cable, Farron, Swinson wing who are more collectivists.
You have a massive Nation State thing going on too. This is clear.
Actually I have a small Nation State thing going on. It's why I support Sindy etc.
Smaller is better. Closer to the people.
Ha. Very good. But you know what I mean, I think. You're quite nationalistic.
It depends upon how you define nationalism.
I think citizens of a nation should vote for that nations laws absolutely. But that's democracy not nationalism.
I also believe people should be able (within reason) to choose which nation they want to be their nation.
I despise things like birtherism. I like relatively open borders globally. Let people who want to come and become citizens of this nation.
Spot on. My personal view - which seems to be unpopular with both sides of the Brexit debate and is certainly a minority view - is that we should not be restricting those who want to come to this country if their intent is to become a citizen. I would not even say they need to adopt all of our traditions and customs and certainly not our religions even though I have a deep love for our customs and traditions (if not for religion in any form). There is room enough for different customs and traditions living side by side.
They would however have to adopt some of the fundamental principles and ethical positions that underlie our democracy. Belief in democracy, adherence to the law which can only be changed by the traditional means of the democratic process, acceptance of equality of gender, race, sexuality and any other equalities passed by our Parliament. Our judicial and Governmental principles (although the practices are open to debate and reform). Also absolute acceptance of freedom of speech and association and the laws and customs that underpin all these things.
This is just a list off the top of my head and I am sure there would be others. But if people are willing to accept these things and wish to become British/English/Scottish etc then I would be welcoming them.
For concrete examples I would be encouraging EU nationals to stay and be welcome. I would also welcome any from Hong Kong who wish to come here.
You`re not concerned about overall population size?
Not at the moment no. And it will to some extent be self regulating. Of course at some point in the future it might become an issue but at that point you change policy. Right now in the UK the issue is a demographic timebomb where by we have an aging population and a falling birthrate. Nice if you are independently wealthy but for anyone else it means more likelihood of being poor in old age when the state can no longer afford to look after you.
Yes I get you. And the vast majority of humans will agree. GDP is all. But what about the planet and its other species and habitats?
I would love to see the population stabilise or fall overall in the world. But the only way to make that happen short of something nasty is to increase the wealth of the developing world. It is only at that point that populations stabilise.
The UK is not contributing to the increase in population. This is a function of a developed society and is the same across much of the first world. Stopping people coming here will not save the environment overall. Only making people rich enough and secure enough that they no longer need to have large families will do that.
But they use more resources.
I`ve come to agree with Monbiot`s comment, made over ten years ago, that the only way is some form of global governance run on non-democratic lines and led by scientists, philosophers and naturalists charged with the job of reducing homo sapiens population worldwide and protecting remaining habitats. Again, I realise that I`m in a tiny minority on this. Which is why the planet is doomed for so many non-human species (and eventually humans too).
That's rather pessimistic. On current trends, medium projections are for the global population to hit a peak of about 11-12 billion at around the end of the century before starting to fall again. This is primarily due to the rapidly falling birth rates as countries develop and women gain working and reproductive rights. So long as this process continues (foreign aid helps here), we can reasonably expect not to completely overrun the planet before the pressure starts to ease.
We`re completely overrunning the planet already! 11-12 billion of us. Using and destroying everything.
How can you not be pessimistic about the appallingness of our strain of the species?
It all went wrong from the agricultural revolution, but I accept that mine is a minority view.
I blame grass. It came up with a cunning plan to breed a species that would plant it everywhere.
For those raving about Liz Truss, I do recommend reading her full speech on equalities. I'll bet few have; only soundbites hit the airwaves.
The speech is shallow, intellectually incoherent, simply wrong in places, and riddled with a fair few contradictions. It is, at best, worth a grade D at A level. Is this the stuff of a future PM? I don't think so. If one were to compare it with, say, some of Macron's speeches where he is grappling with the issues currently facing French society, Truss's remarks reveal her for the lightweight she is.
Edit: so she's probably in with a very good chance of being next Tory leader.
The key is in your second sentence. Few have, few ever will. It is irrelevant for a 2020s politician whether they are coherent, shallow, accurate or consistent. The questions are will it play well with social media, will it motivate the faithful, annoy the enemy and generate publicity?
Laying Farage for next PM is a more solid bet, IMO. Ties the money up for a while (perhaps), but a decent foundation for a lay portfolio.
He will probably trade a fair bit shorter than 60 at some point. The London Mayor equivalent, Brian Rose @ 7, I think it was quincel who tipped it up earlier, is a much better choice for taking on an outsider. And payout likely much quicker.
That's a good one too. I'd go with both tbh. Farage next PM at 60 I wouldn't see that going much shorter.
UKIP hit about 7 for an overall majority if I recall correctly.
Indeed. But I think Johnson has this Brexit thing in the bag, politically, and Farage will not gain serious traction again with it, thus he will be reduced to really hardcore right populism if he wants to stay in the game. And this won't work well for him here because it will turn off many of his "soft" fans who happen to also like Johnson - or the "Boris" brand rather. We'll see. You might be right. Let's track his price.
You're probably right. All but the most rabid are thoroughly sick of it. I sure am.
The economy number is much, much better than I anticipated. All down to Rishi's free money.
Just 80% approval for the vaccine? To be fair to Johnson that is ingratious. Probably more by accident than design he has done well with vaccines.
There are 20% of the population like TSE and Scott_P who will never, ever be gracious enough to acknowledge that Boris could ever do anything even grudgingly worth acknowledging. Even protecting them from a killer pandemic.
Laying Farage for next PM is a more solid bet, IMO. Ties the money up for a while (perhaps), but a decent foundation for a lay portfolio.
He will probably trade a fair bit shorter than 60 at some point. The London Mayor equivalent, Brian Rose @ 7, I think it was quincel who tipped it up earlier, is a much better choice for taking on an outsider. And payout likely much quicker.
That's a good one too. I'd go with both tbh. Farage next PM at 60 I wouldn't see that going much shorter.
UKIP hit about 7 for an overall majority if I recall correctly.
Indeed. But I think Johnson has this Brexit thing in the bag, politically, and Farage will not gain serious traction again with it, thus he will be reduced to really hardcore right populism if he wants to stay in the game. And this won't work well for him here because it will turn off many of his "soft" fans who happen to also like Johnson - or the "Boris" brand rather. We'll see. You might be right. Let's track his price.
The political problem is that any deal will combine visible inconveniences with visible concessions to the EU, so it won’t fade into the background as an issue.
I'm not an LD, I'm a liberal. That's why I'm in the Conservative Party.
The thing is, a lot of people seem happy to describe themselves as "liberal" and all seem to have different interpretations of what the term "liberal" actually means.
I've encountered liberals in the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in my time and I suppose the real schism in 20th century politics was within liberalism. The emergence of social democracy in the 1930s and notions of the Welfare State, begun under Asquith and continued by Beveridge, have defined or re-defined liberalism and moved it away from the Gladstonian notion or, as it is sometimes termed, "classical liberalism".
Despite that, the superficial synergies between liberalism and social democracy masked some strong philosophical divergences . In the same way, Cameron's notion of "liberal conservatism", for all it appeared similar to Orange Book Liberalism, wasn't and the divergence after 2010 was rapid.
Looking at it now from the outside, it's not something over which to lose sleep. How political thought responds to growing environmental concerns, notions of AI and the place of the individual, not so much via-a-vis the State but in terms of the notion of individuality in the Information Age is the kind of areas of debate for liberals, conservatives and socialists alike.
Yes to that. But you can`t get away from ideological underpinnings completely: that the unit of importance for liberalism is the individual/liberty, for collectivists it is groups/communities and for conservatives it is family unit/nation.
Given that the LibDems are supposed to be representing the former, it is regrettable that people like PT (and Truss for that matter) are not LibDems.
You've hit the nail on the head about individualism v collectivism v family/nationalism.
I believe firmly in individualism/liberty first and foremost. Can you say the same about LDs? Clegg, Davey, Alexander maybe which is why they worked well in the Coalition.
But not the Cable, Farron, Swinson wing who are more collectivists.
You have a massive Nation State thing going on too. This is clear.
Actually I have a small Nation State thing going on. It's why I support Sindy etc.
Smaller is better. Closer to the people.
Ha. Very good. But you know what I mean, I think. You're quite nationalistic.
It depends upon how you define nationalism.
I think citizens of a nation should vote for that nations laws absolutely. But that's democracy not nationalism.
I also believe people should be able (within reason) to choose which nation they want to be their nation.
I despise things like birtherism. I like relatively open borders globally. Let people who want to come and become citizens of this nation.
Spot on. My personal view - which seems to be unpopular with both sides of the Brexit debate and is certainly a minority view - is that we should not be restricting those who want to come to this country if their intent is to become a citizen. I would not even say they need to adopt all of our traditions and customs and certainly not our religions even though I have a deep love for our customs and traditions (if not for religion in any form). There is room enough for different customs and traditions living side by side.
They would however have to adopt some of the fundamental principles and ethical positions that underlie our democracy. Belief in democracy, adherence to the law which can only be changed by the traditional means of the democratic process, acceptance of equality of gender, race, sexuality and any other equalities passed by our Parliament. Our judicial and Governmental principles (although the practices are open to debate and reform). Also absolute acceptance of freedom of speech and association and the laws and customs that underpin all these things.
This is just a list off the top of my head and I am sure there would be others. But if people are willing to accept these things and wish to become British/English/Scottish etc then I would be welcoming them.
For concrete examples I would be encouraging EU nationals to stay and be welcome. I would also welcome any from Hong Kong who wish to come here.
You`re not concerned about overall population size?
One thing that is interesting in the immigration debate is the refusal of a number of people to engage with the idea of what population size is optimal for the country.
Yet, the same people argue for planning (for decades in advance) for schools, hospitals, roads, railways, airports, house building, reservoir, electricity generation etc etc.
All of which depend on the size of the population.
I personally prefer the frankness of one Deep Green of my acquaintance - she was quite clear that she expected the population to be ever increasing, with a steady reduction in allowed housing space per person.
Your acquaintance laments this trend, presumably?
Personally, I believe that the government should have population target which is lower than now for environmental reasons, with incentives to reduce birth rate and a ban on building on green field sites. I realise that we deep ecologists are in a small minority on this. Most of us have given up, as it sounds like your acquaintance has.
The problem with that is that - unless you're a fan of euthanasia - then you end up with an increasingly small number of people of working age supporting a lot of old people.
I want to put this in context for a second. When Tony Blair became Prime Minister, pensions and health care accounted for less than a quarter of UK government expenditure. They now account for 40%.
Our ageing population - and the triple lock - means that 40% of the UK government budget is going to grow much faster than the overall economy.
Austerity is the crowding out of spending on the young, by the old.
The other issues that the ongoing Biological revolution (combination of compute capability multiplied by biological techniques) is going to deliver some interesting things in the next 20 years.
The idea of 50 years of relative activity followed by another 50 of being a drag on everyone else may well come to end. Rather fast....
We have yet again, completely lost control of the virus.
The Tories have repeated the same errors THREE times. Good Government? Don't make me laugh.
And your approach is presumably to lock down forever? It’s not just the Tory government that’s struggling is it? Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Germany , France, Spain... do you really believe that a labour government wouldn’t be having the same issues?
I'm not an LD, I'm a liberal. That's why I'm in the Conservative Party.
The thing is, a lot of people seem happy to describe themselves as "liberal" and all seem to have different interpretations of what the term "liberal" actually means.
I've encountered liberals in the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in my time and I suppose the real schism in 20th century politics was within liberalism. The emergence of social democracy in the 1930s and notions of the Welfare State, begun under Asquith and continued by Beveridge, have defined or re-defined liberalism and moved it away from the Gladstonian notion or, as it is sometimes termed, "classical liberalism".
Despite that, the superficial synergies between liberalism and social democracy masked some strong philosophical divergences . In the same way, Cameron's notion of "liberal conservatism", for all it appeared similar to Orange Book Liberalism, wasn't and the divergence after 2010 was rapid.
Looking at it now from the outside, it's not something over which to lose sleep. How political thought responds to growing environmental concerns, notions of AI and the place of the individual, not so much via-a-vis the State but in terms of the notion of individuality in the Information Age is the kind of areas of debate for liberals, conservatives and socialists alike.
Yes to that. But you can`t get away from ideological underpinnings completely: that the unit of importance for liberalism is the individual/liberty, for collectivists it is groups/communities and for conservatives it is family unit/nation.
Given that the LibDems are supposed to be representing the former, it is regrettable that people like PT (and Truss for that matter) are not LibDems.
You've hit the nail on the head about individualism v collectivism v family/nationalism.
I believe firmly in individualism/liberty first and foremost. Can you say the same about LDs? Clegg, Davey, Alexander maybe which is why they worked well in the Coalition.
But not the Cable, Farron, Swinson wing who are more collectivists.
You have a massive Nation State thing going on too. This is clear.
Actually I have a small Nation State thing going on. It's why I support Sindy etc.
Smaller is better. Closer to the people.
Ha. Very good. But you know what I mean, I think. You're quite nationalistic.
It depends upon how you define nationalism.
I think citizens of a nation should vote for that nations laws absolutely. But that's democracy not nationalism.
I also believe people should be able (within reason) to choose which nation they want to be their nation.
I despise things like birtherism. I like relatively open borders globally. Let people who want to come and become citizens of this nation.
Spot on. My personal view - which seems to be unpopular with both sides of the Brexit debate and is certainly a minority view - is that we should not be restricting those who want to come to this country if their intent is to become a citizen. I would not even say they need to adopt all of our traditions and customs and certainly not our religions even though I have a deep love for our customs and traditions (if not for religion in any form). There is room enough for different customs and traditions living side by side.
They would however have to adopt some of the fundamental principles and ethical positions that underlie our democracy. Belief in democracy, adherence to the law which can only be changed by the traditional means of the democratic process, acceptance of equality of gender, race, sexuality and any other equalities passed by our Parliament. Our judicial and Governmental principles (although the practices are open to debate and reform). Also absolute acceptance of freedom of speech and association and the laws and customs that underpin all these things.
This is just a list off the top of my head and I am sure there would be others. But if people are willing to accept these things and wish to become British/English/Scottish etc then I would be welcoming them.
For concrete examples I would be encouraging EU nationals to stay and be welcome. I would also welcome any from Hong Kong who wish to come here.
You`re not concerned about overall population size?
Not at the moment no. And it will to some extent be self regulating. Of course at some point in the future it might become an issue but at that point you change policy. Right now in the UK the issue is a demographic timebomb where by we have an aging population and a falling birthrate. Nice if you are independently wealthy but for anyone else it means more likelihood of being poor in old age when the state can no longer afford to look after you.
Yes I get you. And the vast majority of humans will agree. GDP is all. But what about the planet and its other species and habitats?
I'm not an LD, I'm a liberal. That's why I'm in the Conservative Party.
The thing is, a lot of people seem happy to describe themselves as "liberal" and all seem to have different interpretations of what the term "liberal" actually means.
I've encountered liberals in the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in my time and I suppose the real schism in 20th century politics was within liberalism. The emergence of social democracy in the 1930s and notions of the Welfare State, begun under Asquith and continued by Beveridge, have defined or re-defined liberalism and moved it away from the Gladstonian notion or, as it is sometimes termed, "classical liberalism".
Despite that, the superficial synergies between liberalism and social democracy masked some strong philosophical divergences . In the same way, Cameron's notion of "liberal conservatism", for all it appeared similar to Orange Book Liberalism, wasn't and the divergence after 2010 was rapid.
Looking at it now from the outside, it's not something over which to lose sleep. How political thought responds to growing environmental concerns, notions of AI and the place of the individual, not so much via-a-vis the State but in terms of the notion of individuality in the Information Age is the kind of areas of debate for liberals, conservatives and socialists alike.
Yes to that. But you can`t get away from ideological underpinnings completely: that the unit of importance for liberalism is the individual/liberty, for collectivists it is groups/communities and for conservatives it is family unit/nation.
Given that the LibDems are supposed to be representing the former, it is regrettable that people like PT (and Truss for that matter) are not LibDems.
You've hit the nail on the head about individualism v collectivism v family/nationalism.
I believe firmly in individualism/liberty first and foremost. Can you say the same about LDs? Clegg, Davey, Alexander maybe which is why they worked well in the Coalition.
But not the Cable, Farron, Swinson wing who are more collectivists.
You have a massive Nation State thing going on too. This is clear.
Actually I have a small Nation State thing going on. It's why I support Sindy etc.
Smaller is better. Closer to the people.
Ha. Very good. But you know what I mean, I think. You're quite nationalistic.
It depends upon how you define nationalism.
I think citizens of a nation should vote for that nations laws absolutely. But that's democracy not nationalism.
I also believe people should be able (within reason) to choose which nation they want to be their nation.
I despise things like birtherism. I like relatively open borders globally. Let people who want to come and become citizens of this nation.
Spot on. My personal view - which seems to be unpopular with both sides of the Brexit debate and is certainly a minority view - is that we should not be restricting those who want to come to this country if their intent is to become a citizen. I would not even say they need to adopt all of our traditions and customs and certainly not our religions even though I have a deep love for our customs and traditions (if not for religion in any form). There is room enough for different customs and traditions living side by side.
They would however have to adopt some of the fundamental principles and ethical positions that underlie our democracy. Belief in democracy, adherence to the law which can only be changed by the traditional means of the democratic process, acceptance of equality of gender, race, sexuality and any other equalities passed by our Parliament. Our judicial and Governmental principles (although the practices are open to debate and reform). Also absolute acceptance of freedom of speech and association and the laws and customs that underpin all these things.
This is just a list off the top of my head and I am sure there would be others. But if people are willing to accept these things and wish to become British/English/Scottish etc then I would be welcoming them.
For concrete examples I would be encouraging EU nationals to stay and be welcome. I would also welcome any from Hong Kong who wish to come here.
You`re not concerned about overall population size?
Not at the moment no. And it will to some extent be self regulating. Of course at some point in the future it might become an issue but at that point you change policy. Right now in the UK the issue is a demographic timebomb where by we have an aging population and a falling birthrate. Nice if you are independently wealthy but for anyone else it means more likelihood of being poor in old age when the state can no longer afford to look after you.
Yes I get you. And the vast majority of humans will agree. GDP is all. But what about the planet and its other species and habitats?
I'm not an LD, I'm a liberal. That's why I'm in the Conservative Party.
The thing is, a lot of people seem happy to describe themselves as "liberal" and all seem to have different interpretations of what the term "liberal" actually means.
I've encountered liberals in the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in my time and I suppose the real schism in 20th century politics was within liberalism. The emergence of social democracy in the 1930s and notions of the Welfare State, begun under Asquith and continued by Beveridge, have defined or re-defined liberalism and moved it away from the Gladstonian notion or, as it is sometimes termed, "classical liberalism".
Despite that, the superficial synergies between liberalism and social democracy masked some strong philosophical divergences . In the same way, Cameron's notion of "liberal conservatism", for all it appeared similar to Orange Book Liberalism, wasn't and the divergence after 2010 was rapid.
Looking at it now from the outside, it's not something over which to lose sleep. How political thought responds to growing environmental concerns, notions of AI and the place of the individual, not so much via-a-vis the State but in terms of the notion of individuality in the Information Age is the kind of areas of debate for liberals, conservatives and socialists alike.
Yes to that. But you can`t get away from ideological underpinnings completely: that the unit of importance for liberalism is the individual/liberty, for collectivists it is groups/communities and for conservatives it is family unit/nation.
Given that the LibDems are supposed to be representing the former, it is regrettable that people like PT (and Truss for that matter) are not LibDems.
You've hit the nail on the head about individualism v collectivism v family/nationalism.
I believe firmly in individualism/liberty first and foremost. Can you say the same about LDs? Clegg, Davey, Alexander maybe which is why they worked well in the Coalition.
But not the Cable, Farron, Swinson wing who are more collectivists.
You have a massive Nation State thing going on too. This is clear.
Actually I have a small Nation State thing going on. It's why I support Sindy etc.
Smaller is better. Closer to the people.
Ha. Very good. But you know what I mean, I think. You're quite nationalistic.
It depends upon how you define nationalism.
I think citizens of a nation should vote for that nations laws absolutely. But that's democracy not nationalism.
I also believe people should be able (within reason) to choose which nation they want to be their nation.
I despise things like birtherism. I like relatively open borders globally. Let people who want to come and become citizens of this nation.
Spot on. My personal view - which seems to be unpopular with both sides of the Brexit debate and is certainly a minority view - is that we should not be restricting those who want to come to this country if their intent is to become a citizen. I would not even say they need to adopt all of our traditions and customs and certainly not our religions even though I have a deep love for our customs and traditions (if not for religion in any form). There is room enough for different customs and traditions living side by side.
They would however have to adopt some of the fundamental principles and ethical positions that underlie our democracy. Belief in democracy, adherence to the law which can only be changed by the traditional means of the democratic process, acceptance of equality of gender, race, sexuality and any other equalities passed by our Parliament. Our judicial and Governmental principles (although the practices are open to debate and reform). Also absolute acceptance of freedom of speech and association and the laws and customs that underpin all these things.
This is just a list off the top of my head and I am sure there would be others. But if people are willing to accept these things and wish to become British/English/Scottish etc then I would be welcoming them.
For concrete examples I would be encouraging EU nationals to stay and be welcome. I would also welcome any from Hong Kong who wish to come here.
You`re not concerned about overall population size?
Not at the moment no. And it will to some extent be self regulating. Of course at some point in the future it might become an issue but at that point you change policy. Right now in the UK the issue is a demographic timebomb where by we have an aging population and a falling birthrate. Nice if you are independently wealthy but for anyone else it means more likelihood of being poor in old age when the state can no longer afford to look after you.
Yes I get you. And the vast majority of humans will agree. GDP is all. But what about the planet and its other species and habitats?
I'm not an LD, I'm a liberal. That's why I'm in the Conservative Party.
The thing is, a lot of people seem happy to describe themselves as "liberal" and all seem to have different interpretations of what the term "liberal" actually means.
I've encountered liberals in the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in my time and I suppose the real schism in 20th century politics was within liberalism. The emergence of social democracy in the 1930s and notions of the Welfare State, begun under Asquith and continued by Beveridge, have defined or re-defined liberalism and moved it away from the Gladstonian notion or, as it is sometimes termed, "classical liberalism".
Despite that, the superficial synergies between liberalism and social democracy masked some strong philosophical divergences . In the same way, Cameron's notion of "liberal conservatism", for all it appeared similar to Orange Book Liberalism, wasn't and the divergence after 2010 was rapid.
Looking at it now from the outside, it's not something over which to lose sleep. How political thought responds to growing environmental concerns, notions of AI and the place of the individual, not so much via-a-vis the State but in terms of the notion of individuality in the Information Age is the kind of areas of debate for liberals, conservatives and socialists alike.
Yes to that. But you can`t get away from ideological underpinnings completely: that the unit of importance for liberalism is the individual/liberty, for collectivists it is groups/communities and for conservatives it is family unit/nation.
Given that the LibDems are supposed to be representing the former, it is regrettable that people like PT (and Truss for that matter) are not LibDems.
You've hit the nail on the head about individualism v collectivism v family/nationalism.
I believe firmly in individualism/liberty first and foremost. Can you say the same about LDs? Clegg, Davey, Alexander maybe which is why they worked well in the Coalition.
But not the Cable, Farron, Swinson wing who are more collectivists.
You have a massive Nation State thing going on too. This is clear.
Actually I have a small Nation State thing going on. It's why I support Sindy etc.
Smaller is better. Closer to the people.
Ha. Very good. But you know what I mean, I think. You're quite nationalistic.
It depends upon how you define nationalism.
I think citizens of a nation should vote for that nations laws absolutely. But that's democracy not nationalism.
I also believe people should be able (within reason) to choose which nation they want to be their nation.
I despise things like birtherism. I like relatively open borders globally. Let people who want to come and become citizens of this nation.
Spot on. My personal view - which seems to be unpopular with both sides of the Brexit debate and is certainly a minority view - is that we should not be restricting those who want to come to this country if their intent is to become a citizen. I would not even say they need to adopt all of our traditions and customs and certainly not our religions even though I have a deep love for our customs and traditions (if not for religion in any form). There is room enough for different customs and traditions living side by side.
They would however have to adopt some of the fundamental principles and ethical positions that underlie our democracy. Belief in democracy, adherence to the law which can only be changed by the traditional means of the democratic process, acceptance of equality of gender, race, sexuality and any other equalities passed by our Parliament. Our judicial and Governmental principles (although the practices are open to debate and reform). Also absolute acceptance of freedom of speech and association and the laws and customs that underpin all these things.
This is just a list off the top of my head and I am sure there would be others. But if people are willing to accept these things and wish to become British/English/Scottish etc then I would be welcoming them.
For concrete examples I would be encouraging EU nationals to stay and be welcome. I would also welcome any from Hong Kong who wish to come here.
You`re not concerned about overall population size?
One thing that is interesting in the immigration debate is the refusal of a number of people to engage with the idea of what population size is optimal for the country.
Yet, the same people argue for planning (for decades in advance) for schools, hospitals, roads, railways, airports, house building, reservoir, electricity generation etc etc.
All of which depend on the size of the population.
I personally prefer the frankness of one Deep Green of my acquaintance - she was quite clear that she expected the population to be ever increasing, with a steady reduction in allowed housing space per person.
Your acquaintance laments this trend, presumably?
Personally, I believe that the government should have population target which is lower than now for environmental reasons, with incentives to reduce birth rate and a ban on building on green field sites. I realise that we deep ecologists are in a small minority on this. Most of us have given up, as it sounds like your acquaintance has.
The problem with that is that - unless you're a fan of euthanasia - then you end up with an increasingly small number of people of working age supporting a lot of old people.
I want to put this in context for a second. When Tony Blair became Prime Minister, pensions and health care accounted for less than a quarter of UK government expenditure. They now account for 40%.
Our ageing population - and the triple lock - means that 40% of the UK government budget is going to grow much faster than the overall economy.
Austerity is the crowding out of spending on the young, by the old.
Good post, but I doubt that non-human animal species are too concerned about the economic issues of the species that is responsible for their plight. You need to take off your human lens.
I'll take off my "human lens" when my wife's dog stops trying to kill me.
So as an excuse for chopping down the Amazon you want to claim self-defence?
Let me get this right, white people in the UK are allowed to exploit their natural resources, but brown people in Brazil should think of the bigger picture and just stay poor.
How can any PM justify relaxing the rules in these circumstances, this is absolutely nuts.
Are we relaxing the rules though?
Schools are off - that's about 0.4 off R if I recall from the statistics.
That might actually reduce the spread more than the extra infections from some people meeting Granny at Christmas. The main risk I suppose is if the age profile of the infected moves up.
Besides, would changing the rules actually change any behaviour?
Yes closing schools was the single biggest intervention, and quite a lot bigger than many of the other things we've done put together. All other things being equal it ought to push R0 back to or below 1.0, of course we've got Christmas and the New Year to get through so it may not have much noticeable effect. In theory though with more of the country at tier 3 and schools closing we ought to see some dip or at least a slow down in growth. January also should be a bit quieter socially and have less retail shopping, so that might take a bit of an edge off of the growth as well. Of course you don't want to be relying on all this given our current position, as we are already too damn close to hitting capacity limits for hospitals.
I'm not an LD, I'm a liberal. That's why I'm in the Conservative Party.
The thing is, a lot of people seem happy to describe themselves as "liberal" and all seem to have different interpretations of what the term "liberal" actually means.
I've encountered liberals in the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in my time and I suppose the real schism in 20th century politics was within liberalism. The emergence of social democracy in the 1930s and notions of the Welfare State, begun under Asquith and continued by Beveridge, have defined or re-defined liberalism and moved it away from the Gladstonian notion or, as it is sometimes termed, "classical liberalism".
Despite that, the superficial synergies between liberalism and social democracy masked some strong philosophical divergences . In the same way, Cameron's notion of "liberal conservatism", for all it appeared similar to Orange Book Liberalism, wasn't and the divergence after 2010 was rapid.
Looking at it now from the outside, it's not something over which to lose sleep. How political thought responds to growing environmental concerns, notions of AI and the place of the individual, not so much via-a-vis the State but in terms of the notion of individuality in the Information Age is the kind of areas of debate for liberals, conservatives and socialists alike.
Yes to that. But you can`t get away from ideological underpinnings completely: that the unit of importance for liberalism is the individual/liberty, for collectivists it is groups/communities and for conservatives it is family unit/nation.
Given that the LibDems are supposed to be representing the former, it is regrettable that people like PT (and Truss for that matter) are not LibDems.
You've hit the nail on the head about individualism v collectivism v family/nationalism.
I believe firmly in individualism/liberty first and foremost. Can you say the same about LDs? Clegg, Davey, Alexander maybe which is why they worked well in the Coalition.
But not the Cable, Farron, Swinson wing who are more collectivists.
You have a massive Nation State thing going on too. This is clear.
Actually I have a small Nation State thing going on. It's why I support Sindy etc.
Smaller is better. Closer to the people.
Ha. Very good. But you know what I mean, I think. You're quite nationalistic.
It depends upon how you define nationalism.
I think citizens of a nation should vote for that nations laws absolutely. But that's democracy not nationalism.
I also believe people should be able (within reason) to choose which nation they want to be their nation.
I despise things like birtherism. I like relatively open borders globally. Let people who want to come and become citizens of this nation.
Spot on. My personal view - which seems to be unpopular with both sides of the Brexit debate and is certainly a minority view - is that we should not be restricting those who want to come to this country if their intent is to become a citizen. I would not even say they need to adopt all of our traditions and customs and certainly not our religions even though I have a deep love for our customs and traditions (if not for religion in any form). There is room enough for different customs and traditions living side by side.
They would however have to adopt some of the fundamental principles and ethical positions that underlie our democracy. Belief in democracy, adherence to the law which can only be changed by the traditional means of the democratic process, acceptance of equality of gender, race, sexuality and any other equalities passed by our Parliament. Our judicial and Governmental principles (although the practices are open to debate and reform). Also absolute acceptance of freedom of speech and association and the laws and customs that underpin all these things.
This is just a list off the top of my head and I am sure there would be others. But if people are willing to accept these things and wish to become British/English/Scottish etc then I would be welcoming them.
For concrete examples I would be encouraging EU nationals to stay and be welcome. I would also welcome any from Hong Kong who wish to come here.
You`re not concerned about overall population size?
One thing that is interesting in the immigration debate is the refusal of a number of people to engage with the idea of what population size is optimal for the country.
Yet, the same people argue for planning (for decades in advance) for schools, hospitals, roads, railways, airports, house building, reservoir, electricity generation etc etc.
All of which depend on the size of the population.
I personally prefer the frankness of one Deep Green of my acquaintance - she was quite clear that she expected the population to be ever increasing, with a steady reduction in allowed housing space per person.
Your acquaintance laments this trend, presumably?
Personally, I believe that the government should have population target which is lower than now for environmental reasons, with incentives to reduce birth rate and a ban on building on green field sites. I realise that we deep ecologists are in a small minority on this. Most of us have given up, as it sounds like your acquaintance has.
The problem with that is that - unless you're a fan of euthanasia - then you end up with an increasingly small number of people of working age supporting a lot of old people.
I want to put this in context for a second. When Tony Blair became Prime Minister, pensions and health care accounted for less than a quarter of UK government expenditure. They now account for 40%.
Our ageing population - and the triple lock - means that 40% of the UK government budget is going to grow much faster than the overall economy.
Austerity is the crowding out of spending on the young, by the old.
The other issues that the ongoing Biological revolution (combination of compute capability multiplied by biological techniques) is going to deliver some interesting things in the next 20 years.
The idea of 50 years of relative activity followed by another 50 of being a drag on everyone else may well come to end. Rather fast....
I've always been a fan of the legalisation (and subsidisation) of hard drugs for the over 60s. Plus, free hang gliding and paragliding if they're up for it.
I'm not an LD, I'm a liberal. That's why I'm in the Conservative Party.
The thing is, a lot of people seem happy to describe themselves as "liberal" and all seem to have different interpretations of what the term "liberal" actually means.
I've encountered liberals in the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in my time and I suppose the real schism in 20th century politics was within liberalism. The emergence of social democracy in the 1930s and notions of the Welfare State, begun under Asquith and continued by Beveridge, have defined or re-defined liberalism and moved it away from the Gladstonian notion or, as it is sometimes termed, "classical liberalism".
Despite that, the superficial synergies between liberalism and social democracy masked some strong philosophical divergences . In the same way, Cameron's notion of "liberal conservatism", for all it appeared similar to Orange Book Liberalism, wasn't and the divergence after 2010 was rapid.
Looking at it now from the outside, it's not something over which to lose sleep. How political thought responds to growing environmental concerns, notions of AI and the place of the individual, not so much via-a-vis the State but in terms of the notion of individuality in the Information Age is the kind of areas of debate for liberals, conservatives and socialists alike.
Yes to that. But you can`t get away from ideological underpinnings completely: that the unit of importance for liberalism is the individual/liberty, for collectivists it is groups/communities and for conservatives it is family unit/nation.
Given that the LibDems are supposed to be representing the former, it is regrettable that people like PT (and Truss for that matter) are not LibDems.
You've hit the nail on the head about individualism v collectivism v family/nationalism.
I believe firmly in individualism/liberty first and foremost. Can you say the same about LDs? Clegg, Davey, Alexander maybe which is why they worked well in the Coalition.
But not the Cable, Farron, Swinson wing who are more collectivists.
You have a massive Nation State thing going on too. This is clear.
Actually I have a small Nation State thing going on. It's why I support Sindy etc.
Smaller is better. Closer to the people.
Ha. Very good. But you know what I mean, I think. You're quite nationalistic.
It depends upon how you define nationalism.
I think citizens of a nation should vote for that nations laws absolutely. But that's democracy not nationalism.
I also believe people should be able (within reason) to choose which nation they want to be their nation.
I despise things like birtherism. I like relatively open borders globally. Let people who want to come and become citizens of this nation.
Spot on. My personal view - which seems to be unpopular with both sides of the Brexit debate and is certainly a minority view - is that we should not be restricting those who want to come to this country if their intent is to become a citizen. I would not even say they need to adopt all of our traditions and customs and certainly not our religions even though I have a deep love for our customs and traditions (if not for religion in any form). There is room enough for different customs and traditions living side by side.
They would however have to adopt some of the fundamental principles and ethical positions that underlie our democracy. Belief in democracy, adherence to the law which can only be changed by the traditional means of the democratic process, acceptance of equality of gender, race, sexuality and any other equalities passed by our Parliament. Our judicial and Governmental principles (although the practices are open to debate and reform). Also absolute acceptance of freedom of speech and association and the laws and customs that underpin all these things.
This is just a list off the top of my head and I am sure there would be others. But if people are willing to accept these things and wish to become British/English/Scottish etc then I would be welcoming them.
For concrete examples I would be encouraging EU nationals to stay and be welcome. I would also welcome any from Hong Kong who wish to come here.
You`re not concerned about overall population size?
One thing that is interesting in the immigration debate is the refusal of a number of people to engage with the idea of what population size is optimal for the country.
Yet, the same people argue for planning (for decades in advance) for schools, hospitals, roads, railways, airports, house building, reservoir, electricity generation etc etc.
All of which depend on the size of the population.
I personally prefer the frankness of one Deep Green of my acquaintance - she was quite clear that she expected the population to be ever increasing, with a steady reduction in allowed housing space per person.
Your acquaintance laments this trend, presumably?
Personally, I believe that the government should have population target which is lower than now for environmental reasons, with incentives to reduce birth rate and a ban on building on green field sites. I realise that we deep ecologists are in a small minority on this. Most of us have given up, as it sounds like your acquaintance has.
The problem with that is that - unless you're a fan of euthanasia - then you end up with an increasingly small number of people of working age supporting a lot of old people.
I want to put this in context for a second. When Tony Blair became Prime Minister, pensions and health care accounted for less than a quarter of UK government expenditure. They now account for 40%.
Our ageing population - and the triple lock - means that 40% of the UK government budget is going to grow much faster than the overall economy.
Austerity is the crowding out of spending on the young, by the old.
The other issues that the ongoing Biological revolution (combination of compute capability multiplied by biological techniques) is going to deliver some interesting things in the next 20 years.
The idea of 50 years of relative activity followed by another 50 of being a drag on everyone else may well come to end. Rather fast....
I've always been a fan of the legalisation (and subsidisation) of hard drugs for the over 60s. Plus, free hang gliding and paragliding if they're up for it.
Comments
Schools are off - that's about 0.4 off R if I recall from the statistics.
That might actually reduce the spread more than the extra infections from some people meeting Granny at Christmas. The main risk I suppose is if the age profile of the infected moves up.
Besides, would changing the rules actually change any behaviour?
Personally, I believe that the government should have population target which is lower than now for environmental reasons, with incentives to reduce birth rate and a ban on building on green field sites. I realise that we deep ecologists are in a small minority on this. Most of us have given up, as it sounds like your acquaintance has.
Unlike many who make that judgement, she had actually thought about the consequences of this idea.
1) The birth rate in this country is below replacement.
2) The increase in population is from immigration.
That these 2 facts are in any way controversial is part of the problem.
Bottom line is that Johnson has two options from here. One is to accept roughly the deal on the table. It's not brilliant, it will annoy a chunk of his support, but it's survivable and has some non-trivial gains. The other is to reject the deal and step into the great unknown. His fanclub will love it, but it's likely to have horrible impacts going forward.
The story was always leading to this point. It's ultimately his choice. Will the real Boris Johnson please stand up?
I considered submitting a piece recommending a bet on her at 100/1 but then Casino and OGH said it first and I missed placing one myself. But yes it was an excellent tip Casino and OGH well done.
And a blast from the past but well done bunnco
too for tipping her over a decade ago.
They'll be bought off elsewhere.
Stephen Byers was a bit of a swordsman! I didn`t know that.
Then of course there is Cleggy getting his leggy for the liberals.
The Tories have repeated the same errors THREE times. Good Government? Don't make me laugh.
Truly abysmal numbers for BoJo there.
I'm not sure I'll ever be the same again.
Obviously no spoilers.
He and his wife toured around - went to the smaller games, so saw quite a bit of Japan.
The Japanese approach to the population time bomb, immigration etc was completely against everything he believed in. So he was constantly remarking "how can this be?"
But it's no way to run a country.
And lying to Parliament.
And describing himself as a ‘cab for hire’ when offered cash to table questions.
Ties the money up for a while (perhaps), but a decent foundation for a lay portfolio.
I'm afraid that it's eventually going to spread everywhere and cause pandemonium, but frankly who knows?
The UK is not contributing to the increase in population. This is a function of a developed society and is the same across much of the first world. Stopping people coming here will not save the environment overall. Only making people rich enough and secure enough that they no longer need to have large families will do that.
Either he'll be moaning that
1) Boris Johnson has committed the greatest act of betrayal since Cain.
or
2) This is the wrong type of No Deal
Might be the sub optimal time to lay Farage
On which topic, I do hope some PBers have followed me on the laying like a lion of the Not & Never Happening Events I sometimes identify. The Big 4 recent ones being -
A 2nd EU referendum.
A no deal "WTO" Brexit.
Jeremy Corbyn PM.
A 2nd term for President Donald J Trump.
100% record. Flawless.
It was a great tip and you shared it. Hopefully others got on it too. Well done.
I`ve come to agree with Monbiot`s comment, made over ten years ago, that the only way is some form of global governance run on non-democratic lines and led by scientists, philosophers and naturalists charged with the job of reducing homo sapiens population worldwide and protecting remaining habitats. Again, I realise that I`m in a tiny minority on this. Which is why the planet is doomed for so many non-human species (and eventually humans too).
Re fish, though, if you want to negotiate a price - a financial price - for temporary access, then yes we can talk about it. But the principle that these are British territorial waters needs to be sacrosanct.
* Sorry.
Note that Monbiot forgets to mention he will be in the ruling caste.
Just 80% approval for the vaccine? To be fair to Johnson that is ingratious. Probably more by accident than design he has done well with vaccines.
Globally, perhaps a different matter. Not sure.
On the other hand, the Great Conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn on Monday hasn't been seen since 1623, so who can say.
My family are now isolating ahead of meeting up with my in laws next where we will stay for a couple of days.
I don't need the government to tell me to take precautions to limit the risks, but I'm not sure that for those that do the message from the government makes much of a difference
I suggested to my wife that we might be able to help with the issue, but she said that while she quite likes children, and is OK with chilbirth, the whole conception thing is a bit of a turn off for her.
Kind of an interesting play I guess but frankly "Labour votes for Brexit (deal)" is worth a few points on its own.
I want to put this in context for a second. When Tony Blair became Prime Minister, pensions and health care accounted for less than a quarter of UK government expenditure. They now account for 40%.
Our ageing population - and the triple lock - means that 40% of the UK government budget is going to grow much faster than the overall economy.
Austerity is the crowding out of spending on the young, by the old.
The speech is shallow, intellectually incoherent, simply wrong in places, and riddled with a fair few contradictions. It is, at best, worth a grade D at A level. Is this the stuff of a future PM? I don't think so. If one were to compare it with, say, some of Macron's speeches where he is grappling with the issues currently facing French society, Truss's remarks reveal her for the lightweight she is.
Edit: so she's probably in with a very good chance of being next Tory leader.
That is stupidly short imo. That's probably pure Trumpy sentiment mug money.
LPF is agreed with the EU and has no short-term implications.
Fish is a problem because any deal will involve cutting the remaining CFP quota that is divided between the other fishing nations which means they all want their say, and will be arguing amongst themselves. It is harder to make a fish deal other than kicking it into the long grass via an extended transition with a face-saving payment for access on current terms.
More generally, with numbers like that it's remarkable that the Tories continue mostly to enjoy narrow leads in VI polls. Down, presumably, to a combination of a divided electorate and a useless Opposition.
How can you not be pessimistic about the appallingness of our strain of the species?
It all went wrong from the agricultural revolution, but I accept that mine is a minority view.
The idea of 50 years of relative activity followed by another 50 of being a drag on everyone else may well come to end. Rather fast....
Do I have that right?
https://twitter.com/BBCJLandale/status/1340010023762669570?s=19