Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Those saying Brexit right down to just 38% – politicalbetting.com

123578

Comments

  • I agree with you on the issues with a certain other poster's logic (in general).

    However on the issue with the environment the only thing that matters is technology. Realistically if we get to net zero by 2050 then we've achieved what we need to achieve - and if we haven't we've failed. But that only leaves us 28 years and two months until we reach 2050. Knock off nine months for pregnancies and you're talking 27 years and five months.

    Being completely realistic the overwhelming majority of those who will be alive in 2050 are those who are alive or conceived already today.

    There simply isn't the time or the possibility to affect population figures meaningfully in the next 27 years. Whether in that time you increase population by 2% or drop it by 2% is pretty irrelevant.

    The only tool in our arsenal is technology, not population.
    But 2050 is an utterly artificial date with no relevance in the real world. It is a target set up to try and force Governments to meet their commitments and although that is perfectly sensible, it should not be considered as anything more than that.

    If the wider issue over and above climate change is population size (as I and many others believe it to be) then saying we can't do anything about it in the next 27 years as if that means we should not bother is a completely straw man argument. Yes technology will help us with net zero. It will not necessarily help us with the many other issues affecting the world some of which are even more serious. And it definitely won't help us if we don't recognise the problems in the first place. Technology only helps when it is properly directed to address the problems.

    Now actually it appears that the best way to reduce global populations is to make everyone middle class - or some such equivalent. First world countries have reducing birth rates and the richer the country the more stable the natural population (excluding, for a moment, migration). What we should be aiming to do is massively improve living conditions and wealth in Africa, India and other Third World countries. In the long run that will do far more for our environment than any short term technological stop gaps.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,051
    TimS said:

    Right wing academics do still exist, quite vocally, but they are definitely a minority. As usual though I think social media and noise exaggerate the size of the full-on left wing contingent in academia. I know a few people working in research, and most are soft centre-left or liberal types. But they just get on with their work and don't make a noise. The ones who shout loudest are those with more of a hard-left axe to grind. So the decibel meter distorts the reality as usual.
    I think one also has to take self-interest into account: most universities are dependent on public funding, and their employees an extension of the broader public sector, so you'd expect them to skew left on economics to an extent as their livelihoods depend on it. It's the same for actors, and why they almost all join Equity.

    Furthermore, the character of those interested in undertaking pioneering academic research will tend to be those interested in exploring something different to how society operates at present, and to do so largely in solitude, so whilst you will get some great ideas and breakthroughs here and there you'll also get some outlandish wackiness than doesn't translate into the real world.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,311
    Mr. kle4, it can be hard to tell.

    Rome (depending on definition) took a century or so to die, did so with a whimper, yet ended up causing huge ructions.

    Marc Morris' recent book on the Anglo-Saxons (well worth a read) says something along the lines of Britain falling back an Age due to trade and economic dislocation.

    I do wonder how things would've gone had that megalomaniac Justinian not destroyed the Ostrogothic Kingdom of Italy.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,067
    edited October 2021

    That is some going. My aim each year is to read at least 100 books. It is my one ongoing resolution each January and most of the time I manage it. My record is 122 books in one year.
    370 *buffs nails*.

    Not many were long or 'serious', but some were. Started just because then became a mid year resolution to see if I could average 1 a day. Needed a few brief ones to manage.

    Much closer to average this year around 60.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 38,257

    Though much of that may have been connected to checking whether the author should take a trip to the Lubyanka.
    Partly, although he was surprisingly tolerant of writers who were implicitly critical of the regime.

    That is remarkable given the length of Russian books. 1,200 pages of War and Peace; 800-odd of Anna Karenina. It's surprising he made it to double figures.
    Many of them were English and French classics, and ancient writers. He expected his henchmen to be well-versed in the classics, as he liked to discuss them. Kaganovich was not, so he gave him a crash course in Russian literature.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 9,151
    TimS said:

    The trouble is the retweets. Means my timeline come what may is populated by retweeted FPBEs and retweeted blue hearts, even when I'm on my supposedly non-political vineyard / wine industry login.

    I would like to see a bit more capital capital L Liberal from the Lib Dems. We are not an authoritarian party so should stop trying to be one.
    Ah well, Twitter :pensive: I use it only professionally and I must say I haven't come across FBPEs in my timeline - pretty much all my follows are fellow scientists/clinicians/family members/advocacy groups of the people we study and I think they'd all consider it unprofessional to put politics or Brexit views out there. I would.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited October 2021
    TimS said:

    Were, to some extent. But "Conservative" has changed in the intervening years, hasn't it? In the US I'm not sure creationism, climate denial or anti-vaxx are particularly consistent with the facts of life. In Britain I remain to be convinced that our recent journey of national discovery is hugely facts-of-life inspired either.
    Of course our recent journey of national discovery is hugely facts-of-life inspired.

    Understanding the importance that the people we elect are the ones determining the laws we face is a fact of life. As opposed to the dystopian Utopian "imagine there's no country" John Lennon nightmarish bullshit.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 37,138

    The facts of life are Conservative, as Margaret Thatcher said.

    Which is why Brexit is doomed.

    BoZo had to expel all the Conservatives from his cult to get it through Parliament.

    If the Conservative and Unionist party returns, Brexit is over.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 19,119
    Sandpit said:

    American ‘redistricting’ is hillarious to watch from afar. They really do need a Boundaries Commission in each State, and a few do, but why would the party in power vote for that when Gerrymandering is the other option?
    The answer, in a democracy, should be that the voters value a fair system and will vote for an alternative who will provide it.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,311
    Mr. F, didn't Stalin have to help Kaganovich learn to read rather better?
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 5,398
    edited October 2021

    I've got little time for this 'meh, it will sort itself out' argument, which is rather dismissive and lazy. You might well be "relaxed" about it - I can assure you the last two years have been anything but relaxing for me.

    If (and it's a big "if") what you describe happens it will take years and years - there will be a lot of dislocated careers and upset people along the way, people who didn't necessarily want to leave or move in the first place.

    It's far better for open conversations to take place across government, the civil service, the major corporates, the third sector and media *now* about what common sense looks like - and exert a bit of leadership on best practice and guidance.

    Otherwise, radical activists will fill the void under cloak of inclusion and be misguidedly followed by far too many.
    The 'it will sort itself out' way of thinking could be justified up until about 2 years ago. You could justifiably believe that common sense would prevail; even though it was becoming increasingly clear that it wouldn't.

    What we are now dealing with is a situation where a particular way of thinking has actually become the establishment, and people are expressing various forms of denial about it. However, its hold on the establishment is rather shaky as many people don't actually really subscribe to its belief system.

    What is missing is a meaningful alternative. The idea of simply recreating the old liberal system of free speech and equality under the rule of law isn't enough. It doesn't satisfy the desire for immediate change.



  • tlg86 said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/15/norway-bow-and-arrow-suspect-in-care-amid-mental-health-concerns

    The man suspected of killing five people with a bow and arrows and other weapons in Norway has been transferred to the public health service, a state prosecutor has said, amid continuing concerns about his mental health.

    I guess this is because of his skin colour...right?

    Peter Hitchens thinks it's being covered up as a terrorist attack so nobody will talk about his marijuana smoking
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,311
    Mr. Thompson, ha, I loathe the lyrics of Imagine.

    "Imagine there's no money."

    Sure, John. You wouldn't be playing a piano, in your mansion.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,411

    The left-wing bias of academia is much-exaggerated, but it's a useful excuse for those on the right who observe the tendency of better educated people to favour more liberal or left wing parties and don't want to engage in any soul-searching.
    What evidence do you have that it's much exaggerated?

    If anything, from anecdotal evidence from friends in academia, I think the study I cited above understates it. But I'm happy if you have evidence.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,690
    On state subsidies it's probably one area where Dom Cummings was right in a sense that he saw where the world was going. The only way the west can compete with highly subsidised Chinese industries undercutting is to have our own. Getting rid of state aid rules was a deal breaker in the EU negotiations for this reason. The EU rules are going to be a huge problem for European countries in the next two decades as the US, Japan, Korea and maybe even the UK climb aboard the state aid train.

    China has shown that a planned/command economy can be made to work. The rest of the world has realised that some of that can be transposed to their own countries as well. I expect the UK will have very large state subsidies for science and technology research/development in the next decade that wouldn't have been possible within the EU.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,022

    It would be funny if the people responsible didn't go about lecturing other people on 'democracy'.
    Indeed. As we saw with their elections last year, where the level of micromanagement of the electoral process, by local politicians, was the sort of thing you would expect in Russia or China.

    The UK does overall have a very good system of overseeing the democratic process - with the Electoral Commission, Boundary Commissions and police. Yes, they screw up occasionally - Darren Grimes waves hello - but democracy is usually seen to be done.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,067

    The answer, in a democracy, should be that the voters value a fair system and will vote for an alternative who will provide it.
    Voters don't value a fair system though. Sometimes even in democracies things are put in place which are not themselves popularly supported but which are important, like safeguards, burdens of proof and the like.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,051

    I'm honoured to be compared to Drew Barrymore. Don't use words like "retarded" though, please. Not only does it cross the line in terms of personal abuse (a recurring problem for you, sadly) but it is also an unacceptable word to use.
    Words and phrases you've used today: "the right wing gave up on facts", "(right wing) bullshit" and implying that right-wing people are idiots. No doubt you'll play dumb and cry foul now but you know precisely what you're doing.

    I will take absolutely no lectures from you.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 38,257

    Of course our recent journey of national discovery is hugely facts-of-life inspired.

    Understanding the importance that the people we elect are the ones determining the laws we face is a fact of life. As opposed to the dystopian Utopian "imagine there's no country" John Lennon nightmarish bullshit.
    The meaning of Conservatism has always shifted. Most Conservatives see more to their philosophy than simply reducing barriers to the free movement of people, capital, and goods, which is why most Conservatives support Brexit.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 38,257

    Mr. Thompson, ha, I loathe the lyrics of Imagine.

    "Imagine there's no money."

    Sure, John. You wouldn't be playing a piano, in your mansion.

    It's a bit like Seneca writing that all men were brothers, while owning hundreds of slaves.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 37,138
    Sean_F said:

    Most Conservatives see more to their philosophy than simply reducing barriers to the free movement of people, capital, and goods, which is why most Conservatives support Brexit.

    Nobody who supports Brexit is a Conservative
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,180
    Scott_xP said:

    Not wishing.

    Just watching.
    Selective watching is basically 'wishin and hopin' as the great Dusty used to sing.
  • Scott_xP said:

    Which is why Brexit is doomed.

    BoZo had to expel all the Conservatives from his cult to get it through Parliament.

    If the Conservative and Unionist party returns, Brexit is over.
    Brexit is over

    We have left
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,422

    Peter Hitchens thinks it's being covered up as a terrorist attack so nobody will talk about his marijuana smoking
    I certainly agree with Peter that drugs contribute to many mass killings.
  • I'm suffering with recording my lectures as I give them. I swear the cameras in the lecture theaters are adding 30 pounds...
    Your username adds another 30.
  • But 2050 is an utterly artificial date with no relevance in the real world. It is a target set up to try and force Governments to meet their commitments and although that is perfectly sensible, it should not be considered as anything more than that.

    If the wider issue over and above climate change is population size (as I and many others believe it to be) then saying we can't do anything about it in the next 27 years as if that means we should not bother is a completely straw man argument. Yes technology will help us with net zero. It will not necessarily help us with the many other issues affecting the world some of which are even more serious. And it definitely won't help us if we don't recognise the problems in the first place. Technology only helps when it is properly directed to address the problems.

    Now actually it appears that the best way to reduce global populations is to make everyone middle class - or some such equivalent. First world countries have reducing birth rates and the richer the country the more stable the natural population (excluding, for a moment, migration). What we should be aiming to do is massively improve living conditions and wealth in Africa, India and other Third World countries. In the long run that will do far more for our environment than any short term technological stop gaps.
    I agree with almost all of that, but the discussion was originally on carbon emissions. Quite simply there is no chance of population changes making any real impact on carbon and climate change due to carbon emissions, before its made redundant.

    Now you may believe that population levels are a concern for other reasons (I don't) but those other reasons remain the issue not carbon - trying to tack on population concerns for other reasons onto the carbon issue isn't going to get very far realistically.

    I also completely agree with your conclusion. I think we should ensure is able to go 'middle class' because its the right thing to do in its own right, plus as you say it will bring down birth rates. So even if you're not bothered by population levels as I'm not, we still reach the same conclusion on that one even from differing starting points.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,290
    .
    Sean_F said:

    Stalin was remarkably well-read too, he managed about 15,000.
    Tractor stats ?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,067
    edited October 2021

    Mr. kle4, it can be hard to tell.

    Rome (depending on definition) took a century or so to die, did so with a whimper, yet ended up causing huge ructions.

    Marc Morris' recent book on the Anglo-Saxons (well worth a read) says something along the lines of Britain falling back an Age due to trade and economic dislocation.

    I do wonder how things would've gone had that megalomaniac Justinian not destroyed the Ostrogothic Kingdom of Italy.

    Yes, I was reading about that recently, as I had not appreciated that apparently things were going not that badly in Italy as far as 'collapsing' goes up until that conflict. But then the Romans have good PR, particularly in contrast to some of whom they called 'barbarians'.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 38,257
    Nigelb said:

    .

    Tractor stats ?
    Probably not. Like Gladstone, he annotated his books.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,573



    I think one also has to take self-interest into account: most universities are dependent on public funding, and their employees an extension of the broader public sector, so you'd expect them to skew left on economics to an extent as their livelihoods depend on it. It's the same for actors, and why they almost all join Equity.

    Furthermore, the character of those interested in undertaking pioneering academic research will tend to be those interested in exploring something different to how society operates at present, and to do so largely in solitude, so whilst you will get some great ideas and breakthroughs here and there you'll also get some outlandish wackiness than doesn't translate into the real world.

    Not convinced by this. Police & army are also publicly funded, but probably skew right wing...
    Actors on the other hand surely normally are self-employed and get their money from private tv/film production companies?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,067
    edited October 2021
    Scott_xP said:

    Nobody who supports Brexit is a Conservative
    Lower case c, Scott. Conservatives can be anything they want, including very un-conservative, as parties the world over do not match their name. Plenty of Liberal parties who are conservative.

    But is an area where I get confused by the arguments. Some say Brexit was a very unconservative thing to do, others claim it was driven by conservative yearning for a 1950s heydey so was a very conservative thing.

    Sometimes they claim both.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 34,274
    kle4 said:

    370 *buffs nails*.

    Not many were long or 'serious', but some were. Started just because then became a mid year resolution to see if I could average 1 a day. Needed a few brief ones to manage.

    Much closer to average this year around 60.
    When I was about 15 our English master (Grammar school for teacher) told us to write a brief report on all the books we'd read in the last couple of of months. I was a bit of a bookworm, and I'd been ill so I'd read quite a lot, but dutifully did as I was bid.
    I can still recall his note on my homework...... I can't possibly read all this..... you've written far too much.
    And my handwriting was fine.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,322

    I agree with you on the issues with a certain other poster's logic (in general).

    However on the issue with the environment the only thing that matters is technology. Realistically if we get to net zero by 2050 then we've achieved what we need to achieve - and if we haven't we've failed. But that only leaves us 28 years and two months until we reach 2050. Knock off nine months for pregnancies and you're talking 27 years and five months.

    Being completely realistic the overwhelming majority of those who will be alive in 2050 are those who are alive or conceived already today.

    There simply isn't the time or the possibility to affect population figures meaningfully in the next 27 years. Whether in that time you increase population by 2% or drop it by 2% is pretty irrelevant.

    The only tool in our arsenal is technology, not population.
    Yes I agree. The population control argument is a view I have held for many years and I am nearly 67 so wasn't implausible many years ago. Time has run out for my solution I agree. We need to do all we can on all fronts though and although we will I believe live or die by what technology gives us, population control is going to be needed for the future whether for CO2 control or other reasons. The planet has limited resources and we are destroying it and population expansion can't continue forever.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,333
    edited October 2021

    But 2050 is an utterly artificial date with no relevance in the real world. It is a target set up to try and force Governments to meet their commitments and although that is perfectly sensible, it should not be considered as anything more than that.

    If the wider issue over and above climate change is population size (as I and many others believe it to be) then saying we can't do anything about it in the next 27 years as if that means we should not bother is a completely straw man argument. Yes technology will help us with net zero. It will not necessarily help us with the many other issues affecting the world some of which are even more serious. And it definitely won't help us if we don't recognise the problems in the first place. Technology only helps when it is properly directed to address the problems.

    Now actually it appears that the best way to reduce global populations is to make everyone middle class - or some such equivalent. First world countries have reducing birth rates and the richer the country the more stable the natural population (excluding, for a moment, migration). What we should be aiming to do is massively improve living conditions and wealth in Africa, India and other Third World countries. In the long run that will do far more for our environment than any short term technological stop gaps.
    As I pointed out the global average fertility rate is now 2.4 ie almost exactly at the replacement rate of 2.1 only and no more.

    So the issue is not global population growth, the issue is getting technology and renewables to replace fossil fuels and other solutions to tackle other problems.

    Indeed if global population growth falls further below the 2.1 replacement rate then the issue becomes we need more babies to produce more workers to pay for the ageing population, an issue currently confined mainly only to some parts of the West like Italy or Japan and to some extent here
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited October 2021
    MaxPB said:

    On state subsidies it's probably one area where Dom Cummings was right in a sense that he saw where the world was going. The only way the west can compete with highly subsidised Chinese industries undercutting is to have our own. Getting rid of state aid rules was a deal breaker in the EU negotiations for this reason. The EU rules are going to be a huge problem for European countries in the next two decades as the US, Japan, Korea and maybe even the UK climb aboard the state aid train.

    China has shown that a planned/command economy can be made to work. The rest of the world has realised that some of that can be transposed to their own countries as well. I expect the UK will have very large state subsidies for science and technology research/development in the next decade that wouldn't have been possible within the EU.

    I have to admit, I don't feel comfortable with this train of thought.

    The idea of the government picking winners I find to be very disturbing.

    Maybe there's a better more competitive way to do it, where aid is possible without picking (or guaranteeing) winners. But I am uncomfortable with the entire notion even though I think you have a point.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,051
    rkrkrk said:

    Not convinced by this. Police & army are also publicly funded, but probably skew right wing...
    Actors on the other hand surely normally are self-employed and get their money from private tv/film production companies?
    But, they're normally viewed more sympathetically by right-wing Governments.

    Most actors earn peanuts and rely on Equity for a fair wage as they know there are thousands of others who'd otherwise do the work for next to nothing. The one we know who are in a position to do what you describe are the top 0.1%.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 16,270
    Fishing said:

    What evidence do you have that it's much exaggerated?

    If anything, from anecdotal evidence from friends in academia, I think the study I cited above understates it. But I'm happy if you have evidence.
    Personal experience, from studying for a PhD and working as a researcher. I've encountered academics from across the political spectrum. On average they skewed liberal/left for sure, but the idea that they represented some kind of monolith is laughable. Academics disagree with each other about everything.
  • MaxPB said:

    On state subsidies it's probably one area where Dom Cummings was right in a sense that he saw where the world was going. The only way the west can compete with highly subsidised Chinese industries undercutting is to have our own. Getting rid of state aid rules was a deal breaker in the EU negotiations for this reason. The EU rules are going to be a huge problem for European countries in the next two decades as the US, Japan, Korea and maybe even the UK climb aboard the state aid train.

    China has shown that a planned/command economy can be made to work. The rest of the world has realised that some of that can be transposed to their own countries as well. I expect the UK will have very large state subsidies for science and technology research/development in the next decade that wouldn't have been possible within the EU.

    To a point. Another view is that China shows capitalism can flourish in the absence of democracy.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 38,257
    kle4 said:

    Lower case c, Scott. Conservatives can be anything they want, including very un-conservative, as parties the world over do not match their name. Plenty of Liberal parties who are conservative.

    But is an area where I get confused by the arguments. Some say Brexit was a very unconservative thing to do, others claim it was driven by conservative yearning for a 1950s heydey so was a very conservative thing.

    Sometimes they claim both.
    It's a version of the No True Scotsman fallacy. The only reliable indicator of a Conservative is whether they usually vote Conservative.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,067
    Sandpit said:

    Indeed. As we saw with their elections last year, where the level of micromanagement of the electoral process, by local politicians, was the sort of thing you would expect in Russia or China.

    The UK does overall have a very good system of overseeing the democratic process - with the Electoral Commission, Boundary Commissions and police. Yes, they screw up occasionally - Darren Grimes waves hello - but democracy is usually seen to be done.
    The possibility of legal challenge needs to be there, as problems happen, but it shouldn't be seen as a necessary part of the game to screw over or avoid being screwed over by your opponents. Hopefully the headlines we see are disproportionate, but it almost feels like in the big races tweaking legal rules and seats, and sorting out challenges afterwards, is just an expected part of the process.
  • Sean_F said:

    Partly, although he was surprisingly tolerant of writers who were implicitly critical of the regime. .
    True. Bulgakov springs to mind though natural causes may have saved him from ultimate Stalinist justice. Maybe overthinking it but I tend to see the inconsistency of who ended up in a Gulag, on a date with Blokhin or just had their career screwed as part of Stalin’s satanic genius. You could never know when you had crossed the line so you were always in fear of crossing the line.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 37,138
    kle4 said:

    But is an area where I get confused by the arguments. Some say Brexit was a very unconservative thing to do, others claim it was driven by conservative yearning for a 1950s heydey so was a very conservative thing.

    It was driven by Little Englander yearning for a 1950s heydey
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,290
    MaxPB said:


    Tbh, I'm not sure Europe will get much of a bite either. Projects that are currently proceeding are in Korea, Japan and the US. No country in Europe will get the chequebook out and it would need a complete rewrite of state aid rules. Intel are talking big about a new EU foundry but they're also asking for €8bn. Who is going to give them that subsidy and how will they do it without breaking state aid rules? No one seems to know the answer to the questions and that means countries who are happy to pay the money are getting foundries. Aiui the new Japanese government is readying a $100bn industrial regeneration fund and the US is doing something similar, no country in the EU (or the UK) can compete with that.

    We all want to decouple from China and Chinese supply chains but we're relying in private companies to do it in Europe. That's just never going to happen because companies will always pick the cheaper option and the cheaper option will generally be a Chinese import. In the end we just have to hope we can hang onto the coat tails of Japan and US to benefit from their state aid programmes. I don't see the UK or EU having anything close to what those two are doing.
    We'll have to see how the EU's version of the (US) Chips Act turns out.
    https://techcrunch.com/2021/09/15/europe-plans-a-chips-act-to-boost-semiconductor-sovereignty/

    And Intel has plans (and is no longer looking at the UK since Brexit).
    https://wccftech.com/intel-ceo-repeats-statements-on-plans-for-94-billion-chip-manufacturing-developments-located-in-europe/
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,505

    I have to admit, I don't feel comfortable with this train of thought.

    The idea of the government picking winners I find to be very disturbing.

    Maybe there's a better more competitive way to do it, where aid is possible without picking (or guaranteeing) winners. But I am uncomfortable with the entire notion even though I think you have a point.
    The way to avoid picking winners, to a certain extent, is to subside/tax the real issue.

    For example, a carbon tax/credits is a sensible way to reduce carbon usage, since the government isn't picking a specific winner.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,773

    Mr. Thompson, ha, I loathe the lyrics of Imagine.

    "Imagine there's no money."

    Sure, John. You wouldn't be playing a piano, in your mansion.

    That's not actually a line. There is "Imagine no possessions, I wonder if you can" which may throw up similar issues.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,022

    I have to admit, I don't feel comfortable with this train of though.

    The idea of the government picking winners I find to be very disturbing.

    Maybe there's a better more competitive way to do it, where aid is possible without picking (or guaranteeing) winners. But I am uncomfortable with the entire notion even though I think you have a point.
    Yes. I think the correct approach is for government to subsidise corporate investment in capital and R&D in general, rather than trying to be specific and pick winners.

    The likes of Intel know that governments are waking up to the effects of the chip shortage, and seeking to play them off against each other in a subsidy war.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 37,138
    felix said:

    Selective watching is basically 'wishin and hopin' as the great Dusty used to sing.

    OK, I'll bite.

    I am just watching, and I see lots of evidence Brexit is a total shitshow.

    Please entertain us by posting all of the alternative Brexit success stories that have somehow passed us by...
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,051
    Sean_F said:

    It's a version of the No True Scotsman fallacy. The only reliable indicator of a Conservative is whether they usually vote Conservative.
    You can certainly make a case that leaving the EU was an un-Conservative thing to do, on the basis it was radical, risky and disruptive; however, you can also make a case that joining it in the first place and allowing integration to steadily ratchet up unchecked over decades was also an un-Conservative thing to do.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,411
    MaxPB said:

    On state subsidies it's probably one area where Dom Cummings was right in a sense that he saw where the world was going. The only way the west can compete with highly subsidised Chinese industries undercutting is to have our own. Getting rid of state aid rules was a deal breaker in the EU negotiations for this reason. The EU rules are going to be a huge problem for European countries in the next two decades as the US, Japan, Korea and maybe even the UK climb aboard the state aid train.

    China has shown that a planned/command economy can be made to work. The rest of the world has realised that some of that can be transposed to their own countries as well. I expect the UK will have very large state subsidies for science and technology research/development in the next decade that wouldn't have been possible within the EU.

    There are about half a dozen fallacies in that post. For a start, selection bias. China has had plenty of failures in subsidising its industries. In the West, we are only conscious of the successful ones, because those are the ones that compete with our industries. Second, Chinese societies like Hong Kong and Singapore have done just as well, or even better, without subsidising and protecting industries to anything like the same extent. Thirdly, subsidising industries often misallocates resources heavily penalises captive or successful parts of the economy. Fourth, we've always been even worse than China at subsidising successful industries, which generally turn into boondoggles for favoured interest groups. Fifth, the part of China's economy that has worked the best is the least planned and distorted part - its state owned industries are generally a heavy drain on the economy. And finally, you're mistaking the natural growth of an economy when it stops shooting itself in the foot with Maoist communism with a triumphant success of state planning.

    I am old enough to remember people making similar points about Japanese long-term government led planning in the 1980s. And you can also find people saying similar things about superior Soviet performance in the 1930s, 1950s and 1960s. Neither of those models are admired at all these days, though China's strategies seem to have been influenced heavily by Japan's and South Korea's.

    But I'm afraid that the idea that the government can pick winners is highly seductive, so we'll keep on trying with half-hearted campaigns every few years, and never learn from our repeated failures.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,067
    edited October 2021

    When I was about 15 our English master (Grammar school for teacher) told us to write a brief report on all the books we'd read in the last couple of of months. I was a bit of a bookworm, and I'd been ill so I'd read quite a lot, but dutifully did as I was bid.
    I can still recall his note on my homework...... I can't possibly read all this..... you've written far too much.
    And my handwriting was fine.
    Love it. I recall us being told to write a report on the most recent book we'd read/were reading, and the teacher told me it was not an appropriate book to write a school report on because of some of the content.

    God knows what they felt was inappropriate about it, it was the Ben Elton book Stark. I think I learned teachers could be irrational that day.

    And I should have written the record was 372. If I'm going to brag about reading the entire Sharpe series etc I had best get it right.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,180

    I’m old enough (tho tbf I wouldn’t have to be very old) to remember when SLab could save the Union

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/how-anas-sarwar-can-save-the-union
    Indeed - he's proving almost as effective as Starmer..
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,322

    But 2050 is an utterly artificial date with no relevance in the real world. It is a target set up to try and force Governments to meet their commitments and although that is perfectly sensible, it should not be considered as anything more than that.

    If the wider issue over and above climate change is population size (as I and many others believe it to be) then saying we can't do anything about it in the next 27 years as if that means we should not bother is a completely straw man argument. Yes technology will help us with net zero. It will not necessarily help us with the many other issues affecting the world some of which are even more serious. And it definitely won't help us if we don't recognise the problems in the first place. Technology only helps when it is properly directed to address the problems.

    Now actually it appears that the best way to reduce global populations is to make everyone middle class - or some such equivalent. First world countries have reducing birth rates and the richer the country the more stable the natural population (excluding, for a moment, migration). What we should be aiming to do is massively improve living conditions and wealth in Africa, India and other Third World countries. In the long run that will do far more for our environment than any short term technological stop gaps.
    I've liked, but I wanted to do more than just that. I wanted to say I liked, because I liked it so much. I waste so many words and say so much less.
  • Sean_F said:

    It's a version of the No True Scotsman fallacy. The only reliable indicator of a Conservative is whether they usually vote Conservative.
    Except in Scottish council by elections.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,311
    Mr. kle4, the most annoying thing is that Justinian had the strength to destroy the nascent Ostrogothic kingdom but not sufficient to replace it. So he just destabilised Italy for a small enclave (that proved less useful than the Exarchate of Carthage the following century). Worse still, King Odoacer[sp] was very amenable to good relations with the Empire. *sighs*
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 9,151

    I've got little time for this 'meh, it will sort itself out' argument, which is rather dismissive and lazy. You might well be "relaxed" about it - I can assure you the last two years have been anything but relaxing for me.

    If (and it's a big "if") what you describe happens it will take years and years - there will be a lot of dislocated careers and upset people along the way, people who didn't necessarily want to leave or move in the first place.

    It's far better for open conversations to take place across government, the civil service, the major corporates, the third sector and media *now* about what common sense looks like - and exert a bit of leadership on best practice and guidance.

    Otherwise, radical activists will fill the void under cloak of inclusion and be misguidedly followed by far too many.
    Aye, there's something in that. I'm not really sure how we get there though, good luck to anyone writing guidance. Unfortunately we probably need a few stupid employer decisions getting slapped down at tribunals/in the courts to help those that need it work out what is sane.

    Mostly, I guess I'm relaxed because I don't see these problems day to day and neither do my colleagues, friends, family (at least, none have mentioned it). That makes me think the stupidity is far more limited than media reports would have us believe. I do accept there may be whole industries infected with stupidity, beyond my experience.

    We have had unconscious bias training (mandatory only for those involved in hiring, although open to all, not sure if/when it has to be renewed) and - actually - it was good and well done, it gave me some things to think about. It went beyond the usual things into ageism etc. There's equalities monitoring, but transparency about how that is used (I mentioned the other day the example of finding that women apply for promotion later). That's about it. I don't have to put my pronouns on my emails. I'm allowed to talk about sex rather than gender in papers. And this is in a university, so - we'd be led to believe - it should be awful. It's not, not here.

    I would be interested in some examples of the problems at your old employer, if you can provide suitably anonymous examples. As it's something I haven't really experienced, I do accept it's hard for me to judge.
  • The way to avoid picking winners, to a certain extent, is to subside/tax the real issue.

    For example, a carbon tax/credits is a sensible way to reduce carbon usage, since the government isn't picking a specific winner.
    Agreed. And if you want investment then tax breaks on investment.

    Tax externalities, don't tax what you wish to encourage.

    I'm much more comfortable with that. If that means we miss out on winners we could have chosen, I think I'm ok with that.
  • Except in Scottish council by elections.
    I understand the local elections are suspended in Scotland now due to the May 2022 local elections
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,411

    Personal experience, from studying for a PhD and working as a researcher. I've encountered academics from across the political spectrum. On average they skewed liberal/left for sure, but the idea that they represented some kind of monolith is laughable. Academics disagree with each other about everything.
    I don't think anyone says they are a monolith. And yes of course they debate every point all the time. But all the evidence is that they skew far to the left of the general population, just as in parts of business they skew to the right.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,333

    To a point. Another view is that China shows capitalism can flourish in the absence of democracy.
    China is no longer Maoist but it is not capitalist and certainly not free market, it has more nationalised industries than any other nation in the world.

    Businessmen and financiers also only operate in the market as long as they do what the Communist government tells them to do
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,290

    But 2050 is an utterly artificial date with no relevance in the real world. It is a target set up to try and force Governments to meet their commitments and although that is perfectly sensible, it should not be considered as anything more than that.

    If the wider issue over and above climate change is population size (as I and many others believe it to be) then saying we can't do anything about it in the next 27 years as if that means we should not bother is a completely straw man argument. Yes technology will help us with net zero. It will not necessarily help us with the many other issues affecting the world some of which are even more serious. And it definitely won't help us if we don't recognise the problems in the first place. Technology only helps when it is properly directed to address the problems.

    Now actually it appears that the best way to reduce global populations is to make everyone middle class - or some such equivalent. First world countries have reducing birth rates and the richer the country the more stable the natural population (excluding, for a moment, migration). What we should be aiming to do is massively improve living conditions and wealth in Africa, India and other Third World countries. In the long run that will do far more for our environment than any short term technological stop gaps.
    Though of course the only way to do that without completely busting the CO2 targets is huge deployment of renewable and/or nuclear generation.

    The corollary of large amounts of new solar generation is large amounts of surplus power at very low marginal costs - which makes storage and/or synthetic fuels from CO2 very attractive areas for commercial development.

    The market can deliver if given a strong enough signal from government (carbon taxes are an example).
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,311
    Mr. L, you're right. Sorry about that, and thanks for the correction.

    Yeah, the meaning transfers nicely, though.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,022
    DavidL said:

    That's not actually a line. There is "Imagine no possessions, I wonder if you can" which may throw up similar issues.
    Wrote the man who left a £220m estate on his death, and continues to earn over £10m a year in royalties 40 years later.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 16,270

    Words and phrases you've used today: "the right wing gave up on facts", "(right wing) bullshit" and implying that right-wing people are idiots. No doubt you'll play dumb and cry foul now but you know precisely what you're doing.

    I will take absolutely no lectures from you.
    I'm not asking you to take any lectures. I'm simply asking you not to call me "retarded", both because it is a needlessly personal attack and because it is an unacceptable slur against people with learning disabilities. I also reject your characterisation of my contributions as implying that right of centre people are idiots, as nowhere did I say that and nor do I think it. I reiterate that you should withdraw your use of this unacceptable slur and try to contribute to the debate rationally and calmly if you can.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,290
    Sean_F said:

    Probably not. Like Gladstone, he annotated his books.
    Though unlike Gladstone, he was quite capable of having that faked, too.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,067
    Sean_F said:

    Probably not. Like Gladstone, he annotated his books.
    I read in a comedy piece many years ago that people had analysed Stalin's annotations, and considered that they showed he was probably a lonely figure based on them, with the comment by the piece being 'That's what happens when you kill everyone you know!'
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,333
    DavidL said:

    But he didn't have PB did he? Other internet distractions are also available of course.
    Indeed, Gladstone lived in a time when there was no TV and no internet and not even radio.

    Reading was the main pastime for the educated at home
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,322

    I agree with almost all of that, but the discussion was originally on carbon emissions. Quite simply there is no chance of population changes making any real impact on carbon and climate change due to carbon emissions, before its made redundant.

    Now you may believe that population levels are a concern for other reasons (I don't) but those other reasons remain the issue not carbon - trying to tack on population concerns for other reasons onto the carbon issue isn't going to get very far realistically.

    I also completely agree with your conclusion. I think we should ensure is able to go 'middle class' because its the right thing to do in its own right, plus as you say it will bring down birth rates. So even if you're not bothered by population levels as I'm not, we still reach the same conclusion on that one even from differing starting points.
    Good reply.

    I think the fundamental difference is you don't think population growth is an issue and we do and it really just boils down to that. I am assuming that your view is that each of the issues that population growth brings are an opportunity for technology to solve.

    Although I disagree it may not be unfounded. I grew up in the era where we were panicking we were going to run out of fossil fuel and also how we were going to prevent the upcoming ice age. See how they turned out.

    You may have point, but I still disagree.
  • RattersRatters Posts: 1,243
    So the latest ONS survey shows 1 in 12 secondary school children (between years 7 and 11, so 11-15 year olds) have Covid, with no sign of the trend abating.

    In ways that is impressively high. It will run out of targets before we get round to vaccinating that age group at this rate.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,067
    Sandpit said:

    Wrote the man who left a £220m estate on his death, and continues to earn over £10m a year in royalties 40 years later.
    Well he said imagine no possessions, not 'I will make that imagination reality'.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,180
    Scott_xP said:

    OK, I'll bite.

    I am just watching, and I see lots of evidence Brexit is a total shitshow.

    Please entertain us by posting all of the alternative Brexit success stories that have somehow passed us by...
    Never interrupt an idiot when he's doing such a good job on his own.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 38,257

    Mr. kle4, the most annoying thing is that Justinian had the strength to destroy the nascent Ostrogothic kingdom but not sufficient to replace it. So he just destabilised Italy for a small enclave (that proved less useful than the Exarchate of Carthage the following century). Worse still, King Odoacer[sp] was very amenable to good relations with the Empire. *sighs*

    Justinian would almost certainly have been entirely happy with Amalasuntha as Queen. The problem is the Goths had a succession of coups and usurpers.

    An easy victory in North Africa persuaded him that the same was possible in Italy.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,773
    kjh said:

    I've liked, but I wanted to do more than just that. I wanted to say I liked, because I liked it so much. I waste so many words and say so much less.
    Yes, and it is the answer to those doomsters who say well if everyone had western standards of living the planet would enormously overheat. I think what we will find is that as poverty is alleviated there are fewer of us even if we all produce more carbon per capita.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,067
    felix said:

    Never interrupt an idiot when he's doing such a good job on his own.
    I give permission for people to interrupt me if I am ever being an idiot.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 19,119

    I have to admit, I don't feel comfortable with this train of thought.

    The idea of the government picking winners I find to be very disturbing.

    Maybe there's a better more competitive way to do it, where aid is possible without picking (or guaranteeing) winners. But I am uncomfortable with the entire notion even though I think you have a point.
    I think you can do something with market mechanisms where it doesn't involve a committee approving bids from companies. Think of things like the prize for an accurate clock, or providing capacity payments for back-up electricity supply.

    That then provides greater rewards for success, without HMG having to judge who will be successful.

    Then the other thing to do would be to make it easier to take a risk, cheaper financing, perhaps, or other changes that lower barriers to entry.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 18,355
    HYUFD said:

    Indeed, Gladstone lived in a time when there was no TV and no internet and not even radio.

    Reading was the main pastime for the educated at home
    I think this is a really interesting point. My wife reads hugely, and does so with the TV in the background. She will happily plough throw multiple books a week, as does her mother. Sadly, Mills and Boon for the MiL, and fantasy for my wife, so no great improving reads there...
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 8,714
    edited October 2021

    But 2050 is an utterly artificial date with no relevance in the real world. It is a target set up to try and force Governments to meet their commitments and although that is perfectly sensible, it should not be considered as anything more than that.

    If the wider issue over and above climate change is population size (as I and many others believe it to be) then saying we can't do anything about it in the next 27 years as if that means we should not bother is a completely straw man argument. Yes technology will help us with net zero. It will not necessarily help us with the many other issues affecting the world some of which are even more serious. And it definitely won't help us if we don't recognise the problems in the first place. Technology only helps when it is properly directed to address the problems.

    Now actually it appears that the best way to reduce global populations is to make everyone middle class - or some such equivalent. First world countries have reducing birth rates and the richer the country the more stable the natural population (excluding, for a moment, migration). What we should be aiming to do is massively improve living conditions and wealth in Africa, India and other Third World countries. In the long run that will do far more for our environment than any short term technological stop gaps.
    Yes, agree completely - not quite sure about the middle class bit though. Just a bit to add.

    There are three things, interrelated to a significant extent, that reduce birth rates:

    1. Economic development/progress.
    2. Reduced infant mortality rates through better health care/education etc.
    3. The education of women and girls.

    Any country that makes significant progress on all three will see, as if by magic, their birth rate decline.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 34,274
    HYUFD said:

    Indeed, Gladstone lived in a time when there was no TV and no internet and not even radio.

    Reading was the main pastime for the educated at home
    Gladstone had other pastimes though; quite time-consuming ones, AIUI.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 38,257
    kle4 said:

    I read in a comedy piece many years ago that people had analysed Stalin's annotations, and considered that they showed he was probably a lonely figure based on them, with the comment by the piece being 'That's what happens when you kill everyone you know!'
    Yeh, I think that being Stalin's friend was as dangerous as being his enemy,.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 37,138
    felix said:

    Never interrupt an idiot when he's doing such a good job on his own.

    My apologies.

    I shall not interrupt you again
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 50,457
    edited October 2021
    Selebian said:

    Aye, there's something in that. I'm not really sure how we get there though, good luck to anyone writing guidance. Unfortunately we probably need a few stupid employer decisions getting slapped down at tribunals/in the courts to help those that need it work out what is sane.

    Mostly, I guess I'm relaxed because I don't see these problems day to day and neither do my colleagues, friends, family (at least, none have mentioned it). That makes me think the stupidity is far more limited than media reports would have us believe. I do accept there may be whole industries infected with stupidity, beyond my experience.

    We have had unconscious bias training (mandatory only for those involved in hiring, although open to all, not sure if/when it has to be renewed) and - actually - it was good and well done, it gave me some things to think about. It went beyond the usual things into ageism etc. There's equalities monitoring, but transparency about how that is used (I mentioned the other day the example of finding that women apply for promotion later). That's about it. I don't have to put my pronouns on my emails. I'm allowed to talk about sex rather than gender in papers. And this is in a university, so - we'd be led to believe - it should be awful. It's not, not here.

    I would be interested in some examples of the problems at your old employer, if you can provide suitably anonymous examples. As it's something I haven't really experienced, I do accept it's hard for me to judge.
    Pretty much the same with me, both on the hospital side and the Medical School side. I haven't either run across it or people getting hot under the collar about it.

    We did have an interesting discussion the other day on the hospital trans-gender policy. The issue is that we have to correctly identify a patient for medication, blood transfusions, procedures requiring consent etc. As such we have to use the official registered name to do so, against name band, hospital notes, etc etc. This does to an extent clash with transgender policy on preferred name. It was more a discussion on sorting out procedures than anything contentious though.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,505

    I think you can do something with market mechanisms where it doesn't involve a committee approving bids from companies. Think of things like the prize for an accurate clock, or providing capacity payments for back-up electricity supply.

    That then provides greater rewards for success, without HMG having to judge who will be successful.

    Then the other thing to do would be to make it easier to take a risk, cheaper financing, perhaps, or other changes that lower barriers to entry.
    So years ago I used to advocate a DARPA style organisation for the UK

    I realised how dangerous an idea that was when I realised that politicians liked the concept, apart from the not-picking-winners thing.

    Which is the whole point - you fund a range of research projects in an area, cheaply and see what happens.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,290
    Sandpit said:

    Yes. I think the correct approach is for government to subsidise corporate investment in capital and R&D in general, rather than trying to be specific and pick winners.

    The likes of Intel know that governments are waking up to the effects of the chip shortage, and seeking to play them off against each other in a subsidy war.
    I don't think this has very much to do with picking winners - who those are is already pretty clear in the semiconductor sector.
    It's about encouraging the sector to have a larger presence in the EU. As I said, we have no choice in the matter, as the option is no longer open to us.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,322

    Yes, agree completely - not quite sure about the middle class bit though. Just a bit to add.

    There are three things, interrelated to a significant extent, that reduce birth rates:

    1. Economic development/progress.
    2. Reduced infant mortality rates through better health care/education etc.
    3. The education of women and girls.

    Any country that makes significant progress on all three will see, as if by magic, their birth rate decline.
    I would also add (but not sure how to word it) Independence for the elderly so they are not so dependent upon their off spring.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,690
    Fishing said:

    There are about half a dozen fallacies in that post. For a start, selection bias. China has had plenty of failures in subsidising its industries. In the West, we are only conscious of the successful ones, because those are the ones that compete with our industries. Second, Chinese societies like Hong Kong and Singapore have done just as well, or even better, without subsidising and protecting industries to anything like the same extent. Thirdly, subsidising industries often misallocates resources heavily penalises captive or successful parts of the economy. Fourth, we've always been even worse than China at subsidising successful industries, which generally turn into boondoggles for favoured interest groups. Fifth, the part of China's economy that has worked the best is the least planned and distorted part - its state owned industries are generally a heavy drain on the economy. And finally, you're mistaking the natural growth of an economy when it stops shooting itself in the foot with Maoist communism with a triumphant success of state planning.

    I am old enough to remember people making similar points about Japanese long-term government led planning in the 1980s. And you can also find people saying similar things about superior Soviet performance in the 1930s, 1950s and 1960s. Neither of those models are admired at all these days, though China's strategies seem to have been influenced heavily by Japan's and South Korea's.

    But I'm afraid that the idea that the government can pick winners is highly seductive, so we'll keep on trying with half-hearted campaigns every few years, and never learn from our repeated failures.
    I didn't say I agree with state subsidies, just that in the next 20 years they will become a feature of most advanced economies and Dom Cummings was correct that we'd probably need to have a less restrictive framework than what the EU allows for.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 34,274
    Foxy said:

    Pretty much the same with me, both on the hospital side and the Medical School side. I haven't either run across it or people getting hot under the collar about it.

    We did have an interesting discussion the other day on the hospital trans-gender policy. The issue is that we have to correctly identify a patient for medication, blood transfusions, procedures requiring consent etc. As such we have to use the official registered name to do so, against name band, hospital notes, etc etc. This does to an extent clash with transgender policy on preferred name. It was more a discussion on sorting out procedures than anything contentious though.
    My given name looks like a surname and vice versa. It has caused head shaking discussions, and once even a dangerous situation, in hospital.
    My wife uses her second given name, not her first. That too causes problems.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,022
    Foxy said:

    Pretty much the same with me, both on the hospital side and the Medical School side. I haven't either run across it or people getting hot under the collar about it.

    We did have an interesting discussion the other day on the hospital trans-gender policy. The issue is that we have to correctly identify a patient for medication, blood transfusions, procedures requiring consent etc. As such we have to use the official registered name to do so, against name band, hospital notes, etc etc. This does to an extent clash with transgender policy on preferred name. It was more a discussion on sorting out procedures than anything contentious though.
    Do you ever come across procedures where, for example, you might give a man and a woman different amounts of a drug, or is weight a more obvious factor in things like anesthesia dosing?
  • Yes, agree completely - not quite sure about the middle class bit though. Just a bit to add.

    There are three things, interrelated to a significant extent, that reduce birth rates:

    1. Economic development/progress.
    2. Reduced infant mortality rates through better health care/education etc.
    3. The education of women and girls.

    Any country that makes significant progress on all three will see, as if by magic, their birth rate decline.
    Yep that is a good summary. I was just using 'middle class' as a clumsy shorthand.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,311
    Mr. F, Tito's response to Stalin's shenanigans was quite something.
  • Sandpit said:

    Yes. I think the correct approach is for government to subsidise corporate investment in capital and R&D in general, rather than trying to be specific and pick winners.

    The likes of Intel know that governments are waking up to the effects of the chip shortage, and seeking to play them off against each other in a subsidy war.
    Yes and that's entirely logical for Intel to do, but its not necessarily logical for us to join such a war.

    Setting up an economic environment where investment in capital and R&D is encouraged rather than discouraged is probably much better for the long-term.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,773
    Sandpit said:

    Wrote the man who left a £220m estate on his death, and continues to earn over £10m a year in royalties 40 years later.
    I really liked God Part II by U2 (ironically) which speared Lennon brutally: https://www.songfacts.com/facts/u2/god-part-ii

    I've always thought that in the sprawling mess of Rattle and Hum one of the all time great albums was struggling to get out. Angel of Harlem is another classic.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,051

    I'm not asking you to take any lectures. I'm simply asking you not to call me "retarded", both because it is a needlessly personal attack and because it is an unacceptable slur against people with learning disabilities. I also reject your characterisation of my contributions as implying that right of centre people are idiots, as nowhere did I say that and nor do I think it. I reiterate that you should withdraw your use of this unacceptable slur and try to contribute to the debate rationally and calmly if you can.
    Bore off. You're happy to dish it out, but just attempt to get on your high horse if you get it in return.

    I've got no time for it or your pomposity.

    I won't be engaging with you anymore on this forum until you change your behaviour, starting with your total lack of self-awareness.

    Until then, I'm done with you. Trust that's clear.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,411
    MaxPB said:

    I didn't say I agree with state subsidies, just that in the next 20 years they will become a feature of most advanced economies and Dom Cummings was correct that we'd probably need to have a less restrictive framework than what the EU allows for.
    Why? Just because other countries shoot themselves in the foot, why should we do so?
  • pingping Posts: 3,805
    edited October 2021
    “Super-sized wind turbine race happening ‘too quickly’”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58704792

    Odd story.

    There doesn’t seem to be anything in the article that justifies the headline. There’s no inherent reason why windfarms should only be 50ft tall. Poor journalism. Unnecessarily introducing a “fear” angle into a good news story.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,051
    Selebian said:

    Aye, there's something in that. I'm not really sure how we get there though, good luck to anyone writing guidance. Unfortunately we probably need a few stupid employer decisions getting slapped down at tribunals/in the courts to help those that need it work out what is sane.

    Mostly, I guess I'm relaxed because I don't see these problems day to day and neither do my colleagues, friends, family (at least, none have mentioned it). That makes me think the stupidity is far more limited than media reports would have us believe. I do accept there may be whole industries infected with stupidity, beyond my experience.

    We have had unconscious bias training (mandatory only for those involved in hiring, although open to all, not sure if/when it has to be renewed) and - actually - it was good and well done, it gave me some things to think about. It went beyond the usual things into ageism etc. There's equalities monitoring, but transparency about how that is used (I mentioned the other day the example of finding that women apply for promotion later). That's about it. I don't have to put my pronouns on my emails. I'm allowed to talk about sex rather than gender in papers. And this is in a university, so - we'd be led to believe - it should be awful. It's not, not here.

    I would be interested in some examples of the problems at your old employer, if you can provide suitably anonymous examples. As it's something I haven't really experienced, I do accept it's hard for me to judge.
    Thanks @Selebian. Happy to discuss privately over VM if you'd like.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 50,457
    Sandpit said:

    Do you ever come across procedures where, for example, you might give a man and a woman different amounts of a drug, or is weight a more obvious factor in things like anesthesia dosing?
    Generally related to body mass, occasionally body surface area or some other factor.

    The problem isn't dosage, so much as making sure that we have the correct patient etc.
  • ping said:

    “Super-sized wind turbine race happening ‘too quickly’”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58704792

    Odd story.

    There doesn’t seem to be anything in the article that justifies the headline.

    It seems to be a bit of a whine in the middle from one of the companies involved:

    "It's happening quicker than we would wish, in a sense," says Aurélie Nasse, head of offshore product market strategy at Vestas. The firm is one of a handful that have led the development of super-sized turbines - but headaches associated with building ever larger machines are beginning to emerge.

    "We need to make sure it's a sustainable race for everyone in the industry," says Ms Nasse, as she points out the need for larger harbours, and the necessary equipment and installation vessels required to bring today's huge turbine components offshore.

    Then there's the hefty investments required to get to that point. "If you look at the financial results of the [manufacturers], basically none of us make money anymore," explains Ms Nasse. "That's a big risk."

    So in other words she wants to be able to invest to get ahead of her competitors but then no further development so that her business remains at the front and can cash in? 🤔
  • AslanAslan Posts: 1,673
    DavidL said:

    I really liked God Part II by U2 (ironically) which speared Lennon brutally: https://www.songfacts.com/facts/u2/god-part-ii

    I've always thought that in the sprawling mess of Rattle and Hum one of the all time great albums was struggling to get out. Angel of Harlem is another classic.
    Rattle and Hum is one of U2's best albums. Heartland, All I Want Is You, Hawkmoon, Love Rescue Me are all fantastic. Hard to see it's the same band that put out the dross of their last two albums.
This discussion has been closed.