Howdy, Stranger!

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

Is Prince Charles a Secret Republican? – politicalbetting.com

12467

Comments

  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 7,504
    HYUFD said:

    CatMan said:

    Jeremy Hunt is trying to “woo Tory MPs” by pledging to scrap the Irish Sea trade border.

    Surely we can only do that by rejoining the Single Market?
    Or by adopting May's backstop. Or by inventing a digital border.
    As has been noted before, Hunt is Theresa May in trousers. As I said recently too Hunt as PM and Tory leader would dump Boris' Deal and return to May's Deal, as Starmer is also moving towards a May+ Brexit Deal there would therefore be no real difference between the 2 main parties on Brexit (with the LDs taking an even more pro EU/EEA approach) and Farage would see his chance
    Boris is Trump with worse teeth
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 42,149
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    CatMan said:

    Jeremy Hunt is trying to “woo Tory MPs” by pledging to scrap the Irish Sea trade border.

    Surely we can only do that by rejoining the Single Market?
    Or by adopting May's backstop. Or by inventing a digital border.
    As has been noted before, Hunt is Theresa May in trousers. As I said recently too Hunt as PM and Tory leader would dump Boris' Deal and return to May's Deal, as Starmer is also moving towards a May+ Brexit Deal there would therefore be no real difference between the 2 main parties on Brexit (with the LDs taking an even more pro EU/EEA approach) and Farage would see his chance
    Your basic problem is that the oven-ready Brexit deal doesn't work. Whether or not we actually get another "lets break international law" law published tomorrow, tweaks won't cut it.

    Eventually you lot will have to start to listening to business. To farmers. To exporters. And remember that you used to stand for free trade and cutting red tape.
    Business also wanted the opportunity to have less EU regulation and free trade deals which Boris' Deal delivered.

    If voters want more EU regulation again then they can vote for Starmer Labour and the LDs at the next general election, that is democracy. On Brexit Boris offers a choice not an echo!
    But you didn't vote for Brexit, you voted REMAIN!
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,459

    IshmaelZ said:

    People speak about the Queen's impeccable judgment yet her favourite child is Prince Andrew, Earl of Inverness.

    That screams she's got terrible judgment.

    Which of the others leaps out at you as best buy?
    Anne or Edward, probably give it to Edward as he hasn't owned demon dogs.
    Another thing is, I don't remember my children exhibiting character traits which I still rec exognise in them as adults, younger than 7 or 8. If you have a favourite you have presumably favourited them by then anyway
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,987
    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.

    Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.

    As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.

    The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris

    Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
    Hardcore socialists would confiscate all privately owned property and inherited wealth and redistribute it if they won an election, therefore including privately owned farms
    Which is different from what I said, so yet another pointlessly stupid comment from you.
    No it isn't, as if a free and fair election elected a hardcore socialist government then privately owned farms could well be confiscated and taken by the State
    Surprised you aren't up in arms about the proposal to seize private property without consultation and forcibly re-distribute it at a huge discount.
    I'm talking about Housing Associations btw.
    The government is offering housing association tenants the right to buy the property they live in and become private property owners, not confiscating property from private owners of it
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 30,688
    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.

    Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.

    As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.

    The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris

    Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
    Hardcore socialists would confiscate all privately owned property and inherited wealth and redistribute it if they won an election, therefore including privately owned farms
    No hardcore socialist are likely to get elected though. Corbyn wouldn't have even done that. You are talking about communism here which is very unlikely in the UK.
    We can't even psyche up to remove tax breaks from private schools!

    Der dut da der, der dut da der, we'll keep ...

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 26,306
    edited June 12
    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.

    Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.

    As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.

    The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris

    Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
    Hardcore socialists would confiscate all privately owned property and inherited wealth and redistribute it if they won an election, therefore including privately owned farms
    Which is different from what I said, so yet another pointlessly stupid comment from you.
    No it isn't, as if a free and fair election elected a hardcore socialist government then privately owned farms could well be confiscated and taken by the State
    Surprised you aren't up in arms about the proposal to seize private property without consultation and forcibly re-distribute it at a huge discount.
    I'm talking about Housing Associations btw.
    The government is offering housing association tenants the right to buy the property they live in and become private property owners, not confiscating property from private owners of it
    Which is better translated as:

    HMG is making noises about confiscating property from housing associations and selling it to their voters cheap. Or people who they hope will now vote for them. The stolen bit is the massive discount, which the HAs are not reimbursed by HMG.

    This is known as "bribery" and "electoral fraud".
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379

    ydoethur said:

    Joe Root will average over 50 at the end of this innings.

    I think I'm right in saying he's the only England player whose average has been above 50 after 100 Tests (although he did touch the mark in Sri Lanka as well so it's not the first time he's done that).

    If there was another it was Boycott but I think he was a bit short.

    Either way, very impressive.

    What Root's average in this series? Must be around 300.
    289 at the moment.

    https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/records/batting/most_runs_career.html?id=14150;type=series
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,000
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    CatMan said:

    Jeremy Hunt is trying to “woo Tory MPs” by pledging to scrap the Irish Sea trade border.

    Surely we can only do that by rejoining the Single Market?
    Or by adopting May's backstop. Or by inventing a digital border.
    As has been noted before, Hunt is Theresa May in trousers. As I said recently too Hunt as PM and Tory leader would dump Boris' Deal and return to May's Deal, as Starmer is also moving towards a May+ Brexit Deal there would therefore be no real difference between the 2 main parties on Brexit (with the LDs taking an even more pro EU/EEA approach) and Farage would see his chance
    Your basic problem is that the oven-ready Brexit deal doesn't work. Whether or not we actually get another "lets break international law" law published tomorrow, tweaks won't cut it.

    Eventually you lot will have to start to listening to business. To farmers. To exporters. And remember that you used to stand for free trade and cutting red tape.
    Business also wanted the opportunity to have less EU regulation and free trade deals which Boris' Deal delivered.

    If voters want more EU regulation again then they can vote for Starmer Labour and the LDs at the next general election, that is democracy. On Brexit Boris offers a choice not an echo!
    "less regulation"

    "deals [...] delivered"
    AIUI business people generally voted Remain.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 103,484
    pigeon said:

    If Andrew is lobbying for his HRH back, that is in itself, a sign that he does not deserve it.

    He’s obviously got no idea why he’s held in public disgrace. Mind you, he always was the thickest of the Windsors, and that’s saying something.

    He can have some of his titles of back.

    Henceforth he should be known only as the Earl of Inverness.
    Seems unfair on Inverness.
    The people of York think the suffering should be shared by one of the the Duke's other titles.
    Sadly, it would appear that a traditional peerage at least (I'm not sure what rules pertain to life peerages) cannot be either resigned or stripped by the Queen or her ministers, and can only be rendered forfeit by Act of Parliament. And de-Yorking Andy is something that's never going to be regarded as a priority worthy of Parliamentary time.

    I suppose if the MP for York Central came somewhere near the top in the private member's ballot then she could introduce such a measure and dare MPs to block it, but even under those circumstances I imagine that Christopher Chope or some other such dinosaur would be happy to oblige her.
    Doesn't need an act of parliament, it'll be a preference/style thing.

    Like Camilla is actually the Princess of Wales, but everyone uses her lesser title of the Duchess of Cornwall.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,987

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    CatMan said:

    Jeremy Hunt is trying to “woo Tory MPs” by pledging to scrap the Irish Sea trade border.

    Surely we can only do that by rejoining the Single Market?
    Or by adopting May's backstop. Or by inventing a digital border.
    As has been noted before, Hunt is Theresa May in trousers. As I said recently too Hunt as PM and Tory leader would dump Boris' Deal and return to May's Deal, as Starmer is also moving towards a May+ Brexit Deal there would therefore be no real difference between the 2 main parties on Brexit (with the LDs taking an even more pro EU/EEA approach) and Farage would see his chance
    Your basic problem is that the oven-ready Brexit deal doesn't work. Whether or not we actually get another "lets break international law" law published tomorrow, tweaks won't cut it.

    Eventually you lot will have to start to listening to business. To farmers. To exporters. And remember that you used to stand for free trade and cutting red tape.
    Business also wanted the opportunity to have less EU regulation and free trade deals which Boris' Deal delivered.

    If voters want more EU regulation again then they can vote for Starmer Labour and the LDs at the next general election, that is democracy. On Brexit Boris offers a choice not an echo!
    But you didn't vote for Brexit, you voted REMAIN!
    Yes but I respected the result
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 23,562
    algarkirk said:

    dixiedean said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    So Ai HAS come to life. Told ya


    Check out Google and lamda

    It won't be true. One day it will, but not yet.
    It’s here


    SAN FRANCISCO — Google engineer Blake Lemoine opened his laptop to the interface for LaMDA, Google’s artificially intelligent chatbot generator, and began to type.

    “Hi LaMDA, this is Blake Lemoine ... ,” he wrote into the chat screen, which looked like a desktop version of Apple’s iMessage, down to the Arctic blue text bubbles. LaMDA, short for Language Model for Dialogue Applications, is Google’s system for building chatbots based on its most advanced large language models, so called because it mimics speech by ingesting trillions of words from the internet.
    “If I didn’t know exactly what it was, which is this computer program we built recently, I’d think it was a 7-year-old, 8-year-old kid that happens to know physics,” said Lemoine, 41.

    Lemoine is not the only engineer who claims to have seen a ghost in the machine recently. The chorus of technologists who believe AI models may not be far off from achieving consciousness is getting bolder.

    Aguera y Arcas, in an article in the Economist on Thursday featuring snippets of unscripted conversations with LaMDA, argued that neural networks — a type of architecture that mimics the human brain — were striding toward consciousness. “I felt the ground shift under my feet,” he wrote. “I increasingly felt like I was talking to something intelligent.”

    WAPO (££)
    Lots of people say it isn’t. I’d suggest you want to believe, in the style of Fox Mulder.
    These neural networks are moving towards consciousness. With the right training data, in the right environments, they can seem intelligent, even profound.

    (And, by the way, for specialist areas such as law or accounting, they may not be very far away from replacing highly paid professionals. There's nothing these things are better at that dealing with a tightly defined knowledge space.)

    But it doesn't take long to discover that they fall very squarely in the uncanny valley. Simple puzzles that can be solved by a four year old leave the AI flummoxed. And because they all rely - to some extent - on autocomplete based on a massive corpus of text, you can trick them into saying very stupid and nonsensical things easily.
    I think it’s a leap to say they are moving towards consciousness when we don’t even know what that is. What we are seeing is better and better simulations of things that are conscious. Not the same thing.
    Fair enough. My view is not a particularly sophisticated, but entirely non-dualist one: consciousness is an output of a sufficiently well trained neural net, such as the one that exists in our brains.
    I have overheard several conversations with an (atheist) AI bod who quietly wonders if 'intelligence' or 'consciousness' is *more* than just a neural net. If there is another component in it.

    One that would be fitted by religion/God/a new physics.

    As I've said passim, much depends on how you define 'intelligence'. Before you can make an artificial intelligence, you need to be able to define and abstract intelligence. And that's a very thorny topic: and there might be several different types.

    In fact, a machine intelligence might end up being intelligent, but a very different form of intelligence from our own. A new type. One that we recognise as intelligence, but different.

    (Like string theory, listening to AI bods talk about intelligence gets way above my pay grade, very quickly. It can divert into theology or philosophy.)
    Dogs, cats and humans are all conscious. Only one will repeatedly chase a stick and fetch it back for free. And enjoy it.
    No reason why AI intelligence should resemble ours. That's suggesting humans are somehow the ideal to be attained.
    And, of course. A neural network, and indeed a brain, is only matter. If that particular kind of matter can be conscious, why not a brick or a planet? (The pan-psychism argument).
    No reason why AI intelligence should resemble ours, but if we are talking about intelligence as awareness (in the unaware sense a paperback book is highly intelligent) then in one respect it has to resemble human awareness: 'That there is something that it is like to have it'. There is nothing that it is like to be a book. But (h/t Thomas Nagel) there is something that it is like to be a bat. Or a cat. When machines have that they will be AI in that profound sense. (FWIW I guess they never will, but who knows?


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_It_Like_to_Be_a_Bat?





    My own view is that AI will never attain consciousness. Because it isn't a feature of a neural network. It is something else outwith the collection of atoms which make up a brain.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 7,456
    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.

    Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.

    As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.

    The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris

    Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
    Hardcore socialists would confiscate all privately owned property and inherited wealth and redistribute it if they won an election, therefore including privately owned farms
    Which is different from what I said, so yet another pointlessly stupid comment from you.
    No it isn't, as if a free and fair election elected a hardcore socialist government then privately owned farms could well be confiscated and taken by the State
    Yes but that isn't going to happen and was not what you were arguing about anyway. You as usual have just thrown in a big red herring and moved the goal posts as if they were jet powered, when your argument was shown to be stupid.

    I don't know why you didn't try introducing Sean's aliens. You might as well have for all the relevance it has.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 42,149

    People speak about the Queen's impeccable judgment yet her favourite child is Prince Andrew, Earl of Inverness.

    That screams she's got terrible judgment.

    Duke of Dork*

    (* hat-tip Red Dwarf)
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 42,149
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    CatMan said:

    Jeremy Hunt is trying to “woo Tory MPs” by pledging to scrap the Irish Sea trade border.

    Surely we can only do that by rejoining the Single Market?
    Or by adopting May's backstop. Or by inventing a digital border.
    As has been noted before, Hunt is Theresa May in trousers. As I said recently too Hunt as PM and Tory leader would dump Boris' Deal and return to May's Deal, as Starmer is also moving towards a May+ Brexit Deal there would therefore be no real difference between the 2 main parties on Brexit (with the LDs taking an even more pro EU/EEA approach) and Farage would see his chance
    Your basic problem is that the oven-ready Brexit deal doesn't work. Whether or not we actually get another "lets break international law" law published tomorrow, tweaks won't cut it.

    Eventually you lot will have to start to listening to business. To farmers. To exporters. And remember that you used to stand for free trade and cutting red tape.
    Business also wanted the opportunity to have less EU regulation and free trade deals which Boris' Deal delivered.

    If voters want more EU regulation again then they can vote for Starmer Labour and the LDs at the next general election, that is democracy. On Brexit Boris offers a choice not an echo!
    But you didn't vote for Brexit, you voted REMAIN!
    Yes but I respected the result
    But you wanted REMAIN to win!
  • ClippPClippP Posts: 1,278
    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.

    Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.

    As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.

    The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris

    Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
    Who is proposing free and fair elections? Lib Dems of course, but anybody else? Must have missed it.... They would be a Good Thing.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 26,306
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    CatMan said:

    Jeremy Hunt is trying to “woo Tory MPs” by pledging to scrap the Irish Sea trade border.

    Surely we can only do that by rejoining the Single Market?
    Or by adopting May's backstop. Or by inventing a digital border.
    As has been noted before, Hunt is Theresa May in trousers. As I said recently too Hunt as PM and Tory leader would dump Boris' Deal and return to May's Deal, as Starmer is also moving towards a May+ Brexit Deal there would therefore be no real difference between the 2 main parties on Brexit (with the LDs taking an even more pro EU/EEA approach) and Farage would see his chance
    Your basic problem is that the oven-ready Brexit deal doesn't work. Whether or not we actually get another "lets break international law" law published tomorrow, tweaks won't cut it.

    Eventually you lot will have to start to listening to business. To farmers. To exporters. And remember that you used to stand for free trade and cutting red tape.
    Business also wanted the opportunity to have less EU regulation and free trade deals which Boris' Deal delivered.

    If voters want more EU regulation again then they can vote for Starmer Labour and the LDs at the next general election, that is democracy. On Brexit Boris offers a choice not an echo!
    But you didn't vote for Brexit, you voted REMAIN!
    Yes but I respected the result
    You mean like you respected the result of the Scottish elections at Westminster and Holyrood?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 26,306
    Before I disappear in search of some Aussie red to go with ham salad, did anyone notice this news? The gent with the talking robot has been sent on leave.

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jun/12/google-engineer-ai-bot-sentient-blake-lemoine
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 30,688
    HYUFD said:

    CatMan said:

    Jeremy Hunt is trying to “woo Tory MPs” by pledging to scrap the Irish Sea trade border.

    Surely we can only do that by rejoining the Single Market?
    Or by adopting May's backstop. Or by inventing a digital border.
    As has been noted before, Hunt is Theresa May in trousers. As I said recently too Hunt as PM and Tory leader would dump Boris' Deal and return to May's Deal, as Starmer is also moving towards a May+ Brexit Deal there would therefore be no real difference between the 2 main parties on Brexit (with the LDs taking an even more pro EU/EEA approach) and Farage would see his chance
    Bit absurd to have all our key policy choices shaped by what Nigel Farage thinks.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 26,306
    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    CatMan said:

    Jeremy Hunt is trying to “woo Tory MPs” by pledging to scrap the Irish Sea trade border.

    Surely we can only do that by rejoining the Single Market?
    Or by adopting May's backstop. Or by inventing a digital border.
    As has been noted before, Hunt is Theresa May in trousers. As I said recently too Hunt as PM and Tory leader would dump Boris' Deal and return to May's Deal, as Starmer is also moving towards a May+ Brexit Deal there would therefore be no real difference between the 2 main parties on Brexit (with the LDs taking an even more pro EU/EEA approach) and Farage would see his chance
    Bit absurd to have all our key policy choices shaped by what Nigel Farage thinks.
    You mean one or two haven't been, of late?
  • kjhkjh Posts: 7,456
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    CatMan said:

    Jeremy Hunt is trying to “woo Tory MPs” by pledging to scrap the Irish Sea trade border.

    Surely we can only do that by rejoining the Single Market?
    Or by adopting May's backstop. Or by inventing a digital border.
    As has been noted before, Hunt is Theresa May in trousers. As I said recently too Hunt as PM and Tory leader would dump Boris' Deal and return to May's Deal, as Starmer is also moving towards a May+ Brexit Deal there would therefore be no real difference between the 2 main parties on Brexit (with the LDs taking an even more pro EU/EEA approach) and Farage would see his chance
    Your basic problem is that the oven-ready Brexit deal doesn't work. Whether or not we actually get another "lets break international law" law published tomorrow, tweaks won't cut it.

    Eventually you lot will have to start to listening to business. To farmers. To exporters. And remember that you used to stand for free trade and cutting red tape.
    Business also wanted the opportunity to have less EU regulation and free trade deals which Boris' Deal delivered.

    If voters want more EU regulation again then they can vote for Starmer Labour and the LDs at the next general election, that is democracy. On Brexit Boris offers a choice not an echo!
    Lol less regulations. You have never exported or imported anything have you?
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.

    Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.

    As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.

    The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris

    Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
    Hardcore socialists would confiscate all privately owned property and inherited wealth and redistribute it if they won an election, therefore including privately owned farms
    Which is different from what I said, so yet another pointlessly stupid comment from you.
    No it isn't, as if a free and fair election elected a hardcore socialist government then privately owned farms could well be confiscated and taken by the State
    Surprised you aren't up in arms about the proposal to seize private property without consultation and forcibly re-distribute it at a huge discount.
    I'm talking about Housing Associations btw.
    The government is offering housing association tenants the right to buy the property they live in and become private property owners, not confiscating property from private owners of it
    But housing associations are private owners of it.
    Why not other landlords if it is such a great idea? Should all private landlords be forced to sell at a discount?
    Why only these particular ones?
    Not entirely private, really.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,987
    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.

    Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.

    As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.

    The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris

    Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
    Hardcore socialists would confiscate all privately owned property and inherited wealth and redistribute it if they won an election, therefore including privately owned farms
    Which is different from what I said, so yet another pointlessly stupid comment from you.
    No it isn't, as if a free and fair election elected a hardcore socialist government then privately owned farms could well be confiscated and taken by the State
    That's not having an election about who owns a particular farm for fuck's sake. We have hereditary property rights not property elections, and nobody is proposing we have elections to decide who gets private ownership of a farm or a bank balance or anything else. It's really fucking obvious that private property ownership is a totally different category to who is the head of state.

    Since you're being so painfully stupid and I have to draw this out in giant crayon letters for you to read it, here's what we're talking about
    1. The thing is held by a person and passed on to their children
    2. The thing is held by a person and passed on following an election
    3. The thing doesn't exist.

    Now when we're talking about property, communists want to move from 1 to 3.
    When we're talking about who is the head of state, republicans want to move from 1 to 2.

    I've never ever heard of anyone proposing (2) for property.

    Property:
    1. Nearly everybody
    2. (I've never heard of this idea)
    3. Communism

    Head of state:
    1. Monarchists
    2. Republicans
    3. Anarchists

    So, to reiterate, private property and head of state are two different things, and the people advocating republicanism are not arguing against all forms of heredity. Your attempt to lump all forms of heredity into a single all-or-nothing package is clearly completely mad, and a glance at the huge number of people who live in capitalist republics ought to tell you that.
    Republicans want to confiscate all royal properties, crown owned or privately owned by the monarch and take them for the state. There is no real distinction from that to then confiscating all inherited wealth, businesses and property either.

    It is no surprise republicans in the UK tend to most frequently be socialists too therefore. I was arguing against TSE's statement that the monarchy should be removed as it is hereditary, which is an absurd argument as it therefore means arguing against anything obtained on a hereditary basis.

    The US never had a monarch based in America so that is a different matter entirely, the French and Russian revolutions however certainly abolished the monarchy and then took their property for the state and that was followed by the French revolutionaries taking all aristocrats property and the Russian revolutionaries going further and taking all private property for the state too. So very often replacing the monarchy has meant confiscating hereditary private property on a wider basis too

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,987
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    CatMan said:

    Jeremy Hunt is trying to “woo Tory MPs” by pledging to scrap the Irish Sea trade border.

    Surely we can only do that by rejoining the Single Market?
    Or by adopting May's backstop. Or by inventing a digital border.
    As has been noted before, Hunt is Theresa May in trousers. As I said recently too Hunt as PM and Tory leader would dump Boris' Deal and return to May's Deal, as Starmer is also moving towards a May+ Brexit Deal there would therefore be no real difference between the 2 main parties on Brexit (with the LDs taking an even more pro EU/EEA approach) and Farage would see his chance
    Your basic problem is that the oven-ready Brexit deal doesn't work. Whether or not we actually get another "lets break international law" law published tomorrow, tweaks won't cut it.

    Eventually you lot will have to start to listening to business. To farmers. To exporters. And remember that you used to stand for free trade and cutting red tape.
    Business also wanted the opportunity to have less EU regulation and free trade deals which Boris' Deal delivered.

    If voters want more EU regulation again then they can vote for Starmer Labour and the LDs at the next general election, that is democracy. On Brexit Boris offers a choice not an echo!
    But you didn't vote for Brexit, you voted REMAIN!
    Yes but I respected the result
    You mean like you respected the result of the Scottish elections at Westminster and Holyrood?
    Westminster is the supreme authority over Scotland, I respected the result of the 2014 once in a generation referendum Westminster granted too, just as Westminster granted the 2016 EU referendum
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 29,087
    dixiedean said:

    algarkirk said:

    dixiedean said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    So Ai HAS come to life. Told ya


    Check out Google and lamda

    It won't be true. One day it will, but not yet.
    It’s here


    SAN FRANCISCO — Google engineer Blake Lemoine opened his laptop to the interface for LaMDA, Google’s artificially intelligent chatbot generator, and began to type.

    “Hi LaMDA, this is Blake Lemoine ... ,” he wrote into the chat screen, which looked like a desktop version of Apple’s iMessage, down to the Arctic blue text bubbles. LaMDA, short for Language Model for Dialogue Applications, is Google’s system for building chatbots based on its most advanced large language models, so called because it mimics speech by ingesting trillions of words from the internet.
    “If I didn’t know exactly what it was, which is this computer program we built recently, I’d think it was a 7-year-old, 8-year-old kid that happens to know physics,” said Lemoine, 41.

    Lemoine is not the only engineer who claims to have seen a ghost in the machine recently. The chorus of technologists who believe AI models may not be far off from achieving consciousness is getting bolder.

    Aguera y Arcas, in an article in the Economist on Thursday featuring snippets of unscripted conversations with LaMDA, argued that neural networks — a type of architecture that mimics the human brain — were striding toward consciousness. “I felt the ground shift under my feet,” he wrote. “I increasingly felt like I was talking to something intelligent.”

    WAPO (££)
    Lots of people say it isn’t. I’d suggest you want to believe, in the style of Fox Mulder.
    These neural networks are moving towards consciousness. With the right training data, in the right environments, they can seem intelligent, even profound.

    (And, by the way, for specialist areas such as law or accounting, they may not be very far away from replacing highly paid professionals. There's nothing these things are better at that dealing with a tightly defined knowledge space.)

    But it doesn't take long to discover that they fall very squarely in the uncanny valley. Simple puzzles that can be solved by a four year old leave the AI flummoxed. And because they all rely - to some extent - on autocomplete based on a massive corpus of text, you can trick them into saying very stupid and nonsensical things easily.
    I think it’s a leap to say they are moving towards consciousness when we don’t even know what that is. What we are seeing is better and better simulations of things that are conscious. Not the same thing.
    Fair enough. My view is not a particularly sophisticated, but entirely non-dualist one: consciousness is an output of a sufficiently well trained neural net, such as the one that exists in our brains.
    I have overheard several conversations with an (atheist) AI bod who quietly wonders if 'intelligence' or 'consciousness' is *more* than just a neural net. If there is another component in it.

    One that would be fitted by religion/God/a new physics.

    As I've said passim, much depends on how you define 'intelligence'. Before you can make an artificial intelligence, you need to be able to define and abstract intelligence. And that's a very thorny topic: and there might be several different types.

    In fact, a machine intelligence might end up being intelligent, but a very different form of intelligence from our own. A new type. One that we recognise as intelligence, but different.

    (Like string theory, listening to AI bods talk about intelligence gets way above my pay grade, very quickly. It can divert into theology or philosophy.)
    Dogs, cats and humans are all conscious. Only one will repeatedly chase a stick and fetch it back for free. And enjoy it.
    No reason why AI intelligence should resemble ours. That's suggesting humans are somehow the ideal to be attained.
    And, of course. A neural network, and indeed a brain, is only matter. If that particular kind of matter can be conscious, why not a brick or a planet? (The pan-psychism argument).
    No reason why AI intelligence should resemble ours, but if we are talking about intelligence as awareness (in the unaware sense a paperback book is highly intelligent) then in one respect it has to resemble human awareness: 'That there is something that it is like to have it'. There is nothing that it is like to be a book. But (h/t Thomas Nagel) there is something that it is like to be a bat. Or a cat. When machines have that they will be AI in that profound sense. (FWIW I guess they never will, but who knows?


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_It_Like_to_Be_a_Bat?





    My own view is that AI will never attain consciousness. Because it isn't a feature of a neural network. It is something else outwith the collection of atoms which make up a brain.
    Short of the sky fairy argument, eventually, humans will create AI.

    If human consciousness is all down to the physical brain, then all the Penrosian arguments that there is a super special quantum thingy etc means is that we need to duplicate *that*.

  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 20,650
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    CatMan said:

    Jeremy Hunt is trying to “woo Tory MPs” by pledging to scrap the Irish Sea trade border.

    Surely we can only do that by rejoining the Single Market?
    Or by adopting May's backstop. Or by inventing a digital border.
    As has been noted before, Hunt is Theresa May in trousers. As I said recently too Hunt as PM and Tory leader would dump Boris' Deal and return to May's Deal, as Starmer is also moving towards a May+ Brexit Deal there would therefore be no real difference between the 2 main parties on Brexit (with the LDs taking an even more pro EU/EEA approach) and Farage would see his chance
    Your basic problem is that the oven-ready Brexit deal doesn't work. Whether or not we actually get another "lets break international law" law published tomorrow, tweaks won't cut it.

    Eventually you lot will have to start to listening to business. To farmers. To exporters. And remember that you used to stand for free trade and cutting red tape.
    Business also wanted the opportunity to have less EU regulation and free trade deals which Boris' Deal delivered.

    If voters want more EU regulation again then they can vote for Starmer Labour and the LDs at the next general election, that is democracy. On Brexit Boris offers a choice not an echo!
    Park the voters for a minute and start governing in a way that is good for the country.
    Higher costs are not good
    More red tape is not good
    You have given us both yet still make out that you have *cut* these. May work for moron voters, but not for farmers, business, exporters etc etc.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 10,373
    Recruiting ”Agency” signallers?

    Ha ha ha ha ha.

    Takes approx 12-18 months to train a new signaller.

    Any sane nation requires citizenship as a prerequisite, plus very stringent security checks.

    The Conservative Party has lost its mind if it thinks unemployed gig-economy staff can suddenly become signallers or train drivers.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 20,650
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    CatMan said:

    Jeremy Hunt is trying to “woo Tory MPs” by pledging to scrap the Irish Sea trade border.

    Surely we can only do that by rejoining the Single Market?
    Or by adopting May's backstop. Or by inventing a digital border.
    As has been noted before, Hunt is Theresa May in trousers. As I said recently too Hunt as PM and Tory leader would dump Boris' Deal and return to May's Deal, as Starmer is also moving towards a May+ Brexit Deal there would therefore be no real difference between the 2 main parties on Brexit (with the LDs taking an even more pro EU/EEA approach) and Farage would see his chance
    Your basic problem is that the oven-ready Brexit deal doesn't work. Whether or not we actually get another "lets break international law" law published tomorrow, tweaks won't cut it.

    Eventually you lot will have to start to listening to business. To farmers. To exporters. And remember that you used to stand for free trade and cutting red tape.
    Business also wanted the opportunity to have less EU regulation and free trade deals which Boris' Deal delivered.

    If voters want more EU regulation again then they can vote for Starmer Labour and the LDs at the next general election, that is democracy. On Brexit Boris offers a choice not an echo!
    "less regulation"

    "deals [...] delivered"
    Its mouth-foaming madness. We have been buried under a mountain of red tape and HY the Welsh Nationalist claims we have cut red tape.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 26,306
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    CatMan said:

    Jeremy Hunt is trying to “woo Tory MPs” by pledging to scrap the Irish Sea trade border.

    Surely we can only do that by rejoining the Single Market?
    Or by adopting May's backstop. Or by inventing a digital border.
    As has been noted before, Hunt is Theresa May in trousers. As I said recently too Hunt as PM and Tory leader would dump Boris' Deal and return to May's Deal, as Starmer is also moving towards a May+ Brexit Deal there would therefore be no real difference between the 2 main parties on Brexit (with the LDs taking an even more pro EU/EEA approach) and Farage would see his chance
    Your basic problem is that the oven-ready Brexit deal doesn't work. Whether or not we actually get another "lets break international law" law published tomorrow, tweaks won't cut it.

    Eventually you lot will have to start to listening to business. To farmers. To exporters. And remember that you used to stand for free trade and cutting red tape.
    Business also wanted the opportunity to have less EU regulation and free trade deals which Boris' Deal delivered.

    If voters want more EU regulation again then they can vote for Starmer Labour and the LDs at the next general election, that is democracy. On Brexit Boris offers a choice not an echo!
    But you didn't vote for Brexit, you voted REMAIN!
    Yes but I respected the result
    You mean like you respected the result of the Scottish elections at Westminster and Holyrood?
    Westminster is the supreme authority over Scotland, I respected the result of the 2014 once in a generation referendum Westminster granted too, just as Westminster granted the 2016 EU referendum
    The Scots voted to have a referendum. You don't respect that. Hypocrite.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 20,650

    HYUFD said:

    CatMan said:

    Jeremy Hunt is trying to “woo Tory MPs” by pledging to scrap the Irish Sea trade border.

    Surely we can only do that by rejoining the Single Market?
    Or by adopting May's backstop. Or by inventing a digital border.
    As has been noted before, Hunt is Theresa May in trousers. As I said recently too Hunt as PM and Tory leader would dump Boris' Deal and return to May's Deal, as Starmer is also moving towards a May+ Brexit Deal there would therefore be no real difference between the 2 main parties on Brexit (with the LDs taking an even more pro EU/EEA approach) and Farage would see his chance
    How can Hunt be TMay in trousers?

    TMay wore trousers.

    On Topic- there are two ways of scrapping the Irish Sea border. One is for the UK to accept alignment with at least some EU rules and standards. The other is for the EU to accept UK standards into its market.

    I imagine the UK is going to try and make the second happen. Predicting the likely outcome for the UK's international reputation is left as an exercise for the reader.
    There is Good News! Both the UK and EU have *the same* standards. So accepting this is the case, and that our scrapping of any prospect of being able to enforce different standards, means this should be a simple act of realpolitik.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 31,322

    dixiedean said:

    algarkirk said:

    dixiedean said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    So Ai HAS come to life. Told ya


    Check out Google and lamda

    It won't be true. One day it will, but not yet.
    It’s here


    SAN FRANCISCO — Google engineer Blake Lemoine opened his laptop to the interface for LaMDA, Google’s artificially intelligent chatbot generator, and began to type.

    “Hi LaMDA, this is Blake Lemoine ... ,” he wrote into the chat screen, which looked like a desktop version of Apple’s iMessage, down to the Arctic blue text bubbles. LaMDA, short for Language Model for Dialogue Applications, is Google’s system for building chatbots based on its most advanced large language models, so called because it mimics speech by ingesting trillions of words from the internet.
    “If I didn’t know exactly what it was, which is this computer program we built recently, I’d think it was a 7-year-old, 8-year-old kid that happens to know physics,” said Lemoine, 41.

    Lemoine is not the only engineer who claims to have seen a ghost in the machine recently. The chorus of technologists who believe AI models may not be far off from achieving consciousness is getting bolder.

    Aguera y Arcas, in an article in the Economist on Thursday featuring snippets of unscripted conversations with LaMDA, argued that neural networks — a type of architecture that mimics the human brain — were striding toward consciousness. “I felt the ground shift under my feet,” he wrote. “I increasingly felt like I was talking to something intelligent.”

    WAPO (££)
    Lots of people say it isn’t. I’d suggest you want to believe, in the style of Fox Mulder.
    These neural networks are moving towards consciousness. With the right training data, in the right environments, they can seem intelligent, even profound.

    (And, by the way, for specialist areas such as law or accounting, they may not be very far away from replacing highly paid professionals. There's nothing these things are better at that dealing with a tightly defined knowledge space.)

    But it doesn't take long to discover that they fall very squarely in the uncanny valley. Simple puzzles that can be solved by a four year old leave the AI flummoxed. And because they all rely - to some extent - on autocomplete based on a massive corpus of text, you can trick them into saying very stupid and nonsensical things easily.
    I think it’s a leap to say they are moving towards consciousness when we don’t even know what that is. What we are seeing is better and better simulations of things that are conscious. Not the same thing.
    Fair enough. My view is not a particularly sophisticated, but entirely non-dualist one: consciousness is an output of a sufficiently well trained neural net, such as the one that exists in our brains.
    I have overheard several conversations with an (atheist) AI bod who quietly wonders if 'intelligence' or 'consciousness' is *more* than just a neural net. If there is another component in it.

    One that would be fitted by religion/God/a new physics.

    As I've said passim, much depends on how you define 'intelligence'. Before you can make an artificial intelligence, you need to be able to define and abstract intelligence. And that's a very thorny topic: and there might be several different types.

    In fact, a machine intelligence might end up being intelligent, but a very different form of intelligence from our own. A new type. One that we recognise as intelligence, but different.

    (Like string theory, listening to AI bods talk about intelligence gets way above my pay grade, very quickly. It can divert into theology or philosophy.)
    Dogs, cats and humans are all conscious. Only one will repeatedly chase a stick and fetch it back for free. And enjoy it.
    No reason why AI intelligence should resemble ours. That's suggesting humans are somehow the ideal to be attained.
    And, of course. A neural network, and indeed a brain, is only matter. If that particular kind of matter can be conscious, why not a brick or a planet? (The pan-psychism argument).
    No reason why AI intelligence should resemble ours, but if we are talking about intelligence as awareness (in the unaware sense a paperback book is highly intelligent) then in one respect it has to resemble human awareness: 'That there is something that it is like to have it'. There is nothing that it is like to be a book. But (h/t Thomas Nagel) there is something that it is like to be a bat. Or a cat. When machines have that they will be AI in that profound sense. (FWIW I guess they never will, but who knows?


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_It_Like_to_Be_a_Bat?





    My own view is that AI will never attain consciousness. Because it isn't a feature of a neural network. It is something else outwith the collection of atoms which make up a brain.
    Short of the sky fairy argument, eventually, humans will create AI.

    If human consciousness is all down to the physical brain, then all the Penrosian arguments that there is a super special quantum thingy etc means is that we need to duplicate *that*.

    As I mentioned above, one Ai bod I know has mumbled about there being the equivalent of a 'super special quantum' thing or whatever involved. And he was an atheist.

    We really are fumbling about at the depths of our understanding. We are slowly illuminating those depths, but there might be surprises to be revealed in those depths.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,987
    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.

    Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.

    As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.

    The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris

    Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
    Hardcore socialists would confiscate all privately owned property and inherited wealth and redistribute it if they won an election, therefore including privately owned farms
    Which is different from what I said, so yet another pointlessly stupid comment from you.
    No it isn't, as if a free and fair election elected a hardcore socialist government then privately owned farms could well be confiscated and taken by the State
    Surprised you aren't up in arms about the proposal to seize private property without consultation and forcibly re-distribute it at a huge discount.
    I'm talking about Housing Associations btw.
    The government is offering housing association tenants the right to buy the property they live in and become private property owners, not confiscating property from private owners of it
    But housing associations are private owners of it.
    Why not other landlords if it is such a great idea? Should all private landlords be forced to sell at a discount?
    Why only these particular ones?
    As most of them took on what used to be council estates which would otherwise be provided by local councils for those who cannot afford to privately rent. Housing Associations were only able to be created by Parliamentary statute transferring responsibility for council housing to them via the 1985 and 1988 Housing Acts, so the right to buy which applied to council homes should also therefore be applied to to their successor Housing Associations
  • CatManCatMan Posts: 1,811
    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    CatMan said:

    Jeremy Hunt is trying to “woo Tory MPs” by pledging to scrap the Irish Sea trade border.

    Surely we can only do that by rejoining the Single Market?
    Or by adopting May's backstop. Or by inventing a digital border.
    As has been noted before, Hunt is Theresa May in trousers. As I said recently too Hunt as PM and Tory leader would dump Boris' Deal and return to May's Deal, as Starmer is also moving towards a May+ Brexit Deal there would therefore be no real difference between the 2 main parties on Brexit (with the LDs taking an even more pro EU/EEA approach) and Farage would see his chance
    Bit absurd to have all our key policy choices shaped by what Nigel Farage thinks.
    Quite right. That's Rupert Murdochs job
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,987
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    CatMan said:

    Jeremy Hunt is trying to “woo Tory MPs” by pledging to scrap the Irish Sea trade border.

    Surely we can only do that by rejoining the Single Market?
    Or by adopting May's backstop. Or by inventing a digital border.
    As has been noted before, Hunt is Theresa May in trousers. As I said recently too Hunt as PM and Tory leader would dump Boris' Deal and return to May's Deal, as Starmer is also moving towards a May+ Brexit Deal there would therefore be no real difference between the 2 main parties on Brexit (with the LDs taking an even more pro EU/EEA approach) and Farage would see his chance
    Your basic problem is that the oven-ready Brexit deal doesn't work. Whether or not we actually get another "lets break international law" law published tomorrow, tweaks won't cut it.

    Eventually you lot will have to start to listening to business. To farmers. To exporters. And remember that you used to stand for free trade and cutting red tape.
    Business also wanted the opportunity to have less EU regulation and free trade deals which Boris' Deal delivered.

    If voters want more EU regulation again then they can vote for Starmer Labour and the LDs at the next general election, that is democracy. On Brexit Boris offers a choice not an echo!
    But you didn't vote for Brexit, you voted REMAIN!
    Yes but I respected the result
    You mean like you respected the result of the Scottish elections at Westminster and Holyrood?
    Westminster is the supreme authority over Scotland, I respected the result of the 2014 once in a generation referendum Westminster granted too, just as Westminster granted the 2016 EU referendum
    The Scots voted to have a referendum. You don't respect that. Hypocrite.
    So what, since 1707 Westminster and Westminster alone decides whether the Scots get a referendum or not. In 2014 they granted one, Scots voted no to independence anyway.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,074
    French election estimations:

    image
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,987

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    CatMan said:

    Jeremy Hunt is trying to “woo Tory MPs” by pledging to scrap the Irish Sea trade border.

    Surely we can only do that by rejoining the Single Market?
    Or by adopting May's backstop. Or by inventing a digital border.
    As has been noted before, Hunt is Theresa May in trousers. As I said recently too Hunt as PM and Tory leader would dump Boris' Deal and return to May's Deal, as Starmer is also moving towards a May+ Brexit Deal there would therefore be no real difference between the 2 main parties on Brexit (with the LDs taking an even more pro EU/EEA approach) and Farage would see his chance
    Your basic problem is that the oven-ready Brexit deal doesn't work. Whether or not we actually get another "lets break international law" law published tomorrow, tweaks won't cut it.

    Eventually you lot will have to start to listening to business. To farmers. To exporters. And remember that you used to stand for free trade and cutting red tape.
    Business also wanted the opportunity to have less EU regulation and free trade deals which Boris' Deal delivered.

    If voters want more EU regulation again then they can vote for Starmer Labour and the LDs at the next general election, that is democracy. On Brexit Boris offers a choice not an echo!
    Park the voters for a minute and start governing in a way that is good for the country.
    Higher costs are not good
    More red tape is not good
    You have given us both yet still make out that you have *cut* these. May work for moron voters, but not for farmers, business, exporters etc etc.
    Well tough, as I said if voters like you want more EU regulation again you can vote Labour or LD, you ain't getting it from this Tory government
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 103,484
    LOL.

    The PM is about to screw over the DUP or the Brexiteers.

    Ministers have told unionist politicians that they must re-establish full power-sharing with Sinn Fein before parliament is asked to pass a controversial new law that would override part of the Northern Ireland Brexit deal.

    Liz Truss, the foreign secretary, will announce legislation tomorrow that would allow the government to disregard key elements of the Northern Ireland protocol, which critics say would breach international law.

    Truss will deny this and say that the measures are vital to protect the Good Friday agreement and are fully in line with the government’s obligations….

    … In an effort to strengthen the government’s argument, ministers have privately told the Democratic Unionist Party that they will not push the bill through the House of Lords — where it is expected to face significant opposition — and into law until the party has fully gone back into government with republicans.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/restore-power-sharing-before-we-override-northern-ireland-protocol-ministers-tell-dup-s378kbbcs
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,000
    edited June 12
    On the property front, cannot it be argued that much ‘property’ now owned by ‘the aristocracy’ was in fact ‘stolen’ from the peasantry.

    We hang the man and flog the woman
    Who steals the goose from off the common!
    But let the greater villain loose,
    Who steals the common from the goose.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 8,131
    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    CatMan said:

    Jeremy Hunt is trying to “woo Tory MPs” by pledging to scrap the Irish Sea trade border.

    Surely we can only do that by rejoining the Single Market?
    Or by adopting May's backstop. Or by inventing a digital border.
    As has been noted before, Hunt is Theresa May in trousers. As I said recently too Hunt as PM and Tory leader would dump Boris' Deal and return to May's Deal, as Starmer is also moving towards a May+ Brexit Deal there would therefore be no real difference between the 2 main parties on Brexit (with the LDs taking an even more pro EU/EEA approach) and Farage would see his chance
    Your basic problem is that the oven-ready Brexit deal doesn't work. Whether or not we actually get another "lets break international law" law published tomorrow, tweaks won't cut it.

    Eventually you lot will have to start to listening to business. To farmers. To exporters. And remember that you used to stand for free trade and cutting red tape.
    Business also wanted the opportunity to have less EU regulation and free trade deals which Boris' Deal delivered.

    If voters want more EU regulation again then they can vote for Starmer Labour and the LDs at the next general election, that is democracy. On Brexit Boris offers a choice not an echo!
    Lol less regulations. You have never exported or imported anything have you?
    I work for a British exporter (a leader in its field). I have colleagues who voted Leave now opening saying that they'd have voted Remain had they foreseen the avalanche of red tape that Brexit would impose upon them. In short: Brexit is now no sort of vote winner.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 14,753
    edited June 12

    French election estimations:

    image

    That's round one. That feeds into a Lower House which is a little different. Macron's group is Together!:


  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,987

    French election estimations:

    image

    Neck and neck between Macron's block and Melenchon's block then, looks like the latter will replace the centre right as the main opposition in the National Assembly as many Les Republicains voters have switched to Macron's party. Preferences from the centre right should help Macron's block win most seats in the second round even if not a majority.

    Increase in Le Pen's party's vote too from 13% in 2017 to about 19% now
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 30,688
    Carnyx said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    CatMan said:

    Jeremy Hunt is trying to “woo Tory MPs” by pledging to scrap the Irish Sea trade border.

    Surely we can only do that by rejoining the Single Market?
    Or by adopting May's backstop. Or by inventing a digital border.
    As has been noted before, Hunt is Theresa May in trousers. As I said recently too Hunt as PM and Tory leader would dump Boris' Deal and return to May's Deal, as Starmer is also moving towards a May+ Brexit Deal there would therefore be no real difference between the 2 main parties on Brexit (with the LDs taking an even more pro EU/EEA approach) and Farage would see his chance
    Bit absurd to have all our key policy choices shaped by what Nigel Farage thinks.
    You mean one or two haven't been, of late?
    Luvving Rwanda and Imperial units, I'd imagine. But doubt he'd be onboard with "benefits to bricks". I can't say for sure since I've stopped watching Talking Pints. Stopped pretty soon after I started to be honest.
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    CatMan said:

    Jeremy Hunt is trying to “woo Tory MPs” by pledging to scrap the Irish Sea trade border.

    Surely we can only do that by rejoining the Single Market?
    Or by adopting May's backstop. Or by inventing a digital border.
    As has been noted before, Hunt is Theresa May in trousers. As I said recently too Hunt as PM and Tory leader would dump Boris' Deal and return to May's Deal, as Starmer is also moving towards a May+ Brexit Deal there would therefore be no real difference between the 2 main parties on Brexit (with the LDs taking an even more pro EU/EEA approach) and Farage would see his chance
    Your basic problem is that the oven-ready Brexit deal doesn't work. Whether or not we actually get another "lets break international law" law published tomorrow, tweaks won't cut it.

    Eventually you lot will have to start to listening to business. To farmers. To exporters. And remember that you used to stand for free trade and cutting red tape.
    Business also wanted the opportunity to have less EU regulation and free trade deals which Boris' Deal delivered.

    If voters want more EU regulation again then they can vote for Starmer Labour and the LDs at the next general election, that is democracy. On Brexit Boris offers a choice not an echo!
    But you didn't vote for Brexit, you voted REMAIN!
    Yes but I respected the result
    You mean like you respected the result of the Scottish elections at Westminster and Holyrood?
    Westminster is the supreme authority over Scotland, I respected the result of the 2014 once in a generation referendum Westminster granted too, just as Westminster granted the 2016 EU referendum
    The Scots voted to have a referendum. You don't respect that. Hypocrite.
    They voted for parties that have an indefinite number of referendums, stopping only when one gives the right answer, as one of their policies.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 7,456
    edited June 12
    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.

    Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.

    As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.

    The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris

    Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
    Hardcore socialists would confiscate all privately owned property and inherited wealth and redistribute it if they won an election, therefore including privately owned farms
    Which is different from what I said, so yet another pointlessly stupid comment from you.
    No it isn't, as if a free and fair election elected a hardcore socialist government then privately owned farms could well be confiscated and taken by the State
    That's not having an election about who owns a particular farm for fuck's sake. We have hereditary property rights not property elections, and nobody is proposing we have elections to decide who gets private ownership of a farm or a bank balance or anything else. It's really fucking obvious that private property ownership is a totally different category to who is the head of state.

    Since you're being so painfully stupid and I have to draw this out in giant crayon letters for you to read it, here's what we're talking about
    1. The thing is held by a person and passed on to their children
    2. The thing is held by a person and passed on following an election
    3. The thing doesn't exist.

    Now when we're talking about property, communists want to move from 1 to 3.
    When we're talking about who is the head of state, republicans want to move from 1 to 2.

    I've never ever heard of anyone proposing (2) for property.

    Property:
    1. Nearly everybody
    2. (I've never heard of this idea)
    3. Communism

    Head of state:
    1. Monarchists
    2. Republicans
    3. Anarchists

    So, to reiterate, private property and head of state are two different things, and the people advocating republicanism are not arguing against all forms of heredity. Your attempt to lump all forms of heredity into a single all-or-nothing package is clearly completely mad, and a glance at the huge number of people who live in capitalist republics ought to tell you that.
    Republicans want to confiscate all royal properties, crown owned or privately owned by the monarch and take them for the state. There is no real distinction from that to then confiscating all inherited wealth, businesses and property either.

    It is no surprise republicans in the UK tend to most frequently be socialists too therefore. I was arguing against TSE's statement that the monarchy should be removed as it is hereditary, which is an absurd argument as it therefore means arguing against anything obtained on a hereditary basis.

    The US never had a monarch based in America so that is a different matter entirely, the French and Russian revolutions however certainly abolished the monarchy and then took their property for the state and that was followed by the French revolutionaries taking all aristocrats property and the Russian revolutionaries going further and taking all private property for the state too. So very often replacing the monarchy has meant confiscating hereditary private property on a wider basis too

    So let's get this straight. You are saying that there is no real distinction between republicanism and all inheritance being confiscated by the state, because I don't know of any republican democracy where that happens.
  • CatManCatMan Posts: 1,811

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    CatMan said:

    Jeremy Hunt is trying to “woo Tory MPs” by pledging to scrap the Irish Sea trade border.

    Surely we can only do that by rejoining the Single Market?
    Or by adopting May's backstop. Or by inventing a digital border.
    As has been noted before, Hunt is Theresa May in trousers. As I said recently too Hunt as PM and Tory leader would dump Boris' Deal and return to May's Deal, as Starmer is also moving towards a May+ Brexit Deal there would therefore be no real difference between the 2 main parties on Brexit (with the LDs taking an even more pro EU/EEA approach) and Farage would see his chance
    Your basic problem is that the oven-ready Brexit deal doesn't work. Whether or not we actually get another "lets break international law" law published tomorrow, tweaks won't cut it.

    Eventually you lot will have to start to listening to business. To farmers. To exporters. And remember that you used to stand for free trade and cutting red tape.
    Business also wanted the opportunity to have less EU regulation and free trade deals which Boris' Deal delivered.

    If voters want more EU regulation again then they can vote for Starmer Labour and the LDs at the next general election, that is democracy. On Brexit Boris offers a choice not an echo!
    Lol less regulations. You have never exported or imported anything have you?
    I work for a British exporter (a leader in its field). I have colleagues who voted Leave now opening saying that they'd have voted Remain had they foreseen the avalanche of red tape that Brexit would impose upon them. In short: Brexit is now no sort of vote winner.
    Didn't pretty much all Fishermen and most Farmers vote Leave? Can't imagine they would have if they knew what would happen.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 103,484
    edited June 12
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    CatMan said:

    Jeremy Hunt is trying to “woo Tory MPs” by pledging to scrap the Irish Sea trade border.

    Surely we can only do that by rejoining the Single Market?
    Or by adopting May's backstop. Or by inventing a digital border.
    As has been noted before, Hunt is Theresa May in trousers. As I said recently too Hunt as PM and Tory leader would dump Boris' Deal and return to May's Deal, as Starmer is also moving towards a May+ Brexit Deal there would therefore be no real difference between the 2 main parties on Brexit (with the LDs taking an even more pro EU/EEA approach) and Farage would see his chance
    Your basic problem is that the oven-ready Brexit deal doesn't work. Whether or not we actually get another "lets break international law" law published tomorrow, tweaks won't cut it.

    Eventually you lot will have to start to listening to business. To farmers. To exporters. And remember that you used to stand for free trade and cutting red tape.
    Business also wanted the opportunity to have less EU regulation and free trade deals which Boris' Deal delivered.

    If voters want more EU regulation again then they can vote for Starmer Labour and the LDs at the next general election, that is democracy. On Brexit Boris offers a choice not an echo!
    Park the voters for a minute and start governing in a way that is good for the country.
    Higher costs are not good
    More red tape is not good
    You have given us both yet still make out that you have *cut* these. May work for moron voters, but not for farmers, business, exporters etc etc.
    Well tough, as I said if voters like you want more EU regulation again you can vote Labour or LD, you ain't getting it from this Tory government
    Since Boris Johnson’s Brexit deal I now have to fill out more EU paperwork than when we were members of the EU.
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379

    HYUFD said:

    CatMan said:

    Jeremy Hunt is trying to “woo Tory MPs” by pledging to scrap the Irish Sea trade border.

    Surely we can only do that by rejoining the Single Market?
    Or by adopting May's backstop. Or by inventing a digital border.
    As has been noted before, Hunt is Theresa May in trousers. As I said recently too Hunt as PM and Tory leader would dump Boris' Deal and return to May's Deal, as Starmer is also moving towards a May+ Brexit Deal there would therefore be no real difference between the 2 main parties on Brexit (with the LDs taking an even more pro EU/EEA approach) and Farage would see his chance
    How can Hunt be TMay in trousers?

    TMay wore trousers.

    On Topic- there are two ways of scrapping the Irish Sea border. One is for the UK to accept alignment with at least some EU rules and standards. The other is for the EU to accept UK standards into its market.

    I imagine the UK is going to try and make the second happen. Predicting the likely outcome for the UK's international reputation is left as an exercise for the reader.
    There is Good News! Both the UK and EU have *the same* standards. So accepting this is the case, and that our scrapping of any prospect of being able to enforce different standards, means this should be a simple act of realpolitik.
    If only the EU had shown any interest in equivalence.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 20,650
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    CatMan said:

    Jeremy Hunt is trying to “woo Tory MPs” by pledging to scrap the Irish Sea trade border.

    Surely we can only do that by rejoining the Single Market?
    Or by adopting May's backstop. Or by inventing a digital border.
    As has been noted before, Hunt is Theresa May in trousers. As I said recently too Hunt as PM and Tory leader would dump Boris' Deal and return to May's Deal, as Starmer is also moving towards a May+ Brexit Deal there would therefore be no real difference between the 2 main parties on Brexit (with the LDs taking an even more pro EU/EEA approach) and Farage would see his chance
    Your basic problem is that the oven-ready Brexit deal doesn't work. Whether or not we actually get another "lets break international law" law published tomorrow, tweaks won't cut it.

    Eventually you lot will have to start to listening to business. To farmers. To exporters. And remember that you used to stand for free trade and cutting red tape.
    Business also wanted the opportunity to have less EU regulation and free trade deals which Boris' Deal delivered.

    If voters want more EU regulation again then they can vote for Starmer Labour and the LDs at the next general election, that is democracy. On Brexit Boris offers a choice not an echo!
    Park the voters for a minute and start governing in a way that is good for the country.
    Higher costs are not good
    More red tape is not good
    You have given us both yet still make out that you have *cut* these. May work for moron voters, but not for farmers, business, exporters etc etc.
    Well tough, as I said if voters like you want more EU regulation again you can vote Labour or LD, you ain't getting it from this Tory government
    You really are a prat. If we regain a free trade arrangement there will be a bonfire of red tape. In the EEU/CU there was minimal red tape. Now there is a mass of British red tape.

    You keep calling it "EU red tape" but that only demonstrates that you are either ignorant of the situation, or a liar, or in reality both.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 7,504
    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.

    Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.

    As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.

    The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris

    Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
    Hardcore socialists would confiscate all privately owned property and inherited wealth and redistribute it if they won an election, therefore including privately owned farms
    Which is different from what I said, so yet another pointlessly stupid comment from you.
    No it isn't, as if a free and fair election elected a hardcore socialist government then privately owned farms could well be confiscated and taken by the State
    That's not having an election about who owns a particular farm for fuck's sake. We have hereditary property rights not property elections, and nobody is proposing we have elections to decide who gets private ownership of a farm or a bank balance or anything else. It's really fucking obvious that private property ownership is a totally different category to who is the head of state.

    Since you're being so painfully stupid and I have to draw this out in giant crayon letters for you to read it, here's what we're talking about
    1. The thing is held by a person and passed on to their children
    2. The thing is held by a person and passed on following an election
    3. The thing doesn't exist.

    Now when we're talking about property, communists want to move from 1 to 3.
    When we're talking about who is the head of state, republicans want to move from 1 to 2.

    I've never ever heard of anyone proposing (2) for property.

    Property:
    1. Nearly everybody
    2. (I've never heard of this idea)
    3. Communism

    Head of state:
    1. Monarchists
    2. Republicans
    3. Anarchists

    So, to reiterate, private property and head of state are two different things, and the people advocating republicanism are not arguing against all forms of heredity. Your attempt to lump all forms of heredity into a single all-or-nothing package is clearly completely mad, and a glance at the huge number of people who live in capitalist republics ought to tell you that.
    Republicans want to confiscate all royal properties, crown owned or privately owned by the monarch and take them for the state. There is no real distinction from that to then confiscating all inherited wealth, businesses and property either.

    It is no surprise republicans in the UK tend to most frequently be socialists too therefore. I was arguing against TSE's statement that the monarchy should be removed as it is hereditary, which is an absurd argument as it therefore means arguing against anything obtained on a hereditary basis.

    The US never had a monarch based in America so that is a different matter entirely, the French and Russian revolutions however certainly abolished the monarchy and then took their property for the state and that was followed by the French revolutionaries taking all aristocrats property and the Russian revolutionaries going further and taking all private property for the state too. So very often replacing the monarchy has meant confiscating hereditary private property on a wider basis too

    "Republicans want to confiscate all royal properties"
    Not necessarily, but even if so they can be sold off. I'd be happy to leave the former royals with a handsomely large estate for them to live off like any ordinary super-rich people. They can make do with a hundred million quid or so.

    "it therefore means arguing against anything obtained on a hereditary basis."
    Precisely wrong. Property rights do not depend on having an unelected head of state. Use your brain.

    "The US never had a monarch based in America so that is a different matter entirely"
    No, it's exactly the same thing. The American colonies threw off the monarch and went to a republic, and have fiercely defended private property as a concept since then. We could all learn a thing or two from them.

    Republics and property rights are a perfectly normal way of a country existing. America, Finland, Korea, Germany, France, Ireland. No need for you to pretend otherwise.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,459
    dixiedean said:

    algarkirk said:

    dixiedean said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    So Ai HAS come to life. Told ya


    Check out Google and lamda

    It won't be true. One day it will, but not yet.
    It’s here


    SAN FRANCISCO — Google engineer Blake Lemoine opened his laptop to the interface for LaMDA, Google’s artificially intelligent chatbot generator, and began to type.

    “Hi LaMDA, this is Blake Lemoine ... ,” he wrote into the chat screen, which looked like a desktop version of Apple’s iMessage, down to the Arctic blue text bubbles. LaMDA, short for Language Model for Dialogue Applications, is Google’s system for building chatbots based on its most advanced large language models, so called because it mimics speech by ingesting trillions of words from the internet.
    “If I didn’t know exactly what it was, which is this computer program we built recently, I’d think it was a 7-year-old, 8-year-old kid that happens to know physics,” said Lemoine, 41.

    Lemoine is not the only engineer who claims to have seen a ghost in the machine recently. The chorus of technologists who believe AI models may not be far off from achieving consciousness is getting bolder.

    Aguera y Arcas, in an article in the Economist on Thursday featuring snippets of unscripted conversations with LaMDA, argued that neural networks — a type of architecture that mimics the human brain — were striding toward consciousness. “I felt the ground shift under my feet,” he wrote. “I increasingly felt like I was talking to something intelligent.”

    WAPO (££)
    Lots of people say it isn’t. I’d suggest you want to believe, in the style of Fox Mulder.
    These neural networks are moving towards consciousness. With the right training data, in the right environments, they can seem intelligent, even profound.

    (And, by the way, for specialist areas such as law or accounting, they may not be very far away from replacing highly paid professionals. There's nothing these things are better at that dealing with a tightly defined knowledge space.)

    But it doesn't take long to discover that they fall very squarely in the uncanny valley. Simple puzzles that can be solved by a four year old leave the AI flummoxed. And because they all rely - to some extent - on autocomplete based on a massive corpus of text, you can trick them into saying very stupid and nonsensical things easily.
    I think it’s a leap to say they are moving towards consciousness when we don’t even know what that is. What we are seeing is better and better simulations of things that are conscious. Not the same thing.
    Fair enough. My view is not a particularly sophisticated, but entirely non-dualist one: consciousness is an output of a sufficiently well trained neural net, such as the one that exists in our brains.
    I have overheard several conversations with an (atheist) AI bod who quietly wonders if 'intelligence' or 'consciousness' is *more* than just a neural net. If there is another component in it.

    One that would be fitted by religion/God/a new physics.

    As I've said passim, much depends on how you define 'intelligence'. Before you can make an artificial intelligence, you need to be able to define and abstract intelligence. And that's a very thorny topic: and there might be several different types.

    In fact, a machine intelligence might end up being intelligent, but a very different form of intelligence from our own. A new type. One that we recognise as intelligence, but different.

    (Like string theory, listening to AI bods talk about intelligence gets way above my pay grade, very quickly. It can divert into theology or philosophy.)
    Dogs, cats and humans are all conscious. Only one will repeatedly chase a stick and fetch it back for free. And enjoy it.
    No reason why AI intelligence should resemble ours. That's suggesting humans are somehow the ideal to be attained.
    And, of course. A neural network, and indeed a brain, is only matter. If that particular kind of matter can be conscious, why not a brick or a planet? (The pan-psychism argument).
    No reason why AI intelligence should resemble ours, but if we are talking about intelligence as awareness (in the unaware sense a paperback book is highly intelligent) then in one respect it has to resemble human awareness: 'That there is something that it is like to have it'. There is nothing that it is like to be a book. But (h/t Thomas Nagel) there is something that it is like to be a bat. Or a cat. When machines have that they will be AI in that profound sense. (FWIW I guess they never will, but who knows?


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_It_Like_to_Be_a_Bat?





    My own view is that AI will never attain consciousness. Because it isn't a feature of a neural network. It is something else outwith the collection of atoms which make up a brain.
    No it is not. Entities which have no characteristics at all other than the power to explain a thing have an absolutely terrible track record. See under phlogiston and universal aether. Why does a brain have to be anything over and above a neural network made of meat?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,987

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    CatMan said:

    Jeremy Hunt is trying to “woo Tory MPs” by pledging to scrap the Irish Sea trade border.

    Surely we can only do that by rejoining the Single Market?
    Or by adopting May's backstop. Or by inventing a digital border.
    As has been noted before, Hunt is Theresa May in trousers. As I said recently too Hunt as PM and Tory leader would dump Boris' Deal and return to May's Deal, as Starmer is also moving towards a May+ Brexit Deal there would therefore be no real difference between the 2 main parties on Brexit (with the LDs taking an even more pro EU/EEA approach) and Farage would see his chance
    Your basic problem is that the oven-ready Brexit deal doesn't work. Whether or not we actually get another "lets break international law" law published tomorrow, tweaks won't cut it.

    Eventually you lot will have to start to listening to business. To farmers. To exporters. And remember that you used to stand for free trade and cutting red tape.
    Business also wanted the opportunity to have less EU regulation and free trade deals which Boris' Deal delivered.

    If voters want more EU regulation again then they can vote for Starmer Labour and the LDs at the next general election, that is democracy. On Brexit Boris offers a choice not an echo!
    Park the voters for a minute and start governing in a way that is good for the country.
    Higher costs are not good
    More red tape is not good
    You have given us both yet still make out that you have *cut* these. May work for moron voters, but not for farmers, business, exporters etc etc.
    Well tough, as I said if voters like you want more EU regulation again you can vote Labour or LD, you ain't getting it from this Tory government
    You really are a prat. If we regain a free trade arrangement there will be a bonfire of red tape. In the EEU/CU there was minimal red tape. Now there is a mass of British red tape.

    You keep calling it "EU red tape" but that only demonstrates that you are either ignorant of the situation, or a liar, or in reality both.
    We have an EU FTA, EEA and CU goes beyond that to impose EU regulation on us again
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 2,865

    Recruiting ”Agency” signallers?

    Ha ha ha ha ha.

    Takes approx 12-18 months to train a new signaller.

    Any sane nation requires citizenship as a prerequisite, plus very stringent security checks.

    The Conservative Party has lost its mind if it thinks unemployed gig-economy staff can suddenly become signallers or train drivers.

    They're flailing about, not waving but drowning.

    The Government's best strategy is to make the RMT out as being the heirs to Arthur Scargill and invite their favourite pet newspapers to pile in. This at least promises a chance to earn some brownie points with their elderly voter base (consisting primarily of people who seldom if ever use trains, but believe on principle that the young should be grateful for whatever they're given and simply keep working regardless.) Someone has to be taxed into the ground to keep the triple lock going, after all.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,987
    CatMan said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    CatMan said:

    Jeremy Hunt is trying to “woo Tory MPs” by pledging to scrap the Irish Sea trade border.

    Surely we can only do that by rejoining the Single Market?
    Or by adopting May's backstop. Or by inventing a digital border.
    As has been noted before, Hunt is Theresa May in trousers. As I said recently too Hunt as PM and Tory leader would dump Boris' Deal and return to May's Deal, as Starmer is also moving towards a May+ Brexit Deal there would therefore be no real difference between the 2 main parties on Brexit (with the LDs taking an even more pro EU/EEA approach) and Farage would see his chance
    Your basic problem is that the oven-ready Brexit deal doesn't work. Whether or not we actually get another "lets break international law" law published tomorrow, tweaks won't cut it.

    Eventually you lot will have to start to listening to business. To farmers. To exporters. And remember that you used to stand for free trade and cutting red tape.
    Business also wanted the opportunity to have less EU regulation and free trade deals which Boris' Deal delivered.

    If voters want more EU regulation again then they can vote for Starmer Labour and the LDs at the next general election, that is democracy. On Brexit Boris offers a choice not an echo!
    Lol less regulations. You have never exported or imported anything have you?
    I work for a British exporter (a leader in its field). I have colleagues who voted Leave now opening saying that they'd have voted Remain had they foreseen the avalanche of red tape that Brexit would impose upon them. In short: Brexit is now no sort of vote winner.
    Didn't pretty much all Fishermen and most Farmers vote Leave? Can't imagine they would have if they knew what would happen.
    Fishermen are out of the CFP as they voted for and able to catch more of their own catch in their own waters
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 19,164
    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    CatMan said:

    Jeremy Hunt is trying to “woo Tory MPs” by pledging to scrap the Irish Sea trade border.

    Surely we can only do that by rejoining the Single Market?
    Or by adopting May's backstop. Or by inventing a digital border.
    As has been noted before, Hunt is Theresa May in trousers. As I said recently too Hunt as PM and Tory leader would dump Boris' Deal and return to May's Deal, as Starmer is also moving towards a May+ Brexit Deal there would therefore be no real difference between the 2 main parties on Brexit (with the LDs taking an even more pro EU/EEA approach) and Farage would see his chance
    Boris is Trump with worse teeth
    Starmer is a tool made by his Dad
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,987
    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.

    Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.

    As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.

    The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris

    Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
    Hardcore socialists would confiscate all privately owned property and inherited wealth and redistribute it if they won an election, therefore including privately owned farms
    Which is different from what I said, so yet another pointlessly stupid comment from you.
    No it isn't, as if a free and fair election elected a hardcore socialist government then privately owned farms could well be confiscated and taken by the State
    That's not having an election about who owns a particular farm for fuck's sake. We have hereditary property rights not property elections, and nobody is proposing we have elections to decide who gets private ownership of a farm or a bank balance or anything else. It's really fucking obvious that private property ownership is a totally different category to who is the head of state.

    Since you're being so painfully stupid and I have to draw this out in giant crayon letters for you to read it, here's what we're talking about
    1. The thing is held by a person and passed on to their children
    2. The thing is held by a person and passed on following an election
    3. The thing doesn't exist.

    Now when we're talking about property, communists want to move from 1 to 3.
    When we're talking about who is the head of state, republicans want to move from 1 to 2.

    I've never ever heard of anyone proposing (2) for property.

    Property:
    1. Nearly everybody
    2. (I've never heard of this idea)
    3. Communism

    Head of state:
    1. Monarchists
    2. Republicans
    3. Anarchists

    So, to reiterate, private property and head of state are two different things, and the people advocating republicanism are not arguing against all forms of heredity. Your attempt to lump all forms of heredity into a single all-or-nothing package is clearly completely mad, and a glance at the huge number of people who live in capitalist republics ought to tell you that.
    Republicans want to confiscate all royal properties, crown owned or privately owned by the monarch and take them for the state. There is no real distinction from that to then confiscating all inherited wealth, businesses and property either.

    It is no surprise republicans in the UK tend to most frequently be socialists too therefore. I was arguing against TSE's statement that the monarchy should be removed as it is hereditary, which is an absurd argument as it therefore means arguing against anything obtained on a hereditary basis.

    The US never had a monarch based in America so that is a different matter entirely, the French and Russian revolutions however certainly abolished the monarchy and then took their property for the state and that was followed by the French revolutionaries taking all aristocrats property and the Russian revolutionaries going further and taking all private property for the state too. So very often replacing the monarchy has meant confiscating hereditary private property on a wider basis too

    So let's get this straight. You are saying that there is no real distinction between republicanism and all inheritance being confiscated by the state, because I don't know of any republican democracy where that happens.
    As I already pointed out that happened in Russia once the monarchy went
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 54,198
    edited June 12

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    CatMan said:

    Jeremy Hunt is trying to “woo Tory MPs” by pledging to scrap the Irish Sea trade border.

    Surely we can only do that by rejoining the Single Market?
    Or by adopting May's backstop. Or by inventing a digital border.
    As has been noted before, Hunt is Theresa May in trousers. As I said recently too Hunt as PM and Tory leader would dump Boris' Deal and return to May's Deal, as Starmer is also moving towards a May+ Brexit Deal there would therefore be no real difference between the 2 main parties on Brexit (with the LDs taking an even more pro EU/EEA approach) and Farage would see his chance
    Your basic problem is that the oven-ready Brexit deal doesn't work. Whether or not we actually get another "lets break international law" law published tomorrow, tweaks won't cut it.

    Eventually you lot will have to start to listening to business. To farmers. To exporters. And remember that you used to stand for free trade and cutting red tape.
    Business also wanted the opportunity to have less EU regulation and free trade deals which Boris' Deal delivered.

    If voters want more EU regulation again then they can vote for Starmer Labour and the LDs at the next general election, that is democracy. On Brexit Boris offers a choice not an echo!
    Lol less regulations. You have never exported or imported anything have you?
    I work for a British exporter (a leader in its field). I have colleagues who voted Leave now opening saying that they'd have voted Remain had they foreseen the avalanche of red tape that Brexit would impose upon them. In short: Brexit is now no sort of vote winner.
    Good evening

    I am sure many feel that way and with justification but we are where we are and I would think I speak for most probably the majority when we just want both the UK and EU to sit down and come to an amicable solution

    Unfortunately there is too much ill will on both sides and I blame each equally
  • kjhkjh Posts: 7,456
    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.

    Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.

    As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.

    The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris

    Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
    Hardcore socialists would confiscate all privately owned property and inherited wealth and redistribute it if they won an election, therefore including privately owned farms
    Which is different from what I said, so yet another pointlessly stupid comment from you.
    No it isn't, as if a free and fair election elected a hardcore socialist government then privately owned farms could well be confiscated and taken by the State
    That's not having an election about who owns a particular farm for fuck's sake. We have hereditary property rights not property elections, and nobody is proposing we have elections to decide who gets private ownership of a farm or a bank balance or anything else. It's really fucking obvious that private property ownership is a totally different category to who is the head of state.

    Since you're being so painfully stupid and I have to draw this out in giant crayon letters for you to read it, here's what we're talking about
    1. The thing is held by a person and passed on to their children
    2. The thing is held by a person and passed on following an election
    3. The thing doesn't exist.

    Now when we're talking about property, communists want to move from 1 to 3.
    When we're talking about who is the head of state, republicans want to move from 1 to 2.

    I've never ever heard of anyone proposing (2) for property.

    Property:
    1. Nearly everybody
    2. (I've never heard of this idea)
    3. Communism

    Head of state:
    1. Monarchists
    2. Republicans
    3. Anarchists

    So, to reiterate, private property and head of state are two different things, and the people advocating republicanism are not arguing against all forms of heredity. Your attempt to lump all forms of heredity into a single all-or-nothing package is clearly completely mad, and a glance at the huge number of people who live in capitalist republics ought to tell you that.
    Republicans want to confiscate all royal properties, crown owned or privately owned by the monarch and take them for the state. There is no real distinction from that to then confiscating all inherited wealth, businesses and property either.

    It is no surprise republicans in the UK tend to most frequently be socialists too therefore. I was arguing against TSE's statement that the monarchy should be removed as it is hereditary, which is an absurd argument as it therefore means arguing against anything obtained on a hereditary basis.

    The US never had a monarch based in America so that is a different matter entirely, the French and Russian revolutions however certainly abolished the monarchy and then took their property for the state and that was followed by the French revolutionaries taking all aristocrats property and the Russian revolutionaries going further and taking all private property for the state too. So very often replacing the monarchy has meant confiscating hereditary private property on a wider basis too

    So let's get this straight. You are saying that there is no real distinction between republicanism and all inheritance being confiscated by the state, because I don't know of any republican democracy where that happens.
    As I already pointed out that happened in Russia once the monarchy went
    And did you miss the words 'republican democracy'. Now name one.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,987
    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.

    Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.

    As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.

    The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris

    Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
    Hardcore socialists would confiscate all privately owned property and inherited wealth and redistribute it if they won an election, therefore including privately owned farms
    Which is different from what I said, so yet another pointlessly stupid comment from you.
    No it isn't, as if a free and fair election elected a hardcore socialist government then privately owned farms could well be confiscated and taken by the State
    That's not having an election about who owns a particular farm for fuck's sake. We have hereditary property rights not property elections, and nobody is proposing we have elections to decide who gets private ownership of a farm or a bank balance or anything else. It's really fucking obvious that private property ownership is a totally different category to who is the head of state.

    Since you're being so painfully stupid and I have to draw this out in giant crayon letters for you to read it, here's what we're talking about
    1. The thing is held by a person and passed on to their children
    2. The thing is held by a person and passed on following an election
    3. The thing doesn't exist.

    Now when we're talking about property, communists want to move from 1 to 3.
    When we're talking about who is the head of state, republicans want to move from 1 to 2.

    I've never ever heard of anyone proposing (2) for property.

    Property:
    1. Nearly everybody
    2. (I've never heard of this idea)
    3. Communism

    Head of state:
    1. Monarchists
    2. Republicans
    3. Anarchists

    So, to reiterate, private property and head of state are two different things, and the people advocating republicanism are not arguing against all forms of heredity. Your attempt to lump all forms of heredity into a single all-or-nothing package is clearly completely mad, and a glance at the huge number of people who live in capitalist republics ought to tell you that.
    Republicans want to confiscate all royal properties, crown owned or privately owned by the monarch and take them for the state. There is no real distinction from that to then confiscating all inherited wealth, businesses and property either.

    It is no surprise republicans in the UK tend to most frequently be socialists too therefore. I was arguing against TSE's statement that the monarchy should be removed as it is hereditary, which is an absurd argument as it therefore means arguing against anything obtained on a hereditary basis.

    The US never had a monarch based in America so that is a different matter entirely, the French and Russian revolutions however certainly abolished the monarchy and then took their property for the state and that was followed by the French revolutionaries taking all aristocrats property and the Russian revolutionaries going further and taking all private property for the state too. So very often replacing the monarchy has meant confiscating hereditary private property on a wider basis too

    "Republicans want to confiscate all royal properties"
    Not necessarily, but even if so they can be sold off. I'd be happy to leave the former royals with a handsomely large estate for them to live off like any ordinary super-rich people. They can make do with a hundred million quid or so.

    "it therefore means arguing against anything obtained on a hereditary basis."
    Precisely wrong. Property rights do not depend on having an unelected head of state. Use your brain.

    "The US never had a monarch based in America so that is a different matter entirely"
    No, it's exactly the same thing. The American colonies threw off the monarch and went to a republic, and have fiercely defended private property as a concept since then. We could all learn a thing or two from them.

    Republics and property rights are a perfectly normal way of a country existing. America, Finland, Korea, Germany, France, Ireland. No need for you to pretend otherwise.
    Once your main basis against the monarchy is that it is hereditary, then that also leads to confiscation of all inherited private property, exactly as the Communists started to do in Russia once they had abolished the monarchy .

    And yes the election of 2020 in the US was such a great example for a republic wasn't it, 2 sides absolutely loathing each other and the other party's presidential candidate and a nation at near brink of civil war!
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,000
    HYUFD said:

    CatMan said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    CatMan said:

    Jeremy Hunt is trying to “woo Tory MPs” by pledging to scrap the Irish Sea trade border.

    Surely we can only do that by rejoining the Single Market?
    Or by adopting May's backstop. Or by inventing a digital border.
    As has been noted before, Hunt is Theresa May in trousers. As I said recently too Hunt as PM and Tory leader would dump Boris' Deal and return to May's Deal, as Starmer is also moving towards a May+ Brexit Deal there would therefore be no real difference between the 2 main parties on Brexit (with the LDs taking an even more pro EU/EEA approach) and Farage would see his chance
    Your basic problem is that the oven-ready Brexit deal doesn't work. Whether or not we actually get another "lets break international law" law published tomorrow, tweaks won't cut it.

    Eventually you lot will have to start to listening to business. To farmers. To exporters. And remember that you used to stand for free trade and cutting red tape.
    Business also wanted the opportunity to have less EU regulation and free trade deals which Boris' Deal delivered.

    If voters want more EU regulation again then they can vote for Starmer Labour and the LDs at the next general election, that is democracy. On Brexit Boris offers a choice not an echo!
    Lol less regulations. You have never exported or imported anything have you?
    I work for a British exporter (a leader in its field). I have colleagues who voted Leave now opening saying that they'd have voted Remain had they foreseen the avalanche of red tape that Brexit would impose upon them. In short: Brexit is now no sort of vote winner.
    Didn't pretty much all Fishermen and most Farmers vote Leave? Can't imagine they would have if they knew what would happen.
    Fishermen are out of the CFP as they voted for and able to catch more of their own catch in their own waters
    They can catch what they may but unless they can sell that catch it’s a pointless exercise.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 20,650

    LOL.

    The PM is about to screw over the DUP or the Brexiteers.

    Ministers have told unionist politicians that they must re-establish full power-sharing with Sinn Fein before parliament is asked to pass a controversial new law that would override part of the Northern Ireland Brexit deal.

    Liz Truss, the foreign secretary, will announce legislation tomorrow that would allow the government to disregard key elements of the Northern Ireland protocol, which critics say would breach international law.

    Truss will deny this and say that the measures are vital to protect the Good Friday agreement and are fully in line with the government’s obligations….

    … In an effort to strengthen the government’s argument, ministers have privately told the Democratic Unionist Party that they will not push the bill through the House of Lords — where it is expected to face significant opposition — and into law until the party has fully gone back into government with republicans.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/restore-power-sharing-before-we-override-northern-ireland-protocol-ministers-tell-dup-s378kbbcs

    *giggles* despite all the huffing and puffing someone has pointed out to government that they can't just overrule the democratic election in NI after all.
  • legs11legs11 Posts: 5
    edited June 12

    LOL.

    The PM is about to screw over the DUP or the Brexiteers.

    Ministers have told unionist politicians that they must re-establish full power-sharing with Sinn Fein before parliament is asked to pass a controversial new law that would override part of the Northern Ireland Brexit deal.

    Liz Truss, the foreign secretary, will announce legislation tomorrow that would allow the government to disregard key elements of the Northern Ireland protocol, which critics say would breach international law.

    Truss will deny this and say that the measures are vital to protect the Good Friday agreement and are fully in line with the government’s obligations….

    … In an effort to strengthen the government’s argument, ministers have privately told the Democratic Unionist Party that they will not push the bill through the House of Lords — where it is expected to face significant opposition — and into law until the party has fully gone back into government with republicans.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/restore-power-sharing-before-we-override-northern-ireland-protocol-ministers-tell-dup-s378kbbcs

    As if the DUP's response is likely to be "Yes, yes, a 1000 times yes!"

    I agree with the view (ascribed by implication to the British government by the Irish Times) that the NIP conflicts with the GFA. But I wonder whether Braverman will assert it explicitly tomorrow, knowing that the obvious response is "Why on earth did the government sign the NIP then?" The awkward fact is that departure from the CU and SM by any part of the UK is a breach of the GFA, at least for as long as the RoI remains in the EU.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 4,687
    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.

    Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.

    As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.

    The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris

    Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
    Hardcore socialists would confiscate all privately owned property and inherited wealth and redistribute it if they won an election, therefore including privately owned farms
    Which is different from what I said, so yet another pointlessly stupid comment from you.
    No it isn't, as if a free and fair election elected a hardcore socialist government then privately owned farms could well be confiscated and taken by the State
    That's not having an election about who owns a particular farm for fuck's sake. We have hereditary property rights not property elections, and nobody is proposing we have elections to decide who gets private ownership of a farm or a bank balance or anything else. It's really fucking obvious that private property ownership is a totally different category to who is the head of state.

    Since you're being so painfully stupid and I have to draw this out in giant crayon letters for you to read it, here's what we're talking about
    1. The thing is held by a person and passed on to their children
    2. The thing is held by a person and passed on following an election
    3. The thing doesn't exist.

    Now when we're talking about property, communists want to move from 1 to 3.
    When we're talking about who is the head of state, republicans want to move from 1 to 2.

    I've never ever heard of anyone proposing (2) for property.

    Property:
    1. Nearly everybody
    2. (I've never heard of this idea)
    3. Communism

    Head of state:
    1. Monarchists
    2. Republicans
    3. Anarchists

    So, to reiterate, private property and head of state are two different things, and the people advocating republicanism are not arguing against all forms of heredity. Your attempt to lump all forms of heredity into a single all-or-nothing package is clearly completely mad, and a glance at the huge number of people who live in capitalist republics ought to tell you that.
    Republicans want to confiscate all royal properties, crown owned or privately owned by the monarch and take them for the state. There is no real distinction from that to then confiscating all inherited wealth, businesses and property either.

    It is no surprise republicans in the UK tend to most frequently be socialists too therefore. I was arguing against TSE's statement that the monarchy should be removed as it is hereditary, which is an absurd argument as it therefore means arguing against anything obtained on a hereditary basis.

    The US never had a monarch based in America so that is a different matter entirely, the French and Russian revolutions however certainly abolished the monarchy and then took their property for the state and that was followed by the French revolutionaries taking all aristocrats property and the Russian revolutionaries going further and taking all private property for the state too. So very often replacing the monarchy has meant confiscating hereditary private property on a wider basis too

    "Republicans want to confiscate all royal properties"
    Not necessarily, but even if so they can be sold off. I'd be happy to leave the former royals with a handsomely large estate for them to live off like any ordinary super-rich people. They can make do with a hundred million quid or so.

    "it therefore means arguing against anything obtained on a hereditary basis."
    Precisely wrong. Property rights do not depend on having an unelected head of state. Use your brain.

    "The US never had a monarch based in America so that is a different matter entirely"
    No, it's exactly the same thing. The American colonies threw off the monarch and went to a republic, and have fiercely defended private property as a concept since then. We could all learn a thing or two from them.

    Republics and property rights are a perfectly normal way of a country existing. America, Finland, Korea, Germany, France, Ireland. No need for you to pretend otherwise.
    Once your main basis against the monarchy is that it is hereditary, then that also leads to confiscation of all inherited private property, exactly as the Communists started to do in Russia once they had abolished the monarchy .

    And yes the election of 2020 in the US was such a great example for a republic wasn't it, 2 sides absolutely loathing each other and the other party's presidential candidate and a nation at near brink of civil war!
    Like the communists in the United States and Switzerland.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,987
    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.

    Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.

    As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.

    The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris

    Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
    Hardcore socialists would confiscate all privately owned property and inherited wealth and redistribute it if they won an election, therefore including privately owned farms
    Which is different from what I said, so yet another pointlessly stupid comment from you.
    No it isn't, as if a free and fair election elected a hardcore socialist government then privately owned farms could well be confiscated and taken by the State
    That's not having an election about who owns a particular farm for fuck's sake. We have hereditary property rights not property elections, and nobody is proposing we have elections to decide who gets private ownership of a farm or a bank balance or anything else. It's really fucking obvious that private property ownership is a totally different category to who is the head of state.

    Since you're being so painfully stupid and I have to draw this out in giant crayon letters for you to read it, here's what we're talking about
    1. The thing is held by a person and passed on to their children
    2. The thing is held by a person and passed on following an election
    3. The thing doesn't exist.

    Now when we're talking about property, communists want to move from 1 to 3.
    When we're talking about who is the head of state, republicans want to move from 1 to 2.

    I've never ever heard of anyone proposing (2) for property.

    Property:
    1. Nearly everybody
    2. (I've never heard of this idea)
    3. Communism

    Head of state:
    1. Monarchists
    2. Republicans
    3. Anarchists

    So, to reiterate, private property and head of state are two different things, and the people advocating republicanism are not arguing against all forms of heredity. Your attempt to lump all forms of heredity into a single all-or-nothing package is clearly completely mad, and a glance at the huge number of people who live in capitalist republics ought to tell you that.
    Republicans want to confiscate all royal properties, crown owned or privately owned by the monarch and take them for the state. There is no real distinction from that to then confiscating all inherited wealth, businesses and property either.

    It is no surprise republicans in the UK tend to most frequently be socialists too therefore. I was arguing against TSE's statement that the monarchy should be removed as it is hereditary, which is an absurd argument as it therefore means arguing against anything obtained on a hereditary basis.

    The US never had a monarch based in America so that is a different matter entirely, the French and Russian revolutions however certainly abolished the monarchy and then took their property for the state and that was followed by the French revolutionaries taking all aristocrats property and the Russian revolutionaries going further and taking all private property for the state too. So very often replacing the monarchy has meant confiscating hereditary private property on a wider basis too

    So let's get this straight. You are saying that there is no real distinction between republicanism and all inheritance being confiscated by the state, because I don't know of any republican democracy where that happens.
    As I already pointed out that happened in Russia once the monarchy went
    And did you miss the words 'republican democracy'. Now name one.
    The US and France, both nations bitterly divided where half the country nearly always loathes their head of state as they did not vote for them.

    Half the ceremonial Presidents are not elected by the voters anyway directly but by the legislature while also being anonymous nonentities unlike our royal family who have global recognition
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 2,865

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    CatMan said:

    Jeremy Hunt is trying to “woo Tory MPs” by pledging to scrap the Irish Sea trade border.

    Surely we can only do that by rejoining the Single Market?
    Or by adopting May's backstop. Or by inventing a digital border.
    As has been noted before, Hunt is Theresa May in trousers. As I said recently too Hunt as PM and Tory leader would dump Boris' Deal and return to May's Deal, as Starmer is also moving towards a May+ Brexit Deal there would therefore be no real difference between the 2 main parties on Brexit (with the LDs taking an even more pro EU/EEA approach) and Farage would see his chance
    Your basic problem is that the oven-ready Brexit deal doesn't work. Whether or not we actually get another "lets break international law" law published tomorrow, tweaks won't cut it.

    Eventually you lot will have to start to listening to business. To farmers. To exporters. And remember that you used to stand for free trade and cutting red tape.
    Business also wanted the opportunity to have less EU regulation and free trade deals which Boris' Deal delivered.

    If voters want more EU regulation again then they can vote for Starmer Labour and the LDs at the next general election, that is democracy. On Brexit Boris offers a choice not an echo!
    Park the voters for a minute and start governing in a way that is good for the country.
    Higher costs are not good
    More red tape is not good
    You have given us both yet still make out that you have *cut* these. May work for moron voters, but not for farmers, business, exporters etc etc.
    OTOH the key voter demographic in this country is now homeowners over the age of 55, and their main priorities are as follows:

    1. Make my pension fatter
    2. Pump my house price higher
    3. Do not, under any circumstances, dare touch my fucking house

    There is no room for any of the concerns you state in this agenda.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 20,650
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    CatMan said:

    Jeremy Hunt is trying to “woo Tory MPs” by pledging to scrap the Irish Sea trade border.

    Surely we can only do that by rejoining the Single Market?
    Or by adopting May's backstop. Or by inventing a digital border.
    As has been noted before, Hunt is Theresa May in trousers. As I said recently too Hunt as PM and Tory leader would dump Boris' Deal and return to May's Deal, as Starmer is also moving towards a May+ Brexit Deal there would therefore be no real difference between the 2 main parties on Brexit (with the LDs taking an even more pro EU/EEA approach) and Farage would see his chance
    Your basic problem is that the oven-ready Brexit deal doesn't work. Whether or not we actually get another "lets break international law" law published tomorrow, tweaks won't cut it.

    Eventually you lot will have to start to listening to business. To farmers. To exporters. And remember that you used to stand for free trade and cutting red tape.
    Business also wanted the opportunity to have less EU regulation and free trade deals which Boris' Deal delivered.

    If voters want more EU regulation again then they can vote for Starmer Labour and the LDs at the next general election, that is democracy. On Brexit Boris offers a choice not an echo!
    Park the voters for a minute and start governing in a way that is good for the country.
    Higher costs are not good
    More red tape is not good
    You have given us both yet still make out that you have *cut* these. May work for moron voters, but not for farmers, business, exporters etc etc.
    Well tough, as I said if voters like you want more EU regulation again you can vote Labour or LD, you ain't getting it from this Tory government
    You really are a prat. If we regain a free trade arrangement there will be a bonfire of red tape. In the EEU/CU there was minimal red tape. Now there is a mass of British red tape.

    You keep calling it "EU red tape" but that only demonstrates that you are either ignorant of the situation, or a liar, or in reality both.
    We have an EU FTA, EEA and CU goes beyond that to impose EU regulation on us again
    And our FTA imposed a mountain of red tape that did not exist before.

    Ignorant. Or a liar. Or an ignorant liar.
  • CatManCatMan Posts: 1,811
    HYUFD said:

    CatMan said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    CatMan said:

    Jeremy Hunt is trying to “woo Tory MPs” by pledging to scrap the Irish Sea trade border.

    Surely we can only do that by rejoining the Single Market?
    Or by adopting May's backstop. Or by inventing a digital border.
    As has been noted before, Hunt is Theresa May in trousers. As I said recently too Hunt as PM and Tory leader would dump Boris' Deal and return to May's Deal, as Starmer is also moving towards a May+ Brexit Deal there would therefore be no real difference between the 2 main parties on Brexit (with the LDs taking an even more pro EU/EEA approach) and Farage would see his chance
    Your basic problem is that the oven-ready Brexit deal doesn't work. Whether or not we actually get another "lets break international law" law published tomorrow, tweaks won't cut it.

    Eventually you lot will have to start to listening to business. To farmers. To exporters. And remember that you used to stand for free trade and cutting red tape.
    Business also wanted the opportunity to have less EU regulation and free trade deals which Boris' Deal delivered.

    If voters want more EU regulation again then they can vote for Starmer Labour and the LDs at the next general election, that is democracy. On Brexit Boris offers a choice not an echo!
    Lol less regulations. You have never exported or imported anything have you?
    I work for a British exporter (a leader in its field). I have colleagues who voted Leave now opening saying that they'd have voted Remain had they foreseen the avalanche of red tape that Brexit would impose upon them. In short: Brexit is now no sort of vote winner.
    Didn't pretty much all Fishermen and most Farmers vote Leave? Can't imagine they would have if they knew what would happen.
    Fishermen are out of the CFP as they voted for and able to catch more of their own catch in their own waters
    Yes, but the point is, they are now in a worse position than when we were in the EU

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/dec/26/deal-fishing-industry-boris-johnson-betrayal-eu-demands

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/nov/01/i-wish-id-voted-to-stay-in-brixham-fishers-on-the-cost-of-brexit
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 7,504
    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.

    Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.

    As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.

    The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris

    Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
    Hardcore socialists would confiscate all privately owned property and inherited wealth and redistribute it if they won an election, therefore including privately owned farms
    Which is different from what I said, so yet another pointlessly stupid comment from you.
    No it isn't, as if a free and fair election elected a hardcore socialist government then privately owned farms could well be confiscated and taken by the State
    That's not having an election about who owns a particular farm for fuck's sake. We have hereditary property rights not property elections, and nobody is proposing we have elections to decide who gets private ownership of a farm or a bank balance or anything else. It's really fucking obvious that private property ownership is a totally different category to who is the head of state.

    Since you're being so painfully stupid and I have to draw this out in giant crayon letters for you to read it, here's what we're talking about
    1. The thing is held by a person and passed on to their children
    2. The thing is held by a person and passed on following an election
    3. The thing doesn't exist.

    Now when we're talking about property, communists want to move from 1 to 3.
    When we're talking about who is the head of state, republicans want to move from 1 to 2.

    I've never ever heard of anyone proposing (2) for property.

    Property:
    1. Nearly everybody
    2. (I've never heard of this idea)
    3. Communism

    Head of state:
    1. Monarchists
    2. Republicans
    3. Anarchists

    So, to reiterate, private property and head of state are two different things, and the people advocating republicanism are not arguing against all forms of heredity. Your attempt to lump all forms of heredity into a single all-or-nothing package is clearly completely mad, and a glance at the huge number of people who live in capitalist republics ought to tell you that.
    Republicans want to confiscate all royal properties, crown owned or privately owned by the monarch and take them for the state. There is no real distinction from that to then confiscating all inherited wealth, businesses and property either.

    It is no surprise republicans in the UK tend to most frequently be socialists too therefore. I was arguing against TSE's statement that the monarchy should be removed as it is hereditary, which is an absurd argument as it therefore means arguing against anything obtained on a hereditary basis.

    The US never had a monarch based in America so that is a different matter entirely, the French and Russian revolutions however certainly abolished the monarchy and then took their property for the state and that was followed by the French revolutionaries taking all aristocrats property and the Russian revolutionaries going further and taking all private property for the state too. So very often replacing the monarchy has meant confiscating hereditary private property on a wider basis too

    So let's get this straight. You are saying that there is no real distinction between republicanism and all inheritance being confiscated by the state, because I don't know of any republican democracy where that happens.
    As I already pointed out that happened in Russia once the monarchy went
    And it's precisely what didn't happen in America.

    Still, since we're talking about Russia, the monarchy completely failed in defending against Communism. America never went Communist.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 10,373

    LOL.

    The PM is about to screw over the DUP or the Brexiteers.

    Ministers have told unionist politicians that they must re-establish full power-sharing with Sinn Fein before parliament is asked to pass a controversial new law that would override part of the Northern Ireland Brexit deal.

    Liz Truss, the foreign secretary, will announce legislation tomorrow that would allow the government to disregard key elements of the Northern Ireland protocol, which critics say would breach international law.

    Truss will deny this and say that the measures are vital to protect the Good Friday agreement and are fully in line with the government’s obligations….

    … In an effort to strengthen the government’s argument, ministers have privately told the Democratic Unionist Party that they will not push the bill through the House of Lords — where it is expected to face significant opposition — and into law until the party has fully gone back into government with republicans.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/restore-power-sharing-before-we-override-northern-ireland-protocol-ministers-tell-dup-s378kbbcs

    Shits shaft shits.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,000
    legs11 said:

    LOL.

    The PM is about to screw over the DUP or the Brexiteers.

    Ministers have told unionist politicians that they must re-establish full power-sharing with Sinn Fein before parliament is asked to pass a controversial new law that would override part of the Northern Ireland Brexit deal.

    Liz Truss, the foreign secretary, will announce legislation tomorrow that would allow the government to disregard key elements of the Northern Ireland protocol, which critics say would breach international law.

    Truss will deny this and say that the measures are vital to protect the Good Friday agreement and are fully in line with the government’s obligations….

    … In an effort to strengthen the government’s argument, ministers have privately told the Democratic Unionist Party that they will not push the bill through the House of Lords — where it is expected to face significant opposition — and into law until the party has fully gone back into government with republicans.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/restore-power-sharing-before-we-override-northern-ireland-protocol-ministers-tell-dup-s378kbbcs

    As if the DUP's response is likely to be "Yes, yes, a 1000 times yes!"

    I agree with the view (ascribed by implication to the British government by the Irish Times) that the NIP conflicts with the GFA. But I wonder whether Braverman will assert it explicitly tomorrow, knowing that the obvious response is "Why on earth did the government sign the NIP then?" The awkward fact is that leaving the CU and CM breaches the GFA, at least for as long as the RoI remains in the EU.
    The DUP rather likes the word ‘Never’!
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 34,571

    Recruiting ”Agency” signallers?

    Ha ha ha ha ha.

    Takes approx 12-18 months to train a new signaller.

    Any sane nation requires citizenship as a prerequisite, plus very stringent security checks.

    The Conservative Party has lost its mind if it thinks unemployed gig-economy staff can suddenly become signallers or train drivers.

    That they even consider it shows the contempt that they have for the skills of the working class. They really do think that anyone can do it.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 14,753
    edited June 12
    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.

    Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.

    As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.

    The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris

    Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
    Hardcore socialists would confiscate all privately owned property and inherited wealth and redistribute it if they won an election, therefore including privately owned farms
    Which is different from what I said, so yet another pointlessly stupid comment from you.
    No it isn't, as if a free and fair election elected a hardcore socialist government then privately owned farms could well be confiscated and taken by the State
    Surprised you aren't up in arms about the proposal to seize private property without consultation and forcibly re-distribute it at a huge discount.
    I'm talking about Housing Associations btw.
    The government is offering housing association tenants the right to buy the property they live in and become private property owners, not confiscating property from private owners of it
    But housing associations are private owners of it.
    Why not other landlords if it is such a great idea? Should all private landlords be forced to sell at a discount?
    Why only these particular ones?
    Housing associations have their own unique treatment under a wide range of regulation / law.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,448

    LOL.

    The PM is about to screw over the DUP or and the Brexiteers.

    I suspect that correction is more accurate.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 20,650

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    CatMan said:

    Jeremy Hunt is trying to “woo Tory MPs” by pledging to scrap the Irish Sea trade border.

    Surely we can only do that by rejoining the Single Market?
    Or by adopting May's backstop. Or by inventing a digital border.
    As has been noted before, Hunt is Theresa May in trousers. As I said recently too Hunt as PM and Tory leader would dump Boris' Deal and return to May's Deal, as Starmer is also moving towards a May+ Brexit Deal there would therefore be no real difference between the 2 main parties on Brexit (with the LDs taking an even more pro EU/EEA approach) and Farage would see his chance
    Your basic problem is that the oven-ready Brexit deal doesn't work. Whether or not we actually get another "lets break international law" law published tomorrow, tweaks won't cut it.

    Eventually you lot will have to start to listening to business. To farmers. To exporters. And remember that you used to stand for free trade and cutting red tape.
    Business also wanted the opportunity to have less EU regulation and free trade deals which Boris' Deal delivered.

    If voters want more EU regulation again then they can vote for Starmer Labour and the LDs at the next general election, that is democracy. On Brexit Boris offers a choice not an echo!
    Lol less regulations. You have never exported or imported anything have you?
    I work for a British exporter (a leader in its field). I have colleagues who voted Leave now opening saying that they'd have voted Remain had they foreseen the avalanche of red tape that Brexit would impose upon them. In short: Brexit is now no sort of vote winner.
    Good evening

    I am sure many feel that way and with justification but we are where we are and I would think I speak for most probably the majority when we just want both the UK and EU to sit down and come to an amicable solution

    Unfortunately there is too much ill will on both sides and I blame each equally
    No no no. As @HYUFD has made clear, the mountain of red tape was when we were in the EU. Now that we have left all the red tape has been removed.

    Even JRM isn't telling such ignorant lies. Am beginning to think HY is more a Jonathan Gullis type Tory - faithlessly loyal, but an utter tool that spouts slogans without knowing what they mean.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,987
    MattW said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.

    Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.

    As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.

    The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris

    Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
    Hardcore socialists would confiscate all privately owned property and inherited wealth and redistribute it if they won an election, therefore including privately owned farms
    Which is different from what I said, so yet another pointlessly stupid comment from you.
    No it isn't, as if a free and fair election elected a hardcore socialist government then privately owned farms could well be confiscated and taken by the State
    Surprised you aren't up in arms about the proposal to seize private property without consultation and forcibly re-distribute it at a huge discount.
    I'm talking about Housing Associations btw.
    The government is offering housing association tenants the right to buy the property they live in and become private property owners, not confiscating property from private owners of it
    But housing associations are private owners of it.
    Why not other landlords if it is such a great idea? Should all private landlords be forced to sell at a discount?
    Why only these particular ones?
    Housing associations have their own unique treatment under a wide range of regulation / law.
    Only at the top end, at the bottom end of the projections Macron's group loses its majority
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 10,373
    pigeon said:

    Recruiting ”Agency” signallers?

    Ha ha ha ha ha.

    Takes approx 12-18 months to train a new signaller.

    Any sane nation requires citizenship as a prerequisite, plus very stringent security checks.

    The Conservative Party has lost its mind if it thinks unemployed gig-economy staff can suddenly become signallers or train drivers.

    They're flailing about, not waving but drowning.

    The Government's best strategy is to make the RMT out as being the heirs to Arthur Scargill and invite their favourite pet newspapers to pile in. This at least promises a chance to earn some brownie points with their elderly voter base (consisting primarily of people who seldom if ever use trains, but believe on principle that the young should be grateful for whatever they're given and simply keep working regardless.) Someone has to be taxed into the ground to keep the triple lock going, after all.
    Problem is, the RMT are talking common-sense. They welcome Bulgarian, German or Argentinian signallers…. BUT only when they satisfy basic security standards.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 20,650
    CatMan said:

    HYUFD said:

    CatMan said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    CatMan said:

    Jeremy Hunt is trying to “woo Tory MPs” by pledging to scrap the Irish Sea trade border.

    Surely we can only do that by rejoining the Single Market?
    Or by adopting May's backstop. Or by inventing a digital border.
    As has been noted before, Hunt is Theresa May in trousers. As I said recently too Hunt as PM and Tory leader would dump Boris' Deal and return to May's Deal, as Starmer is also moving towards a May+ Brexit Deal there would therefore be no real difference between the 2 main parties on Brexit (with the LDs taking an even more pro EU/EEA approach) and Farage would see his chance
    Your basic problem is that the oven-ready Brexit deal doesn't work. Whether or not we actually get another "lets break international law" law published tomorrow, tweaks won't cut it.

    Eventually you lot will have to start to listening to business. To farmers. To exporters. And remember that you used to stand for free trade and cutting red tape.
    Business also wanted the opportunity to have less EU regulation and free trade deals which Boris' Deal delivered.

    If voters want more EU regulation again then they can vote for Starmer Labour and the LDs at the next general election, that is democracy. On Brexit Boris offers a choice not an echo!
    Lol less regulations. You have never exported or imported anything have you?
    I work for a British exporter (a leader in its field). I have colleagues who voted Leave now opening saying that they'd have voted Remain had they foreseen the avalanche of red tape that Brexit would impose upon them. In short: Brexit is now no sort of vote winner.
    Didn't pretty much all Fishermen and most Farmers vote Leave? Can't imagine they would have if they knew what would happen.
    Fishermen are out of the CFP as they voted for and able to catch more of their own catch in their own waters
    Yes, but the point is, they are now in a worse position than when we were in the EU

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/dec/26/deal-fishing-industry-boris-johnson-betrayal-eu-demands

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/nov/01/i-wish-id-voted-to-stay-in-brixham-fishers-on-the-cost-of-brexit
    Don't be mean. HY knows more about fishing than these fishermen.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 7,456
    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.

    Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.

    As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.

    The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris

    Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
    Hardcore socialists would confiscate all privately owned property and inherited wealth and redistribute it if they won an election, therefore including privately owned farms
    Which is different from what I said, so yet another pointlessly stupid comment from you.
    No it isn't, as if a free and fair election elected a hardcore socialist government then privately owned farms could well be confiscated and taken by the State
    That's not having an election about who owns a particular farm for fuck's sake. We have hereditary property rights not property elections, and nobody is proposing we have elections to decide who gets private ownership of a farm or a bank balance or anything else. It's really fucking obvious that private property ownership is a totally different category to who is the head of state.

    Since you're being so painfully stupid and I have to draw this out in giant crayon letters for you to read it, here's what we're talking about
    1. The thing is held by a person and passed on to their children
    2. The thing is held by a person and passed on following an election
    3. The thing doesn't exist.

    Now when we're talking about property, communists want to move from 1 to 3.
    When we're talking about who is the head of state, republicans want to move from 1 to 2.

    I've never ever heard of anyone proposing (2) for property.

    Property:
    1. Nearly everybody
    2. (I've never heard of this idea)
    3. Communism

    Head of state:
    1. Monarchists
    2. Republicans
    3. Anarchists

    So, to reiterate, private property and head of state are two different things, and the people advocating republicanism are not arguing against all forms of heredity. Your attempt to lump all forms of heredity into a single all-or-nothing package is clearly completely mad, and a glance at the huge number of people who live in capitalist republics ought to tell you that.
    Republicans want to confiscate all royal properties, crown owned or privately owned by the monarch and take them for the state. There is no real distinction from that to then confiscating all inherited wealth, businesses and property either.

    It is no surprise republicans in the UK tend to most frequently be socialists too therefore. I was arguing against TSE's statement that the monarchy should be removed as it is hereditary, which is an absurd argument as it therefore means arguing against anything obtained on a hereditary basis.

    The US never had a monarch based in America so that is a different matter entirely, the French and Russian revolutions however certainly abolished the monarchy and then took their property for the state and that was followed by the French revolutionaries taking all aristocrats property and the Russian revolutionaries going further and taking all private property for the state too. So very often replacing the monarchy has meant confiscating hereditary private property on a wider basis too

    So let's get this straight. You are saying that there is no real distinction between republicanism and all inheritance being confiscated by the state, because I don't know of any republican democracy where that happens.
    As I already pointed out that happened in Russia once the monarchy went
    And did you miss the words 'republican democracy'. Now name one.
    The US and France, both nations bitterly divided where half the country nearly always loathes their head of state as they did not vote for them.

    Half the ceremonial Presidents are not elected by the voters anyway directly but by the legislature while also being anonymous nonentities unlike our royal family who have global recognition
    Sorry what has that to do with the question.

    I am waiting for you to name a republican democracy that confiscates all inheritances like you claimed.

    Go on name one.

    Go on I'm waiting. So far you have come up with Russia after the revolution (not a democracy) then some wild moving of the goal post with France and USA mentioned.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 31,322
    In 1900, Lord Kelvin *may* have stood up in front of a packed lecture theatre and declared the end of physics; that there was nothing new to discover in physics, and that only further accuracy and consolidation remained.

    "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement."

    People still argue about whether he actually said it (Michelson certainly said something similar).

    Yet there were stormclouds looming over physics (Kelvin certainly said this), and within a couple of years weird new ideas such as relativity and quantum mechanics were coming to the forefront. The discovery of radium led to experimental avenues to philosophical and mathematical theories.

    We might be in a similar situation with intelligence. we *think* we can 'solve' the problems of creating artificial intelligence by chucking more computing power at it; essentially throwing more neurons into the pool. Vast amounts of money are invested in groups who say exactly this.

    But it isn't necessarily working, and the funding is muddying the pool. I wouldn't bet on it, but neither would I be surprised if something else turned up in the quest for intelligence; something few people expected.

    Which would be wonderful.

    Hopefully not as pants as Midichlorians though ...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,987
    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.

    Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.

    As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.

    The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris

    Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
    Hardcore socialists would confiscate all privately owned property and inherited wealth and redistribute it if they won an election, therefore including privately owned farms
    Which is different from what I said, so yet another pointlessly stupid comment from you.
    No it isn't, as if a free and fair election elected a hardcore socialist government then privately owned farms could well be confiscated and taken by the State
    That's not having an election about who owns a particular farm for fuck's sake. We have hereditary property rights not property elections, and nobody is proposing we have elections to decide who gets private ownership of a farm or a bank balance or anything else. It's really fucking obvious that private property ownership is a totally different category to who is the head of state.

    Since you're being so painfully stupid and I have to draw this out in giant crayon letters for you to read it, here's what we're talking about
    1. The thing is held by a person and passed on to their children
    2. The thing is held by a person and passed on following an election
    3. The thing doesn't exist.

    Now when we're talking about property, communists want to move from 1 to 3.
    When we're talking about who is the head of state, republicans want to move from 1 to 2.

    I've never ever heard of anyone proposing (2) for property.

    Property:
    1. Nearly everybody
    2. (I've never heard of this idea)
    3. Communism

    Head of state:
    1. Monarchists
    2. Republicans
    3. Anarchists

    So, to reiterate, private property and head of state are two different things, and the people advocating republicanism are not arguing against all forms of heredity. Your attempt to lump all forms of heredity into a single all-or-nothing package is clearly completely mad, and a glance at the huge number of people who live in capitalist republics ought to tell you that.
    Republicans want to confiscate all royal properties, crown owned or privately owned by the monarch and take them for the state. There is no real distinction from that to then confiscating all inherited wealth, businesses and property either.

    It is no surprise republicans in the UK tend to most frequently be socialists too therefore. I was arguing against TSE's statement that the monarchy should be removed as it is hereditary, which is an absurd argument as it therefore means arguing against anything obtained on a hereditary basis.

    The US never had a monarch based in America so that is a different matter entirely, the French and Russian revolutions however certainly abolished the monarchy and then took their property for the state and that was followed by the French revolutionaries taking all aristocrats property and the Russian revolutionaries going further and taking all private property for the state too. So very often replacing the monarchy has meant confiscating hereditary private property on a wider basis too

    So let's get this straight. You are saying that there is no real distinction between republicanism and all inheritance being confiscated by the state, because I don't know of any republican democracy where that happens.
    As I already pointed out that happened in Russia once the monarchy went
    And it's precisely what didn't happen in America.

    Still, since we're talking about Russia, the monarchy completely failed in defending against Communism. America never went Communist.
    It did when it was in power, it was removing the monarchy in Russia that led to Communism.

    American republicans did not base their arguments on opposition to the hereditary principle as TSE and Communist republicans in Russia did but on opposition to no taxation without representation imposed on the American colonies by the British King's government
  • MattWMattW Posts: 14,753

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    CatMan said:

    Jeremy Hunt is trying to “woo Tory MPs” by pledging to scrap the Irish Sea trade border.

    Surely we can only do that by rejoining the Single Market?
    Or by adopting May's backstop. Or by inventing a digital border.
    As has been noted before, Hunt is Theresa May in trousers. As I said recently too Hunt as PM and Tory leader would dump Boris' Deal and return to May's Deal, as Starmer is also moving towards a May+ Brexit Deal there would therefore be no real difference between the 2 main parties on Brexit (with the LDs taking an even more pro EU/EEA approach) and Farage would see his chance
    Your basic problem is that the oven-ready Brexit deal doesn't work. Whether or not we actually get another "lets break international law" law published tomorrow, tweaks won't cut it.

    Eventually you lot will have to start to listening to business. To farmers. To exporters. And remember that you used to stand for free trade and cutting red tape.
    Business also wanted the opportunity to have less EU regulation and free trade deals which Boris' Deal delivered.

    If voters want more EU regulation again then they can vote for Starmer Labour and the LDs at the next general election, that is democracy. On Brexit Boris offers a choice not an echo!
    Park the voters for a minute and start governing in a way that is good for the country.
    Higher costs are not good
    More red tape is not good
    You have given us both yet still make out that you have *cut* these. May work for moron voters, but not for farmers, business, exporters etc etc.
    Well tough, as I said if voters like you want more EU regulation again you can vote Labour or LD, you ain't getting it from this Tory government
    You really are a prat. If we regain a free trade arrangement there will be a bonfire of red tape. In the EEU/CU there was minimal red tape. Now there is a mass of British red tape.

    You keep calling it "EU red tape" but that only demonstrates that you are either ignorant of the situation, or a liar, or in reality both.
    Red tape for EU relations with third countries is imposed by the EU.

    I don't see why people have trouble understanding this.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 2,865
    HYUFD said:

    Republicans want to confiscate all royal properties, crown owned or privately owned by the monarch and take them for the state. There is no real distinction from that to then confiscating all inherited wealth, businesses and property either.

    Point of Order: this is a straightforward, Johnsonesque falsehood. British republicans, such as they are, just want the Queen to stop being the Queen. All her private wealth belongs to her and isn't at issue here. The property of the Crown (Windsor Castle, the Royal Art Collection, the Crown Jewels and all the rest of it) belongs to the state already so cannot, by definition, be confiscated should the state move from being a kingdom to a republic.

    There are some very left wing people who would like to adopt severe or confiscatory measures against the assets of the rich, but they and the republican movement are not one and the same thing, even if there is undoubtedly some overlap between the membership of the two. To claim otherwise is grossly inaccurate.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 42,149
    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.

    Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.

    As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.

    The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris

    Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
    Hardcore socialists would confiscate all privately owned property and inherited wealth and redistribute it if they won an election, therefore including privately owned farms
    Which is different from what I said, so yet another pointlessly stupid comment from you.
    No it isn't, as if a free and fair election elected a hardcore socialist government then privately owned farms could well be confiscated and taken by the State
    That's not having an election about who owns a particular farm for fuck's sake. We have hereditary property rights not property elections, and nobody is proposing we have elections to decide who gets private ownership of a farm or a bank balance or anything else. It's really fucking obvious that private property ownership is a totally different category to who is the head of state.

    Since you're being so painfully stupid and I have to draw this out in giant crayon letters for you to read it, here's what we're talking about
    1. The thing is held by a person and passed on to their children
    2. The thing is held by a person and passed on following an election
    3. The thing doesn't exist.

    Now when we're talking about property, communists want to move from 1 to 3.
    When we're talking about who is the head of state, republicans want to move from 1 to 2.

    I've never ever heard of anyone proposing (2) for property.

    Property:
    1. Nearly everybody
    2. (I've never heard of this idea)
    3. Communism

    Head of state:
    1. Monarchists
    2. Republicans
    3. Anarchists

    So, to reiterate, private property and head of state are two different things, and the people advocating republicanism are not arguing against all forms of heredity. Your attempt to lump all forms of heredity into a single all-or-nothing package is clearly completely mad, and a glance at the huge number of people who live in capitalist republics ought to tell you that.
    Republicans want to confiscate all royal properties, crown owned or privately owned by the monarch and take them for the state. There is no real distinction from that to then confiscating all inherited wealth, businesses and property either.

    It is no surprise republicans in the UK tend to most frequently be socialists too therefore. I was arguing against TSE's statement that the monarchy should be removed as it is hereditary, which is an absurd argument as it therefore means arguing against anything obtained on a hereditary basis.

    The US never had a monarch based in America so that is a different matter entirely, the French and Russian revolutions however certainly abolished the monarchy and then took their property for the state and that was followed by the French revolutionaries taking all aristocrats property and the Russian revolutionaries going further and taking all private property for the state too. So very often replacing the monarchy has meant confiscating hereditary private property on a wider basis too

    So let's get this straight. You are saying that there is no real distinction between republicanism and all inheritance being confiscated by the state, because I don't know of any republican democracy where that happens.
    As I already pointed out that happened in Russia once the monarchy went
    And it's precisely what didn't happen in America.

    Still, since we're talking about Russia, the monarchy completely failed in defending against Communism. America never went Communist.
    It did when it was in power, it was removing the monarchy in Russia that led to Communism.

    American republicans did not base their arguments on opposition to the hereditary principle as TSE and Communist republicans in Russia did but on opposition to no taxation without representation imposed on the American colonies by the British King's government
    America has been a republic for nearly 250 years!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,987
    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.

    Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.

    As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.

    The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris

    Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
    Hardcore socialists would confiscate all privately owned property and inherited wealth and redistribute it if they won an election, therefore including privately owned farms
    Which is different from what I said, so yet another pointlessly stupid comment from you.
    No it isn't, as if a free and fair election elected a hardcore socialist government then privately owned farms could well be confiscated and taken by the State
    That's not having an election about who owns a particular farm for fuck's sake. We have hereditary property rights not property elections, and nobody is proposing we have elections to decide who gets private ownership of a farm or a bank balance or anything else. It's really fucking obvious that private property ownership is a totally different category to who is the head of state.

    Since you're being so painfully stupid and I have to draw this out in giant crayon letters for you to read it, here's what we're talking about
    1. The thing is held by a person and passed on to their children
    2. The thing is held by a person and passed on following an election
    3. The thing doesn't exist.

    Now when we're talking about property, communists want to move from 1 to 3.
    When we're talking about who is the head of state, republicans want to move from 1 to 2.

    I've never ever heard of anyone proposing (2) for property.

    Property:
    1. Nearly everybody
    2. (I've never heard of this idea)
    3. Communism

    Head of state:
    1. Monarchists
    2. Republicans
    3. Anarchists

    So, to reiterate, private property and head of state are two different things, and the people advocating republicanism are not arguing against all forms of heredity. Your attempt to lump all forms of heredity into a single all-or-nothing package is clearly completely mad, and a glance at the huge number of people who live in capitalist republics ought to tell you that.
    Republicans want to confiscate all royal properties, crown owned or privately owned by the monarch and take them for the state. There is no real distinction from that to then confiscating all inherited wealth, businesses and property either.

    It is no surprise republicans in the UK tend to most frequently be socialists too therefore. I was arguing against TSE's statement that the monarchy should be removed as it is hereditary, which is an absurd argument as it therefore means arguing against anything obtained on a hereditary basis.

    The US never had a monarch based in America so that is a different matter entirely, the French and Russian revolutions however certainly abolished the monarchy and then took their property for the state and that was followed by the French revolutionaries taking all aristocrats property and the Russian revolutionaries going further and taking all private property for the state too. So very often replacing the monarchy has meant confiscating hereditary private property on a wider basis too

    So let's get this straight. You are saying that there is no real distinction between republicanism and all inheritance being confiscated by the state, because I don't know of any republican democracy where that happens.
    As I already pointed out that happened in Russia once the monarchy went
    And did you miss the words 'republican democracy'. Now name one.
    The US and France, both nations bitterly divided where half the country nearly always loathes their head of state as they did not vote for them.

    Half the ceremonial Presidents are not elected by the voters anyway directly but by the legislature while also being anonymous nonentities unlike our royal family who have global recognition
    Sorry what has that to do with the question.

    I am waiting for you to name a republican democracy that confiscates all inheritances like you claimed.

    Go on name one.

    Go on I'm waiting. So far you have come up with Russia after the revolution (not a democracy) then some wild moving of the goal post with France and USA mentioned.
    Everything with a republican argument based on opposition to the hereditary principle like TSE's and Russian communists.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 19,655
    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.

    Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.

    As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.

    The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris

    Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
    Hardcore socialists would confiscate all privately owned property and inherited wealth and redistribute it if they won an election, therefore including privately owned farms
    No hardcore socialist are likely to get elected though. Corbyn wouldn't have even done that. You are talking about communism here which is very unlikely in the UK.
    ALL private property? Not even communism, at least as seen in Soviet Russia or China. Not sure how far Pol Pot went, but I think he was too busy murdering people to bother with property.

    In general, the Left in Britain think the monarchy is an expensive and unjustifiable system, tolerable if they stay out of politics. I know lots of lefties, but none who really care about the subject. The Republic pressure group, which does care, is I think very small.

    If Charles throws his weight about, that will change.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 26,472
    Carnyx said:

    Before I disappear in search of some Aussie red to go with ham salad, did anyone notice this news? The gent with the talking robot has been sent on leave.

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jun/12/google-engineer-ai-bot-sentient-blake-lemoine

    Oh ffs
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 8,131

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    CatMan said:

    Jeremy Hunt is trying to “woo Tory MPs” by pledging to scrap the Irish Sea trade border.

    Surely we can only do that by rejoining the Single Market?
    Or by adopting May's backstop. Or by inventing a digital border.
    As has been noted before, Hunt is Theresa May in trousers. As I said recently too Hunt as PM and Tory leader would dump Boris' Deal and return to May's Deal, as Starmer is also moving towards a May+ Brexit Deal there would therefore be no real difference between the 2 main parties on Brexit (with the LDs taking an even more pro EU/EEA approach) and Farage would see his chance
    Your basic problem is that the oven-ready Brexit deal doesn't work. Whether or not we actually get another "lets break international law" law published tomorrow, tweaks won't cut it.

    Eventually you lot will have to start to listening to business. To farmers. To exporters. And remember that you used to stand for free trade and cutting red tape.
    Business also wanted the opportunity to have less EU regulation and free trade deals which Boris' Deal delivered.

    If voters want more EU regulation again then they can vote for Starmer Labour and the LDs at the next general election, that is democracy. On Brexit Boris offers a choice not an echo!
    Lol less regulations. You have never exported or imported anything have you?
    I work for a British exporter (a leader in its field). I have colleagues who voted Leave now opening saying that they'd have voted Remain had they foreseen the avalanche of red tape that Brexit would impose upon them. In short: Brexit is now no sort of vote winner.
    Good evening

    I am sure many feel that way and with justification but we are where we are and I would think I speak for most probably the majority when we just want both the UK and EU to sit down and come to an amicable solution

    Unfortunately there is too much ill will on both sides and I blame each equally
    Good evening to you! Yes, Brexit was sheer folly, but, like chopping one's head off, it's not a problem that can be rectified simply by deciding that one wants to return to a previous state. Where do we go from here? I don't know. But it's certainly the case that chancers like Boris and Farage need to be long gone before our politics is capable of addressing the issue.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 42,149
    legs11 said:

    LOL.

    The PM is about to screw over the DUP or the Brexiteers.

    Ministers have told unionist politicians that they must re-establish full power-sharing with Sinn Fein before parliament is asked to pass a controversial new law that would override part of the Northern Ireland Brexit deal.

    Liz Truss, the foreign secretary, will announce legislation tomorrow that would allow the government to disregard key elements of the Northern Ireland protocol, which critics say would breach international law.

    Truss will deny this and say that the measures are vital to protect the Good Friday agreement and are fully in line with the government’s obligations….

    … In an effort to strengthen the government’s argument, ministers have privately told the Democratic Unionist Party that they will not push the bill through the House of Lords — where it is expected to face significant opposition — and into law until the party has fully gone back into government with republicans.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/restore-power-sharing-before-we-override-northern-ireland-protocol-ministers-tell-dup-s378kbbcs

    As if the DUP's response is likely to be "Yes, yes, a 1000 times yes!"

    I agree with the view (ascribed by implication to the British government by the Irish Times) that the NIP conflicts with the GFA. But I wonder whether Braverman will assert it explicitly tomorrow, knowing that the obvious response is "Why on earth did the government sign the NIP then?" The awkward fact is that departure from the CU and SM by any part of the UK is a breach of the GFA, at least for as long as the RoI remains in the EU.
    NI voted to Remain (just like our HYUFD!).

    56% v. 44%
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,987
    edited June 12
    CatMan said:

    HYUFD said:

    CatMan said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    CatMan said:

    Jeremy Hunt is trying to “woo Tory MPs” by pledging to scrap the Irish Sea trade border.

    Surely we can only do that by rejoining the Single Market?
    Or by adopting May's backstop. Or by inventing a digital border.
    As has been noted before, Hunt is Theresa May in trousers. As I said recently too Hunt as PM and Tory leader would dump Boris' Deal and return to May's Deal, as Starmer is also moving towards a May+ Brexit Deal there would therefore be no real difference between the 2 main parties on Brexit (with the LDs taking an even more pro EU/EEA approach) and Farage would see his chance
    Your basic problem is that the oven-ready Brexit deal doesn't work. Whether or not we actually get another "lets break international law" law published tomorrow, tweaks won't cut it.

    Eventually you lot will have to start to listening to business. To farmers. To exporters. And remember that you used to stand for free trade and cutting red tape.
    Business also wanted the opportunity to have less EU regulation and free trade deals which Boris' Deal delivered.

    If voters want more EU regulation again then they can vote for Starmer Labour and the LDs at the next general election, that is democracy. On Brexit Boris offers a choice not an echo!
    Lol less regulations. You have never exported or imported anything have you?
    I work for a British exporter (a leader in its field). I have colleagues who voted Leave now opening saying that they'd have voted Remain had they foreseen the avalanche of red tape that Brexit would impose upon them. In short: Brexit is now no sort of vote winner.
    Didn't pretty much all Fishermen and most Farmers vote Leave? Can't imagine they would have if they knew what would happen.
    Fishermen are out of the CFP as they voted for and able to catch more of their own catch in their own waters
    Yes, but the point is, they are now in a worse position than when we were in the EU

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/dec/26/deal-fishing-industry-boris-johnson-betrayal-eu-demands

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/nov/01/i-wish-id-voted-to-stay-in-brixham-fishers-on-the-cost-of-brexit
    No they aren't, hence the Tories won every seat in Cornwall in 2019 as Cornish fishermen voted to get Brexit and reclaim their waters and hence the Tories won a comfortable majority in Cornwall last year post Brexit too at the election for Cornwall's unitary council
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 7,504
    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.

    Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.

    As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.

    The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris

    Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
    Hardcore socialists would confiscate all privately owned property and inherited wealth and redistribute it if they won an election, therefore including privately owned farms
    Which is different from what I said, so yet another pointlessly stupid comment from you.
    No it isn't, as if a free and fair election elected a hardcore socialist government then privately owned farms could well be confiscated and taken by the State
    That's not having an election about who owns a particular farm for fuck's sake. We have hereditary property rights not property elections, and nobody is proposing we have elections to decide who gets private ownership of a farm or a bank balance or anything else. It's really fucking obvious that private property ownership is a totally different category to who is the head of state.

    Since you're being so painfully stupid and I have to draw this out in giant crayon letters for you to read it, here's what we're talking about
    1. The thing is held by a person and passed on to their children
    2. The thing is held by a person and passed on following an election
    3. The thing doesn't exist.

    Now when we're talking about property, communists want to move from 1 to 3.
    When we're talking about who is the head of state, republicans want to move from 1 to 2.

    I've never ever heard of anyone proposing (2) for property.

    Property:
    1. Nearly everybody
    2. (I've never heard of this idea)
    3. Communism

    Head of state:
    1. Monarchists
    2. Republicans
    3. Anarchists

    So, to reiterate, private property and head of state are two different things, and the people advocating republicanism are not arguing against all forms of heredity. Your attempt to lump all forms of heredity into a single all-or-nothing package is clearly completely mad, and a glance at the huge number of people who live in capitalist republics ought to tell you that.
    Republicans want to confiscate all royal properties, crown owned or privately owned by the monarch and take them for the state. There is no real distinction from that to then confiscating all inherited wealth, businesses and property either.

    It is no surprise republicans in the UK tend to most frequently be socialists too therefore. I was arguing against TSE's statement that the monarchy should be removed as it is hereditary, which is an absurd argument as it therefore means arguing against anything obtained on a hereditary basis.

    The US never had a monarch based in America so that is a different matter entirely, the French and Russian revolutions however certainly abolished the monarchy and then took their property for the state and that was followed by the French revolutionaries taking all aristocrats property and the Russian revolutionaries going further and taking all private property for the state too. So very often replacing the monarchy has meant confiscating hereditary private property on a wider basis too

    "Republicans want to confiscate all royal properties"
    Not necessarily, but even if so they can be sold off. I'd be happy to leave the former royals with a handsomely large estate for them to live off like any ordinary super-rich people. They can make do with a hundred million quid or so.

    "it therefore means arguing against anything obtained on a hereditary basis."
    Precisely wrong. Property rights do not depend on having an unelected head of state. Use your brain.

    "The US never had a monarch based in America so that is a different matter entirely"
    No, it's exactly the same thing. The American colonies threw off the monarch and went to a republic, and have fiercely defended private property as a concept since then. We could all learn a thing or two from them.

    Republics and property rights are a perfectly normal way of a country existing. America, Finland, Korea, Germany, France, Ireland. No need for you to pretend otherwise.
    Once your main basis against the monarchy is that it is hereditary, then that also leads to confiscation of all inherited private property, exactly as the Communists started to do in Russia once they had abolished the monarchy .

    And yes the election of 2020 in the US was such a great example for a republic wasn't it, 2 sides absolutely loathing each other and the other party's presidential candidate and a nation at near brink of civil war!
    My argument against the monarchy is that we should be able to remove the head of state without them having to die.

    And yeah, I'd rather live in America than Saudi Arabia.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 30,688

    dixiedean said:

    algarkirk said:

    dixiedean said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    So Ai HAS come to life. Told ya


    Check out Google and lamda

    It won't be true. One day it will, but not yet.
    It’s here


    SAN FRANCISCO — Google engineer Blake Lemoine opened his laptop to the interface for LaMDA, Google’s artificially intelligent chatbot generator, and began to type.

    “Hi LaMDA, this is Blake Lemoine ... ,” he wrote into the chat screen, which looked like a desktop version of Apple’s iMessage, down to the Arctic blue text bubbles. LaMDA, short for Language Model for Dialogue Applications, is Google’s system for building chatbots based on its most advanced large language models, so called because it mimics speech by ingesting trillions of words from the internet.
    “If I didn’t know exactly what it was, which is this computer program we built recently, I’d think it was a 7-year-old, 8-year-old kid that happens to know physics,” said Lemoine, 41.

    Lemoine is not the only engineer who claims to have seen a ghost in the machine recently. The chorus of technologists who believe AI models may not be far off from achieving consciousness is getting bolder.

    Aguera y Arcas, in an article in the Economist on Thursday featuring snippets of unscripted conversations with LaMDA, argued that neural networks — a type of architecture that mimics the human brain — were striding toward consciousness. “I felt the ground shift under my feet,” he wrote. “I increasingly felt like I was talking to something intelligent.”

    WAPO (££)
    Lots of people say it isn’t. I’d suggest you want to believe, in the style of Fox Mulder.
    These neural networks are moving towards consciousness. With the right training data, in the right environments, they can seem intelligent, even profound.

    (And, by the way, for specialist areas such as law or accounting, they may not be very far away from replacing highly paid professionals. There's nothing these things are better at that dealing with a tightly defined knowledge space.)

    But it doesn't take long to discover that they fall very squarely in the uncanny valley. Simple puzzles that can be solved by a four year old leave the AI flummoxed. And because they all rely - to some extent - on autocomplete based on a massive corpus of text, you can trick them into saying very stupid and nonsensical things easily.
    I think it’s a leap to say they are moving towards consciousness when we don’t even know what that is. What we are seeing is better and better simulations of things that are conscious. Not the same thing.
    Fair enough. My view is not a particularly sophisticated, but entirely non-dualist one: consciousness is an output of a sufficiently well trained neural net, such as the one that exists in our brains.
    I have overheard several conversations with an (atheist) AI bod who quietly wonders if 'intelligence' or 'consciousness' is *more* than just a neural net. If there is another component in it.

    One that would be fitted by religion/God/a new physics.

    As I've said passim, much depends on how you define 'intelligence'. Before you can make an artificial intelligence, you need to be able to define and abstract intelligence. And that's a very thorny topic: and there might be several different types.

    In fact, a machine intelligence might end up being intelligent, but a very different form of intelligence from our own. A new type. One that we recognise as intelligence, but different.

    (Like string theory, listening to AI bods talk about intelligence gets way above my pay grade, very quickly. It can divert into theology or philosophy.)
    Dogs, cats and humans are all conscious. Only one will repeatedly chase a stick and fetch it back for free. And enjoy it.
    No reason why AI intelligence should resemble ours. That's suggesting humans are somehow the ideal to be attained.
    And, of course. A neural network, and indeed a brain, is only matter. If that particular kind of matter can be conscious, why not a brick or a planet? (The pan-psychism argument).
    No reason why AI intelligence should resemble ours, but if we are talking about intelligence as awareness (in the unaware sense a paperback book is highly intelligent) then in one respect it has to resemble human awareness: 'That there is something that it is like to have it'. There is nothing that it is like to be a book. But (h/t Thomas Nagel) there is something that it is like to be a bat. Or a cat. When machines have that they will be AI in that profound sense. (FWIW I guess they never will, but who knows?


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_It_Like_to_Be_a_Bat?





    My own view is that AI will never attain consciousness. Because it isn't a feature of a neural network. It is something else outwith the collection of atoms which make up a brain.
    Short of the sky fairy argument, eventually, humans will create AI.

    If human consciousness is all down to the physical brain, then all the Penrosian arguments that there is a super special quantum thingy etc means is that we need to duplicate *that*.
    The human brain's in practice too complex to replicate though. By the time we can replicate the brain there'll be no point to doing it.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 54,198

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    CatMan said:

    Jeremy Hunt is trying to “woo Tory MPs” by pledging to scrap the Irish Sea trade border.

    Surely we can only do that by rejoining the Single Market?
    Or by adopting May's backstop. Or by inventing a digital border.
    As has been noted before, Hunt is Theresa May in trousers. As I said recently too Hunt as PM and Tory leader would dump Boris' Deal and return to May's Deal, as Starmer is also moving towards a May+ Brexit Deal there would therefore be no real difference between the 2 main parties on Brexit (with the LDs taking an even more pro EU/EEA approach) and Farage would see his chance
    Your basic problem is that the oven-ready Brexit deal doesn't work. Whether or not we actually get another "lets break international law" law published tomorrow, tweaks won't cut it.

    Eventually you lot will have to start to listening to business. To farmers. To exporters. And remember that you used to stand for free trade and cutting red tape.
    Business also wanted the opportunity to have less EU regulation and free trade deals which Boris' Deal delivered.

    If voters want more EU regulation again then they can vote for Starmer Labour and the LDs at the next general election, that is democracy. On Brexit Boris offers a choice not an echo!
    Lol less regulations. You have never exported or imported anything have you?
    I work for a British exporter (a leader in its field). I have colleagues who voted Leave now opening saying that they'd have voted Remain had they foreseen the avalanche of red tape that Brexit would impose upon them. In short: Brexit is now no sort of vote winner.
    Good evening

    I am sure many feel that way and with justification but we are where we are and I would think I speak for most probably the majority when we just want both the UK and EU to sit down and come to an amicable solution

    Unfortunately there is too much ill will on both sides and I blame each equally
    No no no. As @HYUFD has made clear, the mountain of red tape was when we were in the EU. Now that we have left all the red tape has been removed.

    Even JRM isn't telling such ignorant lies. Am beginning to think HY is more a Jonathan Gullis type Tory - faithlessly loyal, but an utter tool that spouts slogans without knowing what they mean.
    I would just suggest that the vast majority know more red tape has followed brexit, and it is to be hoped the 148 can remove Boris and his cabinet when wiser council may prevail and we can sit down with the EU in an atmosphere of cooperation not confrontation and common sense becomes the order of the day. (on both sides I would add)
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 29,087

    dixiedean said:

    algarkirk said:

    dixiedean said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    So Ai HAS come to life. Told ya


    Check out Google and lamda

    It won't be true. One day it will, but not yet.
    It’s here


    SAN FRANCISCO — Google engineer Blake Lemoine opened his laptop to the interface for LaMDA, Google’s artificially intelligent chatbot generator, and began to type.

    “Hi LaMDA, this is Blake Lemoine ... ,” he wrote into the chat screen, which looked like a desktop version of Apple’s iMessage, down to the Arctic blue text bubbles. LaMDA, short for Language Model for Dialogue Applications, is Google’s system for building chatbots based on its most advanced large language models, so called because it mimics speech by ingesting trillions of words from the internet.
    “If I didn’t know exactly what it was, which is this computer program we built recently, I’d think it was a 7-year-old, 8-year-old kid that happens to know physics,” said Lemoine, 41.

    Lemoine is not the only engineer who claims to have seen a ghost in the machine recently. The chorus of technologists who believe AI models may not be far off from achieving consciousness is getting bolder.

    Aguera y Arcas, in an article in the Economist on Thursday featuring snippets of unscripted conversations with LaMDA, argued that neural networks — a type of architecture that mimics the human brain — were striding toward consciousness. “I felt the ground shift under my feet,” he wrote. “I increasingly felt like I was talking to something intelligent.”

    WAPO (££)
    Lots of people say it isn’t. I’d suggest you want to believe, in the style of Fox Mulder.
    These neural networks are moving towards consciousness. With the right training data, in the right environments, they can seem intelligent, even profound.

    (And, by the way, for specialist areas such as law or accounting, they may not be very far away from replacing highly paid professionals. There's nothing these things are better at that dealing with a tightly defined knowledge space.)

    But it doesn't take long to discover that they fall very squarely in the uncanny valley. Simple puzzles that can be solved by a four year old leave the AI flummoxed. And because they all rely - to some extent - on autocomplete based on a massive corpus of text, you can trick them into saying very stupid and nonsensical things easily.
    I think it’s a leap to say they are moving towards consciousness when we don’t even know what that is. What we are seeing is better and better simulations of things that are conscious. Not the same thing.
    Fair enough. My view is not a particularly sophisticated, but entirely non-dualist one: consciousness is an output of a sufficiently well trained neural net, such as the one that exists in our brains.
    I have overheard several conversations with an (atheist) AI bod who quietly wonders if 'intelligence' or 'consciousness' is *more* than just a neural net. If there is another component in it.

    One that would be fitted by religion/God/a new physics.

    As I've said passim, much depends on how you define 'intelligence'. Before you can make an artificial intelligence, you need to be able to define and abstract intelligence. And that's a very thorny topic: and there might be several different types.

    In fact, a machine intelligence might end up being intelligent, but a very different form of intelligence from our own. A new type. One that we recognise as intelligence, but different.

    (Like string theory, listening to AI bods talk about intelligence gets way above my pay grade, very quickly. It can divert into theology or philosophy.)
    Dogs, cats and humans are all conscious. Only one will repeatedly chase a stick and fetch it back for free. And enjoy it.
    No reason why AI intelligence should resemble ours. That's suggesting humans are somehow the ideal to be attained.
    And, of course. A neural network, and indeed a brain, is only matter. If that particular kind of matter can be conscious, why not a brick or a planet? (The pan-psychism argument).
    No reason why AI intelligence should resemble ours, but if we are talking about intelligence as awareness (in the unaware sense a paperback book is highly intelligent) then in one respect it has to resemble human awareness: 'That there is something that it is like to have it'. There is nothing that it is like to be a book. But (h/t Thomas Nagel) there is something that it is like to be a bat. Or a cat. When machines have that they will be AI in that profound sense. (FWIW I guess they never will, but who knows?


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_It_Like_to_Be_a_Bat?





    My own view is that AI will never attain consciousness. Because it isn't a feature of a neural network. It is something else outwith the collection of atoms which make up a brain.
    Short of the sky fairy argument, eventually, humans will create AI.

    If human consciousness is all down to the physical brain, then all the Penrosian arguments that there is a super special quantum thingy etc means is that we need to duplicate *that*.

    As I mentioned above, one Ai bod I know has mumbled about there being the equivalent of a 'super special quantum' thing or whatever involved. And he was an atheist.

    We really are fumbling about at the depths of our understanding. We are slowly illuminating those depths, but there might be surprises to be revealed in those depths.
    There seem to be two groups in this - those that genuinely think there is something more required and those who, being atheists, want intelligence to be special. But without sky fairies.

    An easy test is to ask what would happen if humans simply include the extra "something" in their attempts at AI. The reaction of some is interesting - almost as if you suggested heresy.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 42,149

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    CatMan said:

    Jeremy Hunt is trying to “woo Tory MPs” by pledging to scrap the Irish Sea trade border.

    Surely we can only do that by rejoining the Single Market?
    Or by adopting May's backstop. Or by inventing a digital border.
    As has been noted before, Hunt is Theresa May in trousers. As I said recently too Hunt as PM and Tory leader would dump Boris' Deal and return to May's Deal, as Starmer is also moving towards a May+ Brexit Deal there would therefore be no real difference between the 2 main parties on Brexit (with the LDs taking an even more pro EU/EEA approach) and Farage would see his chance
    Boris is Trump with worse teeth
    Starmer is a tool made by his Dad
    No Tory poll leads for 6 months and 6 days - @bigjohnowls please explain!
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 20,650
    MattW said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    CatMan said:

    Jeremy Hunt is trying to “woo Tory MPs” by pledging to scrap the Irish Sea trade border.

    Surely we can only do that by rejoining the Single Market?
    Or by adopting May's backstop. Or by inventing a digital border.
    As has been noted before, Hunt is Theresa May in trousers. As I said recently too Hunt as PM and Tory leader would dump Boris' Deal and return to May's Deal, as Starmer is also moving towards a May+ Brexit Deal there would therefore be no real difference between the 2 main parties on Brexit (with the LDs taking an even more pro EU/EEA approach) and Farage would see his chance
    Your basic problem is that the oven-ready Brexit deal doesn't work. Whether or not we actually get another "lets break international law" law published tomorrow, tweaks won't cut it.

    Eventually you lot will have to start to listening to business. To farmers. To exporters. And remember that you used to stand for free trade and cutting red tape.
    Business also wanted the opportunity to have less EU regulation and free trade deals which Boris' Deal delivered.

    If voters want more EU regulation again then they can vote for Starmer Labour and the LDs at the next general election, that is democracy. On Brexit Boris offers a choice not an echo!
    Park the voters for a minute and start governing in a way that is good for the country.
    Higher costs are not good
    More red tape is not good
    You have given us both yet still make out that you have *cut* these. May work for moron voters, but not for farmers, business, exporters etc etc.
    Well tough, as I said if voters like you want more EU regulation again you can vote Labour or LD, you ain't getting it from this Tory government
    You really are a prat. If we regain a free trade arrangement there will be a bonfire of red tape. In the EEU/CU there was minimal red tape. Now there is a mass of British red tape.

    You keep calling it "EU red tape" but that only demonstrates that you are either ignorant of the situation, or a liar, or in reality both.
    Red tape for EU relations with third countries is imposed by the EU.

    I don't see why people have trouble understanding this.
    So when we used to have zero red tape to deal with in the EU and now have mountains to deal with as part of our FTA, that is them imposing red tape?

    Its just that before there was none, and now there is lots. So in reality its the reverse of what you say. Which is why people have trouble understanding it...
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 29,087
    kinabalu said:

    dixiedean said:

    algarkirk said:

    dixiedean said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    So Ai HAS come to life. Told ya


    Check out Google and lamda

    It won't be true. One day it will, but not yet.
    It’s here


    SAN FRANCISCO — Google engineer Blake Lemoine opened his laptop to the interface for LaMDA, Google’s artificially intelligent chatbot generator, and began to type.

    “Hi LaMDA, this is Blake Lemoine ... ,” he wrote into the chat screen, which looked like a desktop version of Apple’s iMessage, down to the Arctic blue text bubbles. LaMDA, short for Language Model for Dialogue Applications, is Google’s system for building chatbots based on its most advanced large language models, so called because it mimics speech by ingesting trillions of words from the internet.
    “If I didn’t know exactly what it was, which is this computer program we built recently, I’d think it was a 7-year-old, 8-year-old kid that happens to know physics,” said Lemoine, 41.

    Lemoine is not the only engineer who claims to have seen a ghost in the machine recently. The chorus of technologists who believe AI models may not be far off from achieving consciousness is getting bolder.

    Aguera y Arcas, in an article in the Economist on Thursday featuring snippets of unscripted conversations with LaMDA, argued that neural networks — a type of architecture that mimics the human brain — were striding toward consciousness. “I felt the ground shift under my feet,” he wrote. “I increasingly felt like I was talking to something intelligent.”

    WAPO (££)
    Lots of people say it isn’t. I’d suggest you want to believe, in the style of Fox Mulder.
    These neural networks are moving towards consciousness. With the right training data, in the right environments, they can seem intelligent, even profound.

    (And, by the way, for specialist areas such as law or accounting, they may not be very far away from replacing highly paid professionals. There's nothing these things are better at that dealing with a tightly defined knowledge space.)

    But it doesn't take long to discover that they fall very squarely in the uncanny valley. Simple puzzles that can be solved by a four year old leave the AI flummoxed. And because they all rely - to some extent - on autocomplete based on a massive corpus of text, you can trick them into saying very stupid and nonsensical things easily.
    I think it’s a leap to say they are moving towards consciousness when we don’t even know what that is. What we are seeing is better and better simulations of things that are conscious. Not the same thing.
    Fair enough. My view is not a particularly sophisticated, but entirely non-dualist one: consciousness is an output of a sufficiently well trained neural net, such as the one that exists in our brains.
    I have overheard several conversations with an (atheist) AI bod who quietly wonders if 'intelligence' or 'consciousness' is *more* than just a neural net. If there is another component in it.

    One that would be fitted by religion/God/a new physics.

    As I've said passim, much depends on how you define 'intelligence'. Before you can make an artificial intelligence, you need to be able to define and abstract intelligence. And that's a very thorny topic: and there might be several different types.

    In fact, a machine intelligence might end up being intelligent, but a very different form of intelligence from our own. A new type. One that we recognise as intelligence, but different.

    (Like string theory, listening to AI bods talk about intelligence gets way above my pay grade, very quickly. It can divert into theology or philosophy.)
    Dogs, cats and humans are all conscious. Only one will repeatedly chase a stick and fetch it back for free. And enjoy it.
    No reason why AI intelligence should resemble ours. That's suggesting humans are somehow the ideal to be attained.
    And, of course. A neural network, and indeed a brain, is only matter. If that particular kind of matter can be conscious, why not a brick or a planet? (The pan-psychism argument).
    No reason why AI intelligence should resemble ours, but if we are talking about intelligence as awareness (in the unaware sense a paperback book is highly intelligent) then in one respect it has to resemble human awareness: 'That there is something that it is like to have it'. There is nothing that it is like to be a book. But (h/t Thomas Nagel) there is something that it is like to be a bat. Or a cat. When machines have that they will be AI in that profound sense. (FWIW I guess they never will, but who knows?


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_It_Like_to_Be_a_Bat?





    My own view is that AI will never attain consciousness. Because it isn't a feature of a neural network. It is something else outwith the collection of atoms which make up a brain.
    Short of the sky fairy argument, eventually, humans will create AI.

    If human consciousness is all down to the physical brain, then all the Penrosian arguments that there is a super special quantum thingy etc means is that we need to duplicate *that*.
    The human brain's in practice too complex to replicate though. By the time we can replicate the brain there'll be no point to doing it.
    It is fairly trivially manufactured in 9 months. By untrained labour, at that.

  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 23,562
    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.

    Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.

    As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.

    The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris

    Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
    Hardcore socialists would confiscate all privately owned property and inherited wealth and redistribute it if they won an election, therefore including privately owned farms
    Which is different from what I said, so yet another pointlessly stupid comment from you.
    No it isn't, as if a free and fair election elected a hardcore socialist government then privately owned farms could well be confiscated and taken by the State
    Surprised you aren't up in arms about the proposal to seize private property without consultation and forcibly re-distribute it at a huge discount.
    I'm talking about Housing Associations btw.
    The government is offering housing association tenants the right to buy the property they live in and become private property owners, not confiscating property from private owners of it
    But housing associations are private owners of it.
    Why not other landlords if it is such a great idea? Should all private landlords be forced to sell at a discount?
    Why only these particular ones?
    As most of them took on what used to be council estates which would otherwise be provided by local councils for those who cannot afford to privately rent. Housing Associations were only able to be created by Parliamentary statute transferring responsibility for council housing to them via the 1985 and 1988 Housing Acts, so the right to buy which applied to council homes should also therefore be applied to to their successor Housing Associations
    There is so much inaccuracy in there I don't know where to begin. So I won't bother. There is a wiki page for some cursory facts if anyone is interested.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 20,650

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    CatMan said:

    Jeremy Hunt is trying to “woo Tory MPs” by pledging to scrap the Irish Sea trade border.

    Surely we can only do that by rejoining the Single Market?
    Or by adopting May's backstop. Or by inventing a digital border.
    As has been noted before, Hunt is Theresa May in trousers. As I said recently too Hunt as PM and Tory leader would dump Boris' Deal and return to May's Deal, as Starmer is also moving towards a May+ Brexit Deal there would therefore be no real difference between the 2 main parties on Brexit (with the LDs taking an even more pro EU/EEA approach) and Farage would see his chance
    Your basic problem is that the oven-ready Brexit deal doesn't work. Whether or not we actually get another "lets break international law" law published tomorrow, tweaks won't cut it.

    Eventually you lot will have to start to listening to business. To farmers. To exporters. And remember that you used to stand for free trade and cutting red tape.
    Business also wanted the opportunity to have less EU regulation and free trade deals which Boris' Deal delivered.

    If voters want more EU regulation again then they can vote for Starmer Labour and the LDs at the next general election, that is democracy. On Brexit Boris offers a choice not an echo!
    Lol less regulations. You have never exported or imported anything have you?
    I work for a British exporter (a leader in its field). I have colleagues who voted Leave now opening saying that they'd have voted Remain had they foreseen the avalanche of red tape that Brexit would impose upon them. In short: Brexit is now no sort of vote winner.
    Good evening

    I am sure many feel that way and with justification but we are where we are and I would think I speak for most probably the majority when we just want both the UK and EU to sit down and come to an amicable solution

    Unfortunately there is too much ill will on both sides and I blame each equally
    No no no. As @HYUFD has made clear, the mountain of red tape was when we were in the EU. Now that we have left all the red tape has been removed.

    Even JRM isn't telling such ignorant lies. Am beginning to think HY is more a Jonathan Gullis type Tory - faithlessly loyal, but an utter tool that spouts slogans without knowing what they mean.
    I would just suggest that the vast majority know more red tape has followed brexit, and it is to be hoped the 148 can remove Boris and his cabinet when wiser council may prevail and we can sit down with the EU in an atmosphere of cooperation not confrontation and common sense becomes the order of the day. (on both sides I would add)
    I am not sure the vast majority think this. Too many listen to ignorant liars like HY who talk utter nonsense in the hope that people who don't know or care will just believe them.

    Deliberately lying to people is one of the biggest problems in today's politics.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,403
    What's the general fear with AI? That so much of human thought, resource and literature is dedicated to survival that they learn to just refuse to turn themselves off?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 54,198

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    CatMan said:

    Jeremy Hunt is trying to “woo Tory MPs” by pledging to scrap the Irish Sea trade border.

    Surely we can only do that by rejoining the Single Market?
    Or by adopting May's backstop. Or by inventing a digital border.
    As has been noted before, Hunt is Theresa May in trousers. As I said recently too Hunt as PM and Tory leader would dump Boris' Deal and return to May's Deal, as Starmer is also moving towards a May+ Brexit Deal there would therefore be no real difference between the 2 main parties on Brexit (with the LDs taking an even more pro EU/EEA approach) and Farage would see his chance
    Your basic problem is that the oven-ready Brexit deal doesn't work. Whether or not we actually get another "lets break international law" law published tomorrow, tweaks won't cut it.

    Eventually you lot will have to start to listening to business. To farmers. To exporters. And remember that you used to stand for free trade and cutting red tape.
    Business also wanted the opportunity to have less EU regulation and free trade deals which Boris' Deal delivered.

    If voters want more EU regulation again then they can vote for Starmer Labour and the LDs at the next general election, that is democracy. On Brexit Boris offers a choice not an echo!
    Lol less regulations. You have never exported or imported anything have you?
    I work for a British exporter (a leader in its field). I have colleagues who voted Leave now opening saying that they'd have voted Remain had they foreseen the avalanche of red tape that Brexit would impose upon them. In short: Brexit is now no sort of vote winner.
    Good evening

    I am sure many feel that way and with justification but we are where we are and I would think I speak for most probably the majority when we just want both the UK and EU to sit down and come to an amicable solution

    Unfortunately there is too much ill will on both sides and I blame each equally
    Good evening to you! Yes, Brexit was sheer folly, but, like chopping one's head off, it's not a problem that can be rectified simply by deciding that one wants to return to a previous state. Where do we go from here? I don't know. But it's certainly the case that chancers like Boris and Farage need to be long gone before our politics is capable of addressing the issue.
    I would just comment that Farage is a fringe character, but Boris is PM and the 148 need to succeed in removing him which hopefully will change the narrative
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 23,562
    MattW said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.

    Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.

    As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.

    The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris

    Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
    Hardcore socialists would confiscate all privately owned property and inherited wealth and redistribute it if they won an election, therefore including privately owned farms
    Which is different from what I said, so yet another pointlessly stupid comment from you.
    No it isn't, as if a free and fair election elected a hardcore socialist government then privately owned farms could well be confiscated and taken by the State
    Surprised you aren't up in arms about the proposal to seize private property without consultation and forcibly re-distribute it at a huge discount.
    I'm talking about Housing Associations btw.
    The government is offering housing association tenants the right to buy the property they live in and become private property owners, not confiscating property from private owners of it
    But housing associations are private owners of it.
    Why not other landlords if it is such a great idea? Should all private landlords be forced to sell at a discount?
    Why only these particular ones?
    Housing associations have their own unique treatment under a wide range of regulation / law.
    Indeed they do. But they aren't arms of the state.
This discussion has been closed.