Can Sunak carry over his rating recovery into a new week? – politicalbetting.com

HYUFD said:

WhisperingOracle said:

A bit complex on the nationality/religion bit, because the star of david is a symbol of a religion as a well as a state. So for some they might be stars of david, and others simultaneously an Israeli flag.

Through my wife's family I've met several Jews who don't identify at all with Israel, and several that do. My wife, for instance, is an ex-Corbynite with very mixed feelings, to put it mildly, about the state, and certainly no big love or identification with it. An older relative is an outspoken supporter, and her brother never even wants to hear about it and is an outspoken critic of the place.

The point about Israel is it is the only majority Jewish nation in the world. For Jews around the world it therefore offers an escape route if anti Semitism grows in their nation of residence which they didn't have during the Holocaust.

That applies to secular liberal Jews as much as Orthodox religious Jews, even when the 2 are at loggerheads over the direction of Israel like now

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Driver said:

.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Driver said:

Nigelb said:

Driver said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TOPPING said:

Given all the drug taking around and about I'd have thought that laughing gas is just a deckchair move by the govt.

In Israel I've not been following save to see that there are demonstrations in London about it. What has Netanyahu done? Is he saying that the courts can't strike down government legislation? In which case is this something we have touched on previously whereby a democratically-elected government is trying to abolish elections?

As for the demonstrations in London about it it's interesting that these are presumably British Jews vociferously protesting about Israel and hence it is easy to see the complications of trying to separate out Israel and the Jews.

The laughing gas move is a joke, appropriately. Yet again the government overrules the scientists in a populist authoritarian knee-jerk response. For a government that is supposedly so anti cancel culture, they certainly seem to like banning things and telling people what they can and can't do.

The politicians absolutely should be able to "overrule" scientists. We've just seen what happens when they give into the Cult of the Expert.

No one's arguing they shouldn't be able to.

OLB seems to be.

As, indeed, did most of the country in 2020-1.

Not really. You've simply extrapolated what I have said with respect to one issue, applied it to a different issue, and in addition made out that I've said something I haven't. I didn't say government shouldn't be able to overrule scientific advice, and indeed this isn't my position. I said that in this case they've gone against the advice of their scientists in order to chase tabloid headlines. It's stupid policymaking and will cost the taxpayer more money, further waste police time and gum up the legal system, strengthen criminal gangs and quite possibly kill people.
I've offered no opinion on lockdown policy but I would say that while scientific advice should be absolutely front and centre during a global pandemic ultimately it is for our political leaders to decide how to proceed. So I don't think I hold the views you're trying to ascribe to me.

Essentially you're criticising them for weighing up expert advice against what they think will be popular and pluimping for the latter option.

Of course they've done that - they're politicians!

Good politicians get out in front of public opinion, do what they think will be best for the whole country and try to shape opinion through action and argument. The fact that this government operates as you suggest is why this country is becoming more of a shithole every day.

kle4 said:

Move along, nothing to see here. I'm sure all the examples without an appropriate adult present involved serious risk.

Children as young as eight are being strip-searched by the police, according to a report showing "deeply concerning" and "widespread" failures...

More than half (52%) of the searches took place without an appropriate adult confirmed to be present - a legal requirement, except when there is serious risk to a child's life or welfare.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65081765

algarkirk said:

kle4 said:

Move along, nothing to see here. I'm sure all the examples without an appropriate adult present involved serious risk.

Children as young as eight are being strip-searched by the police, according to a report showing "deeply concerning" and "widespread" failures...

More than half (52%) of the searches took place without an appropriate adult confirmed to be present - a legal requirement, except when there is serious risk to a child's life or welfare.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65081765

8 year olds are in the headline, but no figures for 8 year olds. On the data the figure may actually be exactly 1.

In a world where extremes of human behaviour are so bizarre it is entirely possible that one or more searches of 8 year olds are going to happen per year, with good reason, in a population of 60 million. But the job of the BBC (unlike Mail, Guardian etc) is to actually give the poor old licence payer the hard data even if it spoils the story. That is (should be) what makes the BBC unique.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Anabobazina said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Driver said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TOPPING said:

Given all the drug taking around and about I'd have thought that laughing gas is just a deckchair move by the govt.

In Israel I've not been following save to see that there are demonstrations in London about it. What has Netanyahu done? Is he saying that the courts can't strike down government legislation? In which case is this something we have touched on previously whereby a democratically-elected government is trying to abolish elections?

As for the demonstrations in London about it it's interesting that these are presumably British Jews vociferously protesting about Israel and hence it is easy to see the complications of trying to separate out Israel and the Jews.

The laughing gas move is a joke, appropriately. Yet again the government overrules the scientists in a populist authoritarian knee-jerk response. For a government that is supposedly so anti cancel culture, they certainly seem to like banning things and telling people what they can and can't do.

The politicians absolutely should be able to "overrule" scientists. We've just seen what happens when they give into the Cult of the Expert.

Drugs policy is a mess. Scientists can help us come up with a more rational policy by providing evidence on the relative harm of various substances - which is surely the appropriate metric against which to judge how and when government regulation in this area should be employed. Instead we have a government that seems to operate solely on the basis of banning

anything that it's elderly client voters don't like.

The big problem with laughing gas is the litter associated with it. A better policy would have been to fine the manufacturers for the clean up (polluter pays principle) - with revenues going directly to local authority street cleaning departments. The manufacturers would soon design a more sustainable (recycle?) model.

If the issue is litter then a ban on dogs, cigarettes and fast food would be a better place to start.

TOPPING said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Driver said:

.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Driver said:

Nigelb said:

Driver said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TOPPING said:

Given all the drug taking around and about I'd have thought that laughing gas is just a deckchair move by the govt.

In Israel I've not been following save to see that there are demonstrations in London about it. What has Netanyahu done? Is he saying that the courts can't strike down government legislation? In which case is this something we have touched on previously whereby a democratically-elected government is trying to abolish elections?

As for the demonstrations in London about it it's interesting that these are presumably British Jews vociferously protesting about Israel and hence it is easy to see the complications of trying to separate out Israel and the Jews.

The laughing gas move is a joke, appropriately. Yet again the government overrules the scientists in a populist authoritarian knee-jerk response. For a government that is supposedly so anti cancel culture, they certainly seem to like banning things and telling people what they can and can't do.

The politicians absolutely should be able to "overrule" scientists. We've just seen what happens when they give into the Cult of the Expert.

No one's arguing they shouldn't be able to.

OLB seems to be.

As, indeed, did most of the country in 2020-1.

Not really. You've simply extrapolated what I have said with respect to one issue, applied it to a different issue, and in addition made out that I've said something I haven't. I didn't say government shouldn't be able to overrule scientific advice, and indeed this isn't my position. I said that in this case they've gone against the advice of their scientists in order to chase tabloid headlines. It's stupid policymaking and will cost the taxpayer more money, further waste police time and gum up the legal system, strengthen criminal gangs and quite possibly kill people.
I've offered no opinion on lockdown policy but I would say that while scientific advice should be absolutely front and centre during a global pandemic ultimately it is for our political leaders to decide how to proceed. So I don't think I hold the views you're trying to ascribe to me.

Essentially you're criticising them for weighing up expert advice against what they think will be popular and pluimping for the latter option.

Of course they've done that - they're politicians!

Good politicians get out in front of public opinion, do what they think will be best for the whole country and try to shape opinion through action and argument. The fact that this government operates as you suggest is why this country is becoming more of a shithole every day.

Hmm. They why did SKS amend his position on GRR following the "public backlash".

Hardly "get[ting] out in front of public opinion", now, is it.

Taz said:

kle4 said:

Taz said:

Bye Bye Jezza

https://twitter.com/tomorrowsmps/status/1640283146728898560?s=61&t=s0ae0IFncdLS1Dc7J0P_TQ

I genuinely never thought Starmer would hold the line on Corbyn this much. If Corbyn were not so stubborn Starmer would never have had the opportunity.

Corbyn seems to want to martyr himself. He really does only have himself to blame. I bet SKS cannot believe his luck.

Sandpit said:

.

Taz said:

kle4 said:

Taz said:

Bye Bye Jezza

https://twitter.com/tomorrowsmps/status/1640283146728898560?s=61&t=s0ae0IFncdLS1Dc7J0P_TQ

I genuinely never thought Starmer would hold the line on Corbyn this much. If Corbyn were not so stubborn Starmer would never have had the opportunity.

Corbyn seems to want to martyr himself. He really does only have himself to blame. I bet SKS cannot believe his luck.

Is it worth a fiver on the Tories and Lib Dems to win Islington North, if Corbyn stands as an independent against the official Labour candidate?

Sandpit said:

.

Taz said:

kle4 said:

Taz said:

Bye Bye Jezza

https://twitter.com/tomorrowsmps/status/1640283146728898560?s=61&t=s0ae0IFncdLS1Dc7J0P_TQ

I genuinely never thought Starmer would hold the line on Corbyn this much. If Corbyn were not so stubborn Starmer would never have had the opportunity.

Corbyn seems to want to martyr himself. He really does only have himself to blame. I bet SKS cannot believe his luck.

Is it worth a fiver on the Tories and Lib Dems to win Islington North, if Corbyn stands as an independent against the official Labour candidate?

Taz said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Anabobazina said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Driver said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TOPPING said:

Given all the drug taking around and about I'd have thought that laughing gas is just a deckchair move by the govt.

In Israel I've not been following save to see that there are demonstrations in London about it. What has Netanyahu done? Is he saying that the courts can't strike down government legislation? In which case is this something we have touched on previously whereby a democratically-elected government is trying to abolish elections?

As for the demonstrations in London about it it's interesting that these are presumably British Jews vociferously protesting about Israel and hence it is easy to see the complications of trying to separate out Israel and the Jews.

The laughing gas move is a joke, appropriately. Yet again the government overrules the scientists in a populist authoritarian knee-jerk response. For a government that is supposedly so anti cancel culture, they certainly seem to like banning things and telling people what they can and can't do.

The politicians absolutely should be able to "overrule" scientists. We've just seen what happens when they give into the Cult of the Expert.

Drugs policy is a mess. Scientists can help us come up with a more rational policy by providing evidence on the relative harm of various substances - which is surely the appropriate metric against which to judge how and when government regulation in this area should be employed. Instead we have a government that seems to operate solely on the basis of banning

anything that it's elderly client voters don't like.

The big problem with laughing gas is the litter associated with it. A better policy would have been to fine the manufacturers for the clean up (polluter pays principle) - with revenues going directly to local authority street cleaning departments. The manufacturers would soon design a more sustainable (recycle?) model.

If the issue is litter then a ban on dogs, cigarettes and fast food would be a better place to start.

Ban bloody cats. At least most dog owners pick up Fido’s shit. Cats just go out and take a dump wherever they feel like. Usually someone else’s lawn.

JosiasJessop said:

Malmesbury said:

I was watching a program about the British vegetable growing - the problems caused by energy bills for heating greenhouse.

Has anyone tried using waste heat from power stations for this? Literally half the energy in such stations lost as heat anyway….

Well... thirty or so years ago, I was involved (in a minor way (*)) with a scheme at a factory that had its own power station on site. AFAICR there was no, or minimal, low-pressure turbines, and the steam was sent around the factory for other processes to use (it was said they either got their steam, or electricity, for free).

What came out the other end was a lot of warm water that had to be sent to some cooling tower (cubes, actually). Someone had the idea to set up a fish farm on part of the site, using the warm water to grow fish. There were these very large bladders that were filled with water, inside of which were the fish at varying stages of development. The fish were then piped between the bladders.

It was an interesting scheme, but my involvement ended before I got to know if it was much of a success.

(*) At the connecting pipes and burying them level.

JosiasJessop said:

Malmesbury said:

I was watching a program about the British vegetable growing - the problems caused by energy bills for heating greenhouse.

Has anyone tried using waste heat from power stations for this? Literally half the energy in such stations lost as heat anyway….

Well... thirty or so years ago, I was involved (in a minor way (*)) with a scheme at a factory that had its own power station on site. AFAICR there was no, or minimal, low-pressure turbines, and the steam was sent around the factory for other processes to use (it was said they either got their steam, or electricity, for free).

What came out the other end was a lot of warm water that had to be sent to some cooling tower (cubes, actually). Someone had the idea to set up a fish farm on part of the site, using the warm water to grow fish. There were these very large bladders that were filled with water, inside of which were the fish at varying stages of development. The fish were then piped between the bladders.

It was an interesting scheme, but my involvement ended before I got to know if it was much of a success.

(*) At the connecting pipes and burying them level.

Malmesbury said:

Sandpit said:

LostPassword said:

Why does the government think that its attempt to criminalise possession of nitrous oxide is going to be any more successful than existing bans on possession of cocaine, heroin, ecstasy, cannabis, etc?

What a waste of fecking time.

What about people who drag race cars, and use nitrous oxide as fuel?
What about hospitals, who use nitrous oxide for pain relief?
I’m pretty sure there’s a number of other industrial uses of the stuff too.

Governments should have learned about prohibition from 1920s America.

The hospitals and pharmacies are already stacked with “illegal drugs”

Diamorphine and Novacaine say hi

Barnesian said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Driver said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Driver said:

.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Driver said:

Nigelb said:

Driver said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TOPPING said:

Given all the drug taking around and about I'd have thought that laughing gas is just a deckchair move by the govt.

In Israel I've not been following save to see that there are demonstrations in London about it. What has Netanyahu done? Is he saying that the courts can't strike down government legislation? In which case is this something we have touched on previously whereby a democratically-elected government is trying to abolish elections?

As for the demonstrations in London about it it's interesting that these are presumably British Jews vociferously protesting about Israel and hence it is easy to see the complications of trying to separate out Israel and the Jews.

The laughing gas move is a joke, appropriately. Yet again the government overrules the scientists in a populist authoritarian knee-jerk response. For a government that is supposedly so anti cancel culture, they certainly seem to like banning things and telling people what they can and can't do.

The politicians absolutely should be able to "overrule" scientists. We've just seen what happens when they give into the Cult of the Expert.

No one's arguing they shouldn't be able to.

OLB seems to be.

As, indeed, did most of the country in 2020-1.

Not really. You've simply extrapolated what I have said with respect to one issue, applied it to a different issue, and in addition made out that I've said something I haven't. I didn't say government shouldn't be able to overrule scientific advice, and indeed this isn't my position. I said that in this case they've gone against the advice of their scientists in order to chase tabloid headlines. It's stupid policymaking and will cost the taxpayer more money, further waste police time and gum up the legal system, strengthen criminal gangs and quite possibly kill people.
I've offered no opinion on lockdown policy but I would say that while scientific advice should be absolutely front and centre during a global pandemic ultimately it is for our political leaders to decide how to proceed. So I don't think I hold the views you're trying to ascribe to me.

Essentially you're criticising them for weighing up expert advice against what they think will be popular and pluimping for the latter option.

Of course they've done that - they're politicians!

Good politicians get out in front of public opinion, do what they think will be best for the whole country and try to shape opinion through action and argument. The fact that this government operates as you suggest is why this country is becoming more of a shithole every day.

Well, never let it be said that you're not an optimist.

By your standards, we have no good politicians. Sir Keir has had, for at least the last year, the perfect opportunity to act as you say a good politician does. Instead, cheered on by his party's supporters, he has deliberately done and said as little as possible, focusing on trying to win the next election by default.

That's fair. He is overly cautious. I didn't vote for him as leader. The Tories need to go but I don't hold out great hopes for the next Labour government, or indeed for the long term future of this country. We seem to be permanently in thrall to ill-informed voters and their worst prejudices, with our politicians never missing an opportunity to make a stupid, short-sighted decision.
As you might gather, I don't think I am an optimist.

That's the problem with democracy - ill-informed voters.

There is merit in the Shell, Unilever and other multinationals method. The top management emerge, promoted by their peers. Employees and customers can't vote for them. Though shareholders in theory could remove them, in practice they don't. China has a similar system.
It competes with democracy. There are pros and cons.

HYUFD said:

Sandpit said:

.

Taz said:

kle4 said:

Taz said:

Bye Bye Jezza

https://twitter.com/tomorrowsmps/status/1640283146728898560?s=61&t=s0ae0IFncdLS1Dc7J0P_TQ

I genuinely never thought Starmer would hold the line on Corbyn this much. If Corbyn were not so stubborn Starmer would never have had the opportunity.

Corbyn seems to want to martyr himself. He really does only have himself to blame. I bet SKS cannot believe his luck.

Is it worth a fiver on the Tories and Lib Dems to win Islington North, if Corbyn stands as an independent against the official Labour candidate?

I would expect Corbyn to be re elected as an Independent in his constituency if Starmer and the NEC do prevent him standing as the Labour Party candidate there again.

Livingstone of course won the London Mayoralty in 2000 as an Independent v Frank Dobson as official Labour candidate and Blair had to let him back into Labour in the end

Flatlander said:

JosiasJessop said:

Malmesbury said:

I was watching a program about the British vegetable growing - the problems caused by energy bills for heating greenhouse.

Has anyone tried using waste heat from power stations for this? Literally half the energy in such stations lost as heat anyway….

Well... thirty or so years ago, I was involved (in a minor way (*)) with a scheme at a factory that had its own power station on site. AFAICR there was no, or minimal, low-pressure turbines, and the steam was sent around the factory for other processes to use (it was said they either got their steam, or electricity, for free).

What came out the other end was a lot of warm water that had to be sent to some cooling tower (cubes, actually). Someone had the idea to set up a fish farm on part of the site, using the warm water to grow fish. There were these very large bladders that were filled with water, inside of which were the fish at varying stages of development. The fish were then piped between the bladders.

It was an interesting scheme, but my involvement ended before I got to know if it was much of a success.

(*) At the connecting pipes and burying them level.

Pilkington's got there first.

Well, kind of.

There used to be a big population of tropical fish in the canal at St Helens near to the warm water discharge from the glass factory.

Not really useful, but amusing.
https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/specialist-teams/restoration/restoration-stories/the-hotties-of-st-helens

Sandpit said:

.

Taz said:

kle4 said:

Taz said:

Bye Bye Jezza

https://twitter.com/tomorrowsmps/status/1640283146728898560?s=61&t=s0ae0IFncdLS1Dc7J0P_TQ

I genuinely never thought Starmer would hold the line on Corbyn this much. If Corbyn were not so stubborn Starmer would never have had the opportunity.

Corbyn seems to want to martyr himself. He really does only have himself to blame. I bet SKS cannot believe his luck.

Is it worth a fiver on the Tories and Lib Dems to win Islington North, if Corbyn stands as an independent against the official Labour candidate?

RochdalePioneers said:

CarlottaVance said:

RochdalePioneers said:

CarlottaVance said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Heathener said:

I do have a fear, which is all-too-depressing, that the anti-woke culture wars will stir up a sufficient number of the indignant right to stop a colossal Labour victory. The fact that people endlessly bang on about a pointless sideshow narrative (trans rights), as evidenced on here by carlotta and his stuck needle, is depressing.

However, I suspect that come the General Election proper, the trans issue will burn brightly for a couple of days as the Daily Malicious vents its spleen and then will pass.

Most people will realise that we had all of this nonsense, and exactly the same arguments, with gay rights 40 years ago and that there are FAR more pressing and important matters that we face than whether Steve in the neighbouring town wishes to self-identify as Susan. (I didn't put 'Steve next door' because most people don't have a trans neighbour and never will).

As you were.

Scotland is a good tester for this theory. I kept pointing out that the row over the GRR bill was largely irrelevant as nobody who wasn't shouting cared about it. IRRELEVANT??? they screamed.

And then came the polling. Putting GRR third bottom on the list of voters' concerns. Not an issue for an electorate who (shockingly) care about jobs services and prosperity, not gender ID issues.

For the handful of mouthfoamers who are obsessed by fear it is THE issue. For almost everyone else it is a non-issue politically.

Except voters saw it as the SNP ‘s second top priority second only to independence. Who were the mouth foamers?

You have made the point for me. The polls showed that voters thought it was the SNP's 2nd top priority. For *the voters* it was their 3rd bottom priority.

Voters do not care about this issue. As demonstrated by the polls The SNP went way off piste and if they elect Forbes today the issue gets quickly dropped. Or if they elect Yousaf it gets slowly dropped.

Either way, voters do not care. It is a non-issue for them.

It’s only a non issue if politicians don’t make it one - as the SNP did. Ironically voters while in general support making change of gender easier, they oppose most of the changes that would make it so.

Do you understand how politics works? A party could go out and Make A Stand on an issue. Save the Pound! said William Hague, you MUST be worried about this because I say you are so you must Vote Conservative to Save the Pound!

Nobody cared. Non-issue, didn't move the polls at all. Politicians can make anything they like into an issue, but if it doesn't motivate people to vote, politically its a non-issue. Voters say what they are concerned about and politicians act accordingly, not the other way round.

No matter how many times a politician might ask "Are you thinking what we're thinking" when the answer is "no" they are sunk. Almost nobody in Scotland is thinking as the SNP were on this issue. They just don't care about it, and wish the government would focus on actual issues.

HYUFD said:

Orlando Bloom meets Zelensky
as a Unicef Ambassador
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11905917/Orlando-Bloom-tells-Zelensky-strength-Ukrainians-awe-inspiring-visits-Kyiv.html

HYUFD said:

Sandpit said:

.

Taz said:

kle4 said:

Taz said:

Bye Bye Jezza

https://twitter.com/tomorrowsmps/status/1640283146728898560?s=61&t=s0ae0IFncdLS1Dc7J0P_TQ

I genuinely never thought Starmer would hold the line on Corbyn this much. If Corbyn were not so stubborn Starmer would never have had the opportunity.

Corbyn seems to want to martyr himself. He really does only have himself to blame. I bet SKS cannot believe his luck.

Is it worth a fiver on the Tories and Lib Dems to win Islington North, if Corbyn stands as an independent against the official Labour candidate?

I would expect Corbyn to be re elected as an Independent in his constituency if Starmer and the NEC do prevent him standing as the Labour Party candidate there again.

Livingstone of course won the London Mayoralty in 2000 as an Independent v Frank Dobson as official Labour candidate and Blair had to let him back into Labour in the end

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Barnesian said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Driver said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Driver said:

.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Driver said:

Nigelb said:

Driver said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TOPPING said:

Given all the drug taking around and about I'd have thought that laughing gas is just a deckchair move by the govt.

In Israel I've not been following save to see that there are demonstrations in London about it. What has Netanyahu done? Is he saying that the courts can't strike down government legislation? In which case is this something we have touched on previously whereby a democratically-elected government is trying to abolish elections?

As for the demonstrations in London about it it's interesting that these are presumably British Jews vociferously protesting about Israel and hence it is easy to see the complications of trying to separate out Israel and the Jews.

The laughing gas move is a joke, appropriately. Yet again the government overrules the scientists in a populist authoritarian knee-jerk response. For a government that is supposedly so anti cancel culture, they certainly seem to like banning things and telling people what they can and can't do.

The politicians absolutely should be able to "overrule" scientists. We've just seen what happens when they give into the Cult of the Expert.

No one's arguing they shouldn't be able to.

OLB seems to be.

As, indeed, did most of the country in 2020-1.

Not really. You've simply extrapolated what I have said with respect to one issue, applied it to a different issue, and in addition made out that I've said something I haven't. I didn't say government shouldn't be able to overrule scientific advice, and indeed this isn't my position. I said that in this case they've gone against the advice of their scientists in order to chase tabloid headlines. It's stupid policymaking and will cost the taxpayer more money, further waste police time and gum up the legal system, strengthen criminal gangs and quite possibly kill people.
I've offered no opinion on lockdown policy but I would say that while scientific advice should be absolutely front and centre during a global pandemic ultimately it is for our political leaders to decide how to proceed. So I don't think I hold the views you're trying to ascribe to me.

Essentially you're criticising them for weighing up expert advice against what they think will be popular and pluimping for the latter option.

Of course they've done that - they're politicians!

Good politicians get out in front of public opinion, do what they think will be best for the whole country and try to shape opinion through action and argument. The fact that this government operates as you suggest is why this country is becoming more of a shithole every day.

Well, never let it be said that you're not an optimist.

By your standards, we have no good politicians. Sir Keir has had, for at least the last year, the perfect opportunity to act as you say a good politician does. Instead, cheered on by his party's supporters, he has deliberately done and said as little as possible, focusing on trying to win the next election by default.

That's fair. He is overly cautious. I didn't vote for him as leader. The Tories need to go but I don't hold out great hopes for the next Labour government, or indeed for the long term future of this country. We seem to be permanently in thrall to ill-informed voters and their worst prejudices, with our politicians never missing an opportunity to make a stupid, short-sighted decision.
As you might gather, I don't think I am an optimist.

That's the problem with democracy - ill-informed voters.

There is merit in the Shell, Unilever and other multinationals method. The top management emerge, promoted by their peers. Employees and customers can't vote for them. Though shareholders in theory could remove them, in practice they don't. China has a similar system.
It competes with democracy. There are pros and cons.

I still think democracy is the best system both morally and in terms of outcomes, but it needs to be combined with well informed voters and enlightened political leadership to deliver the best results. Right now this country seems to be caught in a downwards spiral of angry, ill informed voters, pandering and opportunistic politicians and stupid policies. It is very depressing.

RochdalePioneers said:

Theuniondivvie said:

RochdalePioneers said:

CarlottaVance said:

RochdalePioneers said:

CarlottaVance said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Heathener said:

I do have a fear, which is all-too-depressing, that the anti-woke culture wars will stir up a sufficient number of the indignant right to stop a colossal Labour victory. The fact that people endlessly bang on about a pointless sideshow narrative (trans rights), as evidenced on here by carlotta and his stuck needle, is depressing.

However, I suspect that come the General Election proper, the trans issue will burn brightly for a couple of days as the Daily Malicious vents its spleen and then will pass.

Most people will realise that we had all of this nonsense, and exactly the same arguments, with gay rights 40 years ago and that there are FAR more pressing and important matters that we face than whether Steve in the neighbouring town wishes to self-identify as Susan. (I didn't put 'Steve next door' because most people don't have a trans neighbour and never will).

As you were.

Scotland is a good tester for this theory. I kept pointing out that the row over the GRR bill was largely irrelevant as nobody who wasn't shouting cared about it. IRRELEVANT??? they screamed.

And then came the polling. Putting GRR third bottom on the list of voters' concerns. Not an issue for an electorate who (shockingly) care about jobs services and prosperity, not gender ID issues.

For the handful of mouthfoamers who are obsessed by fear it is THE issue. For almost everyone else it is a non-issue politically.

Except voters saw it as the SNP ‘s second top priority second only to independence. Who were the mouth foamers?

You have made the point for me. The polls showed that voters thought it was the SNP's 2nd top priority. For *the voters* it was their 3rd bottom priority.

Voters do not care about this issue. As demonstrated by the polls The SNP went way off piste and if they elect Forbes today the issue gets quickly dropped. Or if they elect Yousaf it gets slowly dropped.

Either way, voters do not care. It is a non-issue for them.

It’s only a non issue if politicians don’t make it one - as the SNP did. Ironically voters while in general support making change of gender easier, they oppose most of the changes that would make it so.

Do you understand how politics works? A party could go out and Make A Stand on an issue. Save the Pound! said William Hague, you MUST be worried about this because I say you are so you must Vote Conservative to Save the Pound!

Nobody cared. Non-issue, didn't move the polls at all. Politicians can make anything they like into an issue, but if it doesn't motivate people to vote, politically its a non-issue. Voters say what they are concerned about and politicians act accordingly, not the other way round.

No matter how many times a politician might ask "Are you thinking what we're thinking" when the answer is "no" they are sunk. Almost nobody in Scotland is thinking as the SNP were on this issue. They just don't care about it, and wish the government would focus on actual issues.

I expect as the only party that (mostly) opposed the GRR bill that the SCons will be experiencing a real surge in the polls.

Why? Voters don't care about that issue. They care about jobs and education and prosperity - so won't be voting Tory because not stupid.

And besides which, the Tories were so split that DRoss had to grant a free vote.

Barnesian said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Barnesian said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Driver said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Driver said:

.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Driver said:

Nigelb said:

Driver said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TOPPING said:

Given all the drug taking around and about I'd have thought that laughing gas is just a deckchair move by the govt.

In Israel I've not been following save to see that there are demonstrations in London about it. What has Netanyahu done? Is he saying that the courts can't strike down government legislation? In which case is this something we have touched on previously whereby a democratically-elected government is trying to abolish elections?

As for the demonstrations in London about it it's interesting that these are presumably British Jews vociferously protesting about Israel and hence it is easy to see the complications of trying to separate out Israel and the Jews.

The laughing gas move is a joke, appropriately. Yet again the government overrules the scientists in a populist authoritarian knee-jerk response. For a government that is supposedly so anti cancel culture, they certainly seem to like banning things and telling people what they can and can't do.

The politicians absolutely should be able to "overrule" scientists. We've just seen what happens when they give into the Cult of the Expert.

No one's arguing they shouldn't be able to.

OLB seems to be.

As, indeed, did most of the country in 2020-1.

Not really. You've simply extrapolated what I have said with respect to one issue, applied it to a different issue, and in addition made out that I've said something I haven't. I didn't say government shouldn't be able to overrule scientific advice, and indeed this isn't my position. I said that in this case they've gone against the advice of their scientists in order to chase tabloid headlines. It's stupid policymaking and will cost the taxpayer more money, further waste police time and gum up the legal system, strengthen criminal gangs and quite possibly kill people.
I've offered no opinion on lockdown policy but I would say that while scientific advice should be absolutely front and centre during a global pandemic ultimately it is for our political leaders to decide how to proceed. So I don't think I hold the views you're trying to ascribe to me.

Essentially you're criticising them for weighing up expert advice against what they think will be popular and pluimping for the latter option.

Of course they've done that - they're politicians!

Good politicians get out in front of public opinion, do what they think will be best for the whole country and try to shape opinion through action and argument. The fact that this government operates as you suggest is why this country is becoming more of a shithole every day.

Well, never let it be said that you're not an optimist.

By your standards, we have no good politicians. Sir Keir has had, for at least the last year, the perfect opportunity to act as you say a good politician does. Instead, cheered on by his party's supporters, he has deliberately done and said as little as possible, focusing on trying to win the next election by default.

That's fair. He is overly cautious. I didn't vote for him as leader. The Tories need to go but I don't hold out great hopes for the next Labour government, or indeed for the long term future of this country. We seem to be permanently in thrall to ill-informed voters and their worst prejudices, with our politicians never missing an opportunity to make a stupid, short-sighted decision.
As you might gather, I don't think I am an optimist.

That's the problem with democracy - ill-informed voters.

There is merit in the Shell, Unilever and other multinationals method. The top management emerge, promoted by their peers. Employees and customers can't vote for them. Though shareholders in theory could remove them, in practice they don't. China has a similar system.
It competes with democracy. There are pros and cons.

I still think democracy is the best system both morally and in terms of outcomes, but it needs to be combined with well informed voters and enlightened political leadership to deliver the best results. Right now this country seems to be caught in a downwards spiral of angry, ill informed voters, pandering and opportunistic politicians and stupid policies. It is very depressing.

Morally - I prefer democracy, but that's the way I've been brought up.
On outcomes It's not clear that democracy wins:
Economic GDP

Life expectancy
China 59 in 1970, 77 now and growing.
USA 71 in 1970, 79 now and flat.

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Theuniondivvie said:

RochdalePioneers said:

CarlottaVance said:

RochdalePioneers said:

CarlottaVance said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Heathener said:

I do have a fear, which is all-too-depressing, that the anti-woke culture wars will stir up a sufficient number of the indignant right to stop a colossal Labour victory. The fact that people endlessly bang on about a pointless sideshow narrative (trans rights), as evidenced on here by carlotta and his stuck needle, is depressing.

However, I suspect that come the General Election proper, the trans issue will burn brightly for a couple of days as the Daily Malicious vents its spleen and then will pass.

Most people will realise that we had all of this nonsense, and exactly the same arguments, with gay rights 40 years ago and that there are FAR more pressing and important matters that we face than whether Steve in the neighbouring town wishes to self-identify as Susan. (I didn't put 'Steve next door' because most people don't have a trans neighbour and never will).

As you were.

Scotland is a good tester for this theory. I kept pointing out that the row over the GRR bill was largely irrelevant as nobody who wasn't shouting cared about it. IRRELEVANT??? they screamed.

And then came the polling. Putting GRR third bottom on the list of voters' concerns. Not an issue for an electorate who (shockingly) care about jobs services and prosperity, not gender ID issues.

For the handful of mouthfoamers who are obsessed by fear it is THE issue. For almost everyone else it is a non-issue politically.

Except voters saw it as the SNP ‘s second top priority second only to independence. Who were the mouth foamers?

You have made the point for me. The polls showed that voters thought it was the SNP's 2nd top priority. For *the voters* it was their 3rd bottom priority.

Voters do not care about this issue. As demonstrated by the polls The SNP went way off piste and if they elect Forbes today the issue gets quickly dropped. Or if they elect Yousaf it gets slowly dropped.

Either way, voters do not care. It is a non-issue for them.

It’s only a non issue if politicians don’t make it one - as the SNP did. Ironically voters while in general support making change of gender easier, they oppose most of the changes that would make it so.

Do you understand how politics works? A party could go out and Make A Stand on an issue. Save the Pound! said William Hague, you MUST be worried about this because I say you are so you must Vote Conservative to Save the Pound!

Nobody cared. Non-issue, didn't move the polls at all. Politicians can make anything they like into an issue, but if it doesn't motivate people to vote, politically its a non-issue. Voters say what they are concerned about and politicians act accordingly, not the other way round.

No matter how many times a politician might ask "Are you thinking what we're thinking" when the answer is "no" they are sunk. Almost nobody in Scotland is thinking as the SNP were on this issue. They just don't care about it, and wish the government would focus on actual issues.

I expect as the only party that (mostly) opposed the GRR bill that the SCons will be experiencing a real surge in the polls.

Why? Voters don't care about that issue. They care about jobs and education and prosperity - so won't be voting Tory because not stupid.

And besides which, the Tories were so split that DRoss had to grant a free vote.

The GRR Bill is in reality the reason Sturgeon had to resign as FM and may be replaced in that role by the much more socially conservative Kate Forbes this afternoon

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Theuniondivvie said:

RochdalePioneers said:

CarlottaVance said:

RochdalePioneers said:

CarlottaVance said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Heathener said:

I do have a fear, which is all-too-depressing, that the anti-woke culture wars will stir up a sufficient number of the indignant right to stop a colossal Labour victory. The fact that people endlessly bang on about a pointless sideshow narrative (trans rights), as evidenced on here by carlotta and his stuck needle, is depressing.

However, I suspect that come the General Election proper, the trans issue will burn brightly for a couple of days as the Daily Malicious vents its spleen and then will pass.

Most people will realise that we had all of this nonsense, and exactly the same arguments, with gay rights 40 years ago and that there are FAR more pressing and important matters that we face than whether Steve in the neighbouring town wishes to self-identify as Susan. (I didn't put 'Steve next door' because most people don't have a trans neighbour and never will).

As you were.

Scotland is a good tester for this theory. I kept pointing out that the row over the GRR bill was largely irrelevant as nobody who wasn't shouting cared about it. IRRELEVANT??? they screamed.

And then came the polling. Putting GRR third bottom on the list of voters' concerns. Not an issue for an electorate who (shockingly) care about jobs services and prosperity, not gender ID issues.

For the handful of mouthfoamers who are obsessed by fear it is THE issue. For almost everyone else it is a non-issue politically.

Except voters saw it as the SNP ‘s second top priority second only to independence. Who were the mouth foamers?

You have made the point for me. The polls showed that voters thought it was the SNP's 2nd top priority. For *the voters* it was their 3rd bottom priority.

Voters do not care about this issue. As demonstrated by the polls The SNP went way off piste and if they elect Forbes today the issue gets quickly dropped. Or if they elect Yousaf it gets slowly dropped.

Either way, voters do not care. It is a non-issue for them.

It’s only a non issue if politicians don’t make it one - as the SNP did. Ironically voters while in general support making change of gender easier, they oppose most of the changes that would make it so.

Do you understand how politics works? A party could go out and Make A Stand on an issue. Save the Pound! said William Hague, you MUST be worried about this because I say you are so you must Vote Conservative to Save the Pound!

Nobody cared. Non-issue, didn't move the polls at all. Politicians can make anything they like into an issue, but if it doesn't motivate people to vote, politically its a non-issue. Voters say what they are concerned about and politicians act accordingly, not the other way round.

No matter how many times a politician might ask "Are you thinking what we're thinking" when the answer is "no" they are sunk. Almost nobody in Scotland is thinking as the SNP were on this issue. They just don't care about it, and wish the government would focus on actual issues.

I expect as the only party that (mostly) opposed the GRR bill that the SCons will be experiencing a real surge in the polls.

Why? Voters don't care about that issue. They care about jobs and education and prosperity - so won't be voting Tory because not stupid.

And besides which, the Tories were so split that DRoss had to grant a free vote.

The GRR Bill is in reality the reason Sturgeon had to resign as FM and may be replaced in that role by the much more socially conservative Kate Forbes this afternoon

Why don’t you believe what Sturgeon said? Seemed perfectly reasonable to me. One does reach a point in life, where one has just had enough of a particular activity.

Barnesian said:

HYUFD said:

Barnesian said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Barnesian said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Driver said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Driver said:

.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Driver said:

Nigelb said:

Driver said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TOPPING said:

Given all the drug taking around and about I'd have thought that laughing gas is just a deckchair move by the govt.

In Israel I've not been following save to see that there are demonstrations in London about it. What has Netanyahu done? Is he saying that the courts can't strike down government legislation? In which case is this something we have touched on previously whereby a democratically-elected government is trying to abolish elections?

As for the demonstrations in London about it it's interesting that these are presumably British Jews vociferously protesting about Israel and hence it is easy to see the complications of trying to separate out Israel and the Jews.

The laughing gas move is a joke, appropriately. Yet again the government overrules the scientists in a populist authoritarian knee-jerk response. For a government that is supposedly so anti cancel culture, they certainly seem to like banning things and telling people what they can and can't do.

The politicians absolutely should be able to "overrule" scientists. We've just seen what happens when they give into the Cult of the Expert.

No one's arguing they shouldn't be able to.

OLB seems to be.

As, indeed, did most of the country in 2020-1.

Not really. You've simply extrapolated what I have said with respect to one issue, applied it to a different issue, and in addition made out that I've said something I haven't. I didn't say government shouldn't be able to overrule scientific advice, and indeed this isn't my position. I said that in this case they've gone against the advice of their scientists in order to chase tabloid headlines. It's stupid policymaking and will cost the taxpayer more money, further waste police time and gum up the legal system, strengthen criminal gangs and quite possibly kill people.
I've offered no opinion on lockdown policy but I would say that while scientific advice should be absolutely front and centre during a global pandemic ultimately it is for our political leaders to decide how to proceed. So I don't think I hold the views you're trying to ascribe to me.

Essentially you're criticising them for weighing up expert advice against what they think will be popular and pluimping for the latter option.

Of course they've done that - they're politicians!

Good politicians get out in front of public opinion, do what they think will be best for the whole country and try to shape opinion through action and argument. The fact that this government operates as you suggest is why this country is becoming more of a shithole every day.

Well, never let it be said that you're not an optimist.

By your standards, we have no good politicians. Sir Keir has had, for at least the last year, the perfect opportunity to act as you say a good politician does. Instead, cheered on by his party's supporters, he has deliberately done and said as little as possible, focusing on trying to win the next election by default.

That's fair. He is overly cautious. I didn't vote for him as leader. The Tories need to go but I don't hold out great hopes for the next Labour government, or indeed for the long term future of this country. We seem to be permanently in thrall to ill-informed voters and their worst prejudices, with our politicians never missing an opportunity to make a stupid, short-sighted decision.
As you might gather, I don't think I am an optimist.

That's the problem with democracy - ill-informed voters.

There is merit in the Shell, Unilever and other multinationals method. The top management emerge, promoted by their peers. Employees and customers can't vote for them. Though shareholders in theory could remove them, in practice they don't. China has a similar system.
It competes with democracy. There are pros and cons.

I still think democracy is the best system both morally and in terms of outcomes, but it needs to be combined with well informed voters and enlightened political leadership to deliver the best results. Right now this country seems to be caught in a downwards spiral of angry, ill informed voters, pandering and opportunistic politicians and stupid policies. It is very depressing.

Morally - I prefer democracy, but that's the way I've been brought up.
On outcomes It's not clear that democracy wins:
Economic GDP

Life expectancy
China 59 in 1970, 77 now and growing.
USA 71 in 1970, 79 now and flat.

On gdp per head both the US and Japan are well ahead of China, the Chinese birthrate is also lower even than most western Nations and China has fewer immigrants percentage wise too

GDP per head is growing much faster in China than US or Japan.
Birthrate is an odd measure. Is a low birthrate good or bad? Depends on the context.

JosiasJessop said:

Barnesian said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Barnesian said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Driver said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Driver said:

.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Driver said:

Nigelb said:

Driver said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TOPPING said:

Given all the drug taking around and about I'd have thought that laughing gas is just a deckchair move by the govt.

In Israel I've not been following save to see that there are demonstrations in London about it. What has Netanyahu done? Is he saying that the courts can't strike down government legislation? In which case is this something we have touched on previously whereby a democratically-elected government is trying to abolish elections?

As for the demonstrations in London about it it's interesting that these are presumably British Jews vociferously protesting about Israel and hence it is easy to see the complications of trying to separate out Israel and the Jews.

The laughing gas move is a joke, appropriately. Yet again the government overrules the scientists in a populist authoritarian knee-jerk response. For a government that is supposedly so anti cancel culture, they certainly seem to like banning things and telling people what they can and can't do.

The politicians absolutely should be able to "overrule" scientists. We've just seen what happens when they give into the Cult of the Expert.

No one's arguing they shouldn't be able to.

OLB seems to be.

As, indeed, did most of the country in 2020-1.

Not really. You've simply extrapolated what I have said with respect to one issue, applied it to a different issue, and in addition made out that I've said something I haven't. I didn't say government shouldn't be able to overrule scientific advice, and indeed this isn't my position. I said that in this case they've gone against the advice of their scientists in order to chase tabloid headlines. It's stupid policymaking and will cost the taxpayer more money, further waste police time and gum up the legal system, strengthen criminal gangs and quite possibly kill people.
I've offered no opinion on lockdown policy but I would say that while scientific advice should be absolutely front and centre during a global pandemic ultimately it is for our political leaders to decide how to proceed. So I don't think I hold the views you're trying to ascribe to me.

Essentially you're criticising them for weighing up expert advice against what they think will be popular and pluimping for the latter option.

Of course they've done that - they're politicians!

Good politicians get out in front of public opinion, do what they think will be best for the whole country and try to shape opinion through action and argument. The fact that this government operates as you suggest is why this country is becoming more of a shithole every day.

Well, never let it be said that you're not an optimist.

By your standards, we have no good politicians. Sir Keir has had, for at least the last year, the perfect opportunity to act as you say a good politician does. Instead, cheered on by his party's supporters, he has deliberately done and said as little as possible, focusing on trying to win the next election by default.

That's fair. He is overly cautious. I didn't vote for him as leader. The Tories need to go but I don't hold out great hopes for the next Labour government, or indeed for the long term future of this country. We seem to be permanently in thrall to ill-informed voters and their worst prejudices, with our politicians never missing an opportunity to make a stupid, short-sighted decision.
As you might gather, I don't think I am an optimist.

That's the problem with democracy - ill-informed voters.

There is merit in the Shell, Unilever and other multinationals method. The top management emerge, promoted by their peers. Employees and customers can't vote for them. Though shareholders in theory could remove them, in practice they don't. China has a similar system.
It competes with democracy. There are pros and cons.

I still think democracy is the best system both morally and in terms of outcomes, but it needs to be combined with well informed voters and enlightened political leadership to deliver the best results. Right now this country seems to be caught in a downwards spiral of angry, ill informed voters, pandering and opportunistic politicians and stupid policies. It is very depressing.

Morally - I prefer democracy, but that's the way I've been brought up.
On outcomes It's not clear that democracy wins:
Economic GDP
(snip)Life expectancy
China 59 in 1970, 77 now and growing.
USA 71 in 1970, 79 now and flat.

A question: given Soviet economic figures were shown to be absolute pants, and Russia's current economic figures appear to have been plucked out of Putin's backside (perhaps that's why he walks funnily on occasion?), how much can we trust China's GDP figures?

Are they compiled under similar processes to western ones?

(I'm not denying China has undergone an economic miracle in the last few decades; just wondering whether such a centralised system is lying to itself.)

HYUFD said:

Barnesian said:

HYUFD said:

Barnesian said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Barnesian said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Driver said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Driver said:

.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Driver said:

Nigelb said:

Driver said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TOPPING said:

Given all the drug taking around and about I'd have thought that laughing gas is just a deckchair move by the govt.

In Israel I've not been following save to see that there are demonstrations in London about it. What has Netanyahu done? Is he saying that the courts can't strike down government legislation? In which case is this something we have touched on previously whereby a democratically-elected government is trying to abolish elections?

As for the demonstrations in London about it it's interesting that these are presumably British Jews vociferously protesting about Israel and hence it is easy to see the complications of trying to separate out Israel and the Jews.

The laughing gas move is a joke, appropriately. Yet again the government overrules the scientists in a populist authoritarian knee-jerk response. For a government that is supposedly so anti cancel culture, they certainly seem to like banning things and telling people what they can and can't do.

The politicians absolutely should be able to "overrule" scientists. We've just seen what happens when they give into the Cult of the Expert.

No one's arguing they shouldn't be able to.

OLB seems to be.

As, indeed, did most of the country in 2020-1.

Not really. You've simply extrapolated what I have said with respect to one issue, applied it to a different issue, and in addition made out that I've said something I haven't. I didn't say government shouldn't be able to overrule scientific advice, and indeed this isn't my position. I said that in this case they've gone against the advice of their scientists in order to chase tabloid headlines. It's stupid policymaking and will cost the taxpayer more money, further waste police time and gum up the legal system, strengthen criminal gangs and quite possibly kill people.
I've offered no opinion on lockdown policy but I would say that while scientific advice should be absolutely front and centre during a global pandemic ultimately it is for our political leaders to decide how to proceed. So I don't think I hold the views you're trying to ascribe to me.

Essentially you're criticising them for weighing up expert advice against what they think will be popular and pluimping for the latter option.

Of course they've done that - they're politicians!

Good politicians get out in front of public opinion, do what they think will be best for the whole country and try to shape opinion through action and argument. The fact that this government operates as you suggest is why this country is becoming more of a shithole every day.

Well, never let it be said that you're not an optimist.

By your standards, we have no good politicians. Sir Keir has had, for at least the last year, the perfect opportunity to act as you say a good politician does. Instead, cheered on by his party's supporters, he has deliberately done and said as little as possible, focusing on trying to win the next election by default.

That's fair. He is overly cautious. I didn't vote for him as leader. The Tories need to go but I don't hold out great hopes for the next Labour government, or indeed for the long term future of this country. We seem to be permanently in thrall to ill-informed voters and their worst prejudices, with our politicians never missing an opportunity to make a stupid, short-sighted decision.
As you might gather, I don't think I am an optimist.

That's the problem with democracy - ill-informed voters.

There is merit in the Shell, Unilever and other multinationals method. The top management emerge, promoted by their peers. Employees and customers can't vote for them. Though shareholders in theory could remove them, in practice they don't. China has a similar system.
It competes with democracy. There are pros and cons.

I still think democracy is the best system both morally and in terms of outcomes, but it needs to be combined with well informed voters and enlightened political leadership to deliver the best results. Right now this country seems to be caught in a downwards spiral of angry, ill informed voters, pandering and opportunistic politicians and stupid policies. It is very depressing.

Morally - I prefer democracy, but that's the way I've been brought up.
On outcomes It's not clear that democracy wins:
Economic GDP

Life expectancy
China 59 in 1970, 77 now and growing.
USA 71 in 1970, 79 now and flat.

On gdp per head both the US and Japan are well ahead of China, the Chinese birthrate is also lower even than most western Nations and China has fewer immigrants percentage wise too

GDP per head is growing much faster in China than US or Japan.
Birthrate is an odd measure. Is a low birthrate good or bad? Depends on the context.

Well course it is because it starts from a much lower level.

If you want to grow gdp overall significantly relative to other nations rather than just gdp per capita then you need a well above replacement level birthrate.

Democratic India will likely thus have overtaken China in terms of gdp by 2050 as it has a much higher birthrate. Nigeria is also rapidly advancing up the gdp rankings because of its high birthrate

Barnesian said:

HYUFD said:

Barnesian said:

HYUFD said:

Barnesian said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Barnesian said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Driver said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Driver said:

.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Driver said:

Nigelb said:

Driver said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TOPPING said:

Given all the drug taking around and about I'd have thought that laughing gas is just a deckchair move by the govt.

In Israel I've not been following save to see that there are demonstrations in London about it. What has Netanyahu done? Is he saying that the courts can't strike down government legislation? In which case is this something we have touched on previously whereby a democratically-elected government is trying to abolish elections?

As for the demonstrations in London about it it's interesting that these are presumably British Jews vociferously protesting about Israel and hence it is easy to see the complications of trying to separate out Israel and the Jews.

The laughing gas move is a joke, appropriately. Yet again the government overrules the scientists in a populist authoritarian knee-jerk response. For a government that is supposedly so anti cancel culture, they certainly seem to like banning things and telling people what they can and can't do.

The politicians absolutely should be able to "overrule" scientists. We've just seen what happens when they give into the Cult of the Expert.

No one's arguing they shouldn't be able to.

OLB seems to be.

As, indeed, did most of the country in 2020-1.

Not really. You've simply extrapolated what I have said with respect to one issue, applied it to a different issue, and in addition made out that I've said something I haven't. I didn't say government shouldn't be able to overrule scientific advice, and indeed this isn't my position. I said that in this case they've gone against the advice of their scientists in order to chase tabloid headlines. It's stupid policymaking and will cost the taxpayer more money, further waste police time and gum up the legal system, strengthen criminal gangs and quite possibly kill people.
I've offered no opinion on lockdown policy but I would say that while scientific advice should be absolutely front and centre during a global pandemic ultimately it is for our political leaders to decide how to proceed. So I don't think I hold the views you're trying to ascribe to me.

Essentially you're criticising them for weighing up expert advice against what they think will be popular and pluimping for the latter option.

Of course they've done that - they're politicians!

Good politicians get out in front of public opinion, do what they think will be best for the whole country and try to shape opinion through action and argument. The fact that this government operates as you suggest is why this country is becoming more of a shithole every day.

Well, never let it be said that you're not an optimist.

By your standards, we have no good politicians. Sir Keir has had, for at least the last year, the perfect opportunity to act as you say a good politician does. Instead, cheered on by his party's supporters, he has deliberately done and said as little as possible, focusing on trying to win the next election by default.

That's fair. He is overly cautious. I didn't vote for him as leader. The Tories need to go but I don't hold out great hopes for the next Labour government, or indeed for the long term future of this country. We seem to be permanently in thrall to ill-informed voters and their worst prejudices, with our politicians never missing an opportunity to make a stupid, short-sighted decision.
As you might gather, I don't think I am an optimist.

That's the problem with democracy - ill-informed voters.

There is merit in the Shell, Unilever and other multinationals method. The top management emerge, promoted by their peers. Employees and customers can't vote for them. Though shareholders in theory could remove them, in practice they don't. China has a similar system.
It competes with democracy. There are pros and cons.

I still think democracy is the best system both morally and in terms of outcomes, but it needs to be combined with well informed voters and enlightened political leadership to deliver the best results. Right now this country seems to be caught in a downwards spiral of angry, ill informed voters, pandering and opportunistic politicians and stupid policies. It is very depressing.

Morally - I prefer democracy, but that's the way I've been brought up.
On outcomes It's not clear that democracy wins:
Economic GDP

Life expectancy
China 59 in 1970, 77 now and growing.
USA 71 in 1970, 79 now and flat.

On gdp per head both the US and Japan are well ahead of China, the Chinese birthrate is also lower even than most western Nations and China has fewer immigrants percentage wise too

GDP per head is growing much faster in China than US or Japan.
Birthrate is an odd measure. Is a low birthrate good or bad? Depends on the context.

Well course it is because it starts from a much lower level.

If you want to grow gdp overall significantly relative to other nations rather than just gdp per capita then you need a well above replacement level birthrate.

Democratic India will likely thus have overtaken China in terms of gdp by 2050 as it has a much higher birthrate. Nigeria is also rapidly advancing up the gdp rankings because of its high birthrate

What metrics would you use to measure the relative outcomes of democrat nations versus the Chinese (and multinational company) approach?

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Theuniondivvie said:

RochdalePioneers said:

CarlottaVance said:

RochdalePioneers said:

CarlottaVance said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Heathener said:

I do have a fear, which is all-too-depressing, that the anti-woke culture wars will stir up a sufficient number of the indignant right to stop a colossal Labour victory. The fact that people endlessly bang on about a pointless sideshow narrative (trans rights), as evidenced on here by carlotta and his stuck needle, is depressing.

However, I suspect that come the General Election proper, the trans issue will burn brightly for a couple of days as the Daily Malicious vents its spleen and then will pass.

Most people will realise that we had all of this nonsense, and exactly the same arguments, with gay rights 40 years ago and that there are FAR more pressing and important matters that we face than whether Steve in the neighbouring town wishes to self-identify as Susan. (I didn't put 'Steve next door' because most people don't have a trans neighbour and never will).

As you were.

Scotland is a good tester for this theory. I kept pointing out that the row over the GRR bill was largely irrelevant as nobody who wasn't shouting cared about it. IRRELEVANT??? they screamed.

And then came the polling. Putting GRR third bottom on the list of voters' concerns. Not an issue for an electorate who (shockingly) care about jobs services and prosperity, not gender ID issues.

For the handful of mouthfoamers who are obsessed by fear it is THE issue. For almost everyone else it is a non-issue politically.

Except voters saw it as the SNP ‘s second top priority second only to independence. Who were the mouth foamers?

You have made the point for me. The polls showed that voters thought it was the SNP's 2nd top priority. For *the voters* it was their 3rd bottom priority.

Voters do not care about this issue. As demonstrated by the polls The SNP went way off piste and if they elect Forbes today the issue gets quickly dropped. Or if they elect Yousaf it gets slowly dropped.

Either way, voters do not care. It is a non-issue for them.

It’s only a non issue if politicians don’t make it one - as the SNP did. Ironically voters while in general support making change of gender easier, they oppose most of the changes that would make it so.

Do you understand how politics works? A party could go out and Make A Stand on an issue. Save the Pound! said William Hague, you MUST be worried about this because I say you are so you must Vote Conservative to Save the Pound!

Nobody cared. Non-issue, didn't move the polls at all. Politicians can make anything they like into an issue, but if it doesn't motivate people to vote, politically its a non-issue. Voters say what they are concerned about and politicians act accordingly, not the other way round.

No matter how many times a politician might ask "Are you thinking what we're thinking" when the answer is "no" they are sunk. Almost nobody in Scotland is thinking as the SNP were on this issue. They just don't care about it, and wish the government would focus on actual issues.

I expect as the only party that (mostly) opposed the GRR bill that the SCons will be experiencing a real surge in the polls.

Why? Voters don't care about that issue. They care about jobs and education and prosperity - so won't be voting Tory because not stupid.

And besides which, the Tories were so split that DRoss had to grant a free vote.

The GRR Bill is in reality the reason Sturgeon had to resign as FM and may be replaced in that role by the much more socially conservative Kate Forbes this afternoon

Why don’t you believe what Sturgeon said? Seemed perfectly reasonable to me. One does reach a point in life, where one has just had enough of a particular activity.

HYUFD said:

Barnesian said:

HYUFD said:

Barnesian said:

HYUFD said:

Barnesian said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Barnesian said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Driver said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Driver said:

.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Driver said:

Nigelb said:

Driver said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TOPPING said:

Given all the drug taking around and about I'd have thought that laughing gas is just a deckchair move by the govt.

In Israel I've not been following save to see that there are demonstrations in London about it. What has Netanyahu done? Is he saying that the courts can't strike down government legislation? In which case is this something we have touched on previously whereby a democratically-elected government is trying to abolish elections?

As for the demonstrations in London about it it's interesting that these are presumably British Jews vociferously protesting about Israel and hence it is easy to see the complications of trying to separate out Israel and the Jews.

The laughing gas move is a joke, appropriately. Yet again the government overrules the scientists in a populist authoritarian knee-jerk response. For a government that is supposedly so anti cancel culture, they certainly seem to like banning things and telling people what they can and can't do.

The politicians absolutely should be able to "overrule" scientists. We've just seen what happens when they give into the Cult of the Expert.

No one's arguing they shouldn't be able to.

OLB seems to be.

As, indeed, did most of the country in 2020-1.

Not really. You've simply extrapolated what I have said with respect to one issue, applied it to a different issue, and in addition made out that I've said something I haven't. I didn't say government shouldn't be able to overrule scientific advice, and indeed this isn't my position. I said that in this case they've gone against the advice of their scientists in order to chase tabloid headlines. It's stupid policymaking and will cost the taxpayer more money, further waste police time and gum up the legal system, strengthen criminal gangs and quite possibly kill people.
I've offered no opinion on lockdown policy but I would say that while scientific advice should be absolutely front and centre during a global pandemic ultimately it is for our political leaders to decide how to proceed. So I don't think I hold the views you're trying to ascribe to me.

Essentially you're criticising them for weighing up expert advice against what they think will be popular and pluimping for the latter option.

Of course they've done that - they're politicians!

Good politicians get out in front of public opinion, do what they think will be best for the whole country and try to shape opinion through action and argument. The fact that this government operates as you suggest is why this country is becoming more of a shithole every day.

Well, never let it be said that you're not an optimist.

By your standards, we have no good politicians. Sir Keir has had, for at least the last year, the perfect opportunity to act as you say a good politician does. Instead, cheered on by his party's supporters, he has deliberately done and said as little as possible, focusing on trying to win the next election by default.

That's fair. He is overly cautious. I didn't vote for him as leader. The Tories need to go but I don't hold out great hopes for the next Labour government, or indeed for the long term future of this country. We seem to be permanently in thrall to ill-informed voters and their worst prejudices, with our politicians never missing an opportunity to make a stupid, short-sighted decision.
As you might gather, I don't think I am an optimist.

That's the problem with democracy - ill-informed voters.

There is merit in the Shell, Unilever and other multinationals method. The top management emerge, promoted by their peers. Employees and customers can't vote for them. Though shareholders in theory could remove them, in practice they don't. China has a similar system.
It competes with democracy. There are pros and cons.

I still think democracy is the best system both morally and in terms of outcomes, but it needs to be combined with well informed voters and enlightened political leadership to deliver the best results. Right now this country seems to be caught in a downwards spiral of angry, ill informed voters, pandering and opportunistic politicians and stupid policies. It is very depressing.

Morally - I prefer democracy, but that's the way I've been brought up.
On outcomes It's not clear that democracy wins:
Economic GDP

Life expectancy
China 59 in 1970, 77 now and growing.
USA 71 in 1970, 79 now and flat.

On gdp per head both the US and Japan are well ahead of China, the Chinese birthrate is also lower even than most western Nations and China has fewer immigrants percentage wise too

GDP per head is growing much faster in China than US or Japan.
Birthrate is an odd measure. Is a low birthrate good or bad? Depends on the context.

Well course it is because it starts from a much lower level.

If you want to grow gdp overall significantly relative to other nations rather than just gdp per capita then you need a well above replacement level birthrate.

Democratic India will likely thus have overtaken China in terms of gdp by 2050 as it has a much higher birthrate. Nigeria is also rapidly advancing up the gdp rankings because of its high birthrate

What metrics would you use to measure the relative outcomes of democrat nations versus the Chinese (and multinational company) approach?

Gdp and wealth per head, education levels, personal freedom and liberty

HYUFD said:

Barnesian said:

Barnesian said:

HYUFD said:

Barnesian said:

HYUFD said:

Barnesian said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Barnesian said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Driver said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Driver said:

.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Driver said:

Nigelb said:

Driver said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TOPPING said:

Given all the drug taking around and about I'd have thought that laughing gas is just a deckchair move by the govt.

In Israel I've not been following save to see that there are demonstrations in London about it. What has Netanyahu done? Is he saying that the courts can't strike down government legislation? In which case is this something we have touched on previously whereby a democratically-elected government is trying to abolish elections?

As for the demonstrations in London about it it's interesting that these are presumably British Jews vociferously protesting about Israel and hence it is easy to see the complications of trying to separate out Israel and the Jews.

The laughing gas move is a joke, appropriately. Yet again the government overrules the scientists in a populist authoritarian knee-jerk response. For a government that is supposedly so anti cancel culture, they certainly seem to like banning things and telling people what they can and can't do.

The politicians absolutely should be able to "overrule" scientists. We've just seen what happens when they give into the Cult of the Expert.

No one's arguing they shouldn't be able to.

OLB seems to be.

As, indeed, did most of the country in 2020-1.

Not really. You've simply extrapolated what I have said with respect to one issue, applied it to a different issue, and in addition made out that I've said something I haven't. I didn't say government shouldn't be able to overrule scientific advice, and indeed this isn't my position. I said that in this case they've gone against the advice of their scientists in order to chase tabloid headlines. It's stupid policymaking and will cost the taxpayer more money, further waste police time and gum up the legal system, strengthen criminal gangs and quite possibly kill people.
I've offered no opinion on lockdown policy but I would say that while scientific advice should be absolutely front and centre during a global pandemic ultimately it is for our political leaders to decide how to proceed. So I don't think I hold the views you're trying to ascribe to me.

Essentially you're criticising them for weighing up expert advice against what they think will be popular and pluimping for the latter option.

Of course they've done that - they're politicians!

Good politicians get out in front of public opinion, do what they think will be best for the whole country and try to shape opinion through action and argument. The fact that this government operates as you suggest is why this country is becoming more of a shithole every day.

Well, never let it be said that you're not an optimist.

By your standards, we have no good politicians. Sir Keir has had, for at least the last year, the perfect opportunity to act as you say a good politician does. Instead, cheered on by his party's supporters, he has deliberately done and said as little as possible, focusing on trying to win the next election by default.

That's fair. He is overly cautious. I didn't vote for him as leader. The Tories need to go but I don't hold out great hopes for the next Labour government, or indeed for the long term future of this country. We seem to be permanently in thrall to ill-informed voters and their worst prejudices, with our politicians never missing an opportunity to make a stupid, short-sighted decision.
As you might gather, I don't think I am an optimist.

That's the problem with democracy - ill-informed voters.

There is merit in the Shell, Unilever and other multinationals method. The top management emerge, promoted by their peers. Employees and customers can't vote for them. Though shareholders in theory could remove them, in practice they don't. China has a similar system.
It competes with democracy. There are pros and cons.

I still think democracy is the best system both morally and in terms of outcomes, but it needs to be combined with well informed voters and enlightened political leadership to deliver the best results. Right now this country seems to be caught in a downwards spiral of angry, ill informed voters, pandering and opportunistic politicians and stupid policies. It is very depressing.

Morally - I prefer democracy, but that's the way I've been brought up.
On outcomes It's not clear that democracy wins:
Economic GDP

Life expectancy
China 59 in 1970, 77 now and growing.
USA 71 in 1970, 79 now and flat.

On gdp per head both the US and Japan are well ahead of China, the Chinese birthrate is also lower even than most western Nations and China has fewer immigrants percentage wise too

GDP per head is growing much faster in China than US or Japan.
Birthrate is an odd measure. Is a low birthrate good or bad? Depends on the context.

Well course it is because it starts from a much lower level.

If you want to grow gdp overall significantly relative to other nations rather than just gdp per capita then you need a well above replacement level birthrate.

Democratic India will likely thus have overtaken China in terms of gdp by 2050 as it has a much higher birthrate. Nigeria is also rapidly advancing up the gdp rankings because of its high birthrate

What metrics would you use to measure the relative outcomes of democrat nations versus the Chinese (and multinational company) approach?

To be clear:
I prefer to live in a democracy rather than in China. But that's because I am a liberal and rather anti-authority. I'd get into trouble in China.

But I don't have a religious type faith in democracy and I can see it's flaws.

If I was born and brought up in China, I'd probably prefer the Chinese system to eg the US one.

Democracy ie representative of the Burkean kind where the losers accept the results and most decisions are left to parliamentary representatives works.

Direct democracy with too many referendums and refusal of the losers to accept the results of elections however produces problems and just leads to division

Sandpit said:

viewcode said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

What time is the SNP leadership result announced?

2pm Murrayfield

https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23407877.snp-insiders-suggest-timing-leadership-contest-winner-announcement/

Murrayfield? Are they expecting all the members to turn up in person?

squareroot2 said:

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Theuniondivvie said:

RochdalePioneers said:

CarlottaVance said:

RochdalePioneers said:

CarlottaVance said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Heathener said:

I do have a fear, which is all-too-depressing, that the anti-woke culture wars will stir up a sufficient number of the indignant right to stop a colossal Labour victory. The fact that people endlessly bang on about a pointless sideshow narrative (trans rights), as evidenced on here by carlotta and his stuck needle, is depressing.

However, I suspect that come the General Election proper, the trans issue will burn brightly for a couple of days as the Daily Malicious vents its spleen and then will pass.

Most people will realise that we had all of this nonsense, and exactly the same arguments, with gay rights 40 years ago and that there are FAR more pressing and important matters that we face than whether Steve in the neighbouring town wishes to self-identify as Susan. (I didn't put 'Steve next door' because most people don't have a trans neighbour and never will).

As you were.

Scotland is a good tester for this theory. I kept pointing out that the row over the GRR bill was largely irrelevant as nobody who wasn't shouting cared about it. IRRELEVANT??? they screamed.

And then came the polling. Putting GRR third bottom on the list of voters' concerns. Not an issue for an electorate who (shockingly) care about jobs services and prosperity, not gender ID issues.

For the handful of mouthfoamers who are obsessed by fear it is THE issue. For almost everyone else it is a non-issue politically.

Except voters saw it as the SNP ‘s second top priority second only to independence. Who were the mouth foamers?

You have made the point for me. The polls showed that voters thought it was the SNP's 2nd top priority. For *the voters* it was their 3rd bottom priority.

Voters do not care about this issue. As demonstrated by the polls The SNP went way off piste and if they elect Forbes today the issue gets quickly dropped. Or if they elect Yousaf it gets slowly dropped.

Either way, voters do not care. It is a non-issue for them.

It’s only a non issue if politicians don’t make it one - as the SNP did. Ironically voters while in general support making change of gender easier, they oppose most of the changes that would make it so.

Do you understand how politics works? A party could go out and Make A Stand on an issue. Save the Pound! said William Hague, you MUST be worried about this because I say you are so you must Vote Conservative to Save the Pound!

Nobody cared. Non-issue, didn't move the polls at all. Politicians can make anything they like into an issue, but if it doesn't motivate people to vote, politically its a non-issue. Voters say what they are concerned about and politicians act accordingly, not the other way round.

No matter how many times a politician might ask "Are you thinking what we're thinking" when the answer is "no" they are sunk. Almost nobody in Scotland is thinking as the SNP were on this issue. They just don't care about it, and wish the government would focus on actual issues.

I expect as the only party that (mostly) opposed the GRR bill that the SCons will be experiencing a real surge in the polls.

Why? Voters don't care about that issue. They care about jobs and education and prosperity - so won't be voting Tory because not stupid.

And besides which, the Tories were so split that DRoss had to grant a free vote.

The GRR Bill is in reality the reason Sturgeon had to resign as FM and may be replaced in that role by the much more socially conservative Kate Forbes this afternoon

Why don’t you believe what Sturgeon said? Seemed perfectly reasonable to me. One does reach a point in life, where one has just had enough of a particular activity.

More to the point, people had had enough of her... when she screwed up over her ludicrous stance on Gender recognition.. she knew she was done for. At least she had the decency to go quickly unlike Gordon McDoom

Taz said:

Sandpit said:

.

Taz said:

kle4 said:

Taz said:

Bye Bye Jezza

https://twitter.com/tomorrowsmps/status/1640283146728898560?s=61&t=s0ae0IFncdLS1Dc7J0P_TQ

I genuinely never thought Starmer would hold the line on Corbyn this much. If Corbyn were not so stubborn Starmer would never have had the opportunity.

Corbyn seems to want to martyr himself. He really does only have himself to blame. I bet SKS cannot believe his luck.

Is it worth a fiver on the Tories and Lib Dems to win Islington North, if Corbyn stands as an independent against the official Labour candidate?

I don’t know the area but possibly more likely to be Corbyn himself.

HYUFD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

HYUFD said:

Barnesian said:

HYUFD said:

Barnesian said:

HYUFD said:

Barnesian said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Barnesian said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Driver said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Driver said:

.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Driver said:

Nigelb said:

Driver said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TOPPING said:

Given all the drug taking around and about I'd have thought that laughing gas is just a deckchair move by the govt.

In Israel I've not been following save to see that there are demonstrations in London about it. What has Netanyahu done? Is he saying that the courts can't strike down government legislation? In which case is this something we have touched on previously whereby a democratically-elected government is trying to abolish elections?

As for the demonstrations in London about it it's interesting that these are presumably British Jews vociferously protesting about Israel and hence it is easy to see the complications of trying to separate out Israel and the Jews.

The laughing gas move is a joke, appropriately. Yet again the government overrules the scientists in a populist authoritarian knee-jerk response. For a government that is supposedly so anti cancel culture, they certainly seem to like banning things and telling people what they can and can't do.

The politicians absolutely should be able to "overrule" scientists. We've just seen what happens when they give into the Cult of the Expert.

No one's arguing they shouldn't be able to.

OLB seems to be.

As, indeed, did most of the country in 2020-1.

Not really. You've simply extrapolated what I have said with respect to one issue, applied it to a different issue, and in addition made out that I've said something I haven't. I didn't say government shouldn't be able to overrule scientific advice, and indeed this isn't my position. I said that in this case they've gone against the advice of their scientists in order to chase tabloid headlines. It's stupid policymaking and will cost the taxpayer more money, further waste police time and gum up the legal system, strengthen criminal gangs and quite possibly kill people.
I've offered no opinion on lockdown policy but I would say that while scientific advice should be absolutely front and centre during a global pandemic ultimately it is for our political leaders to decide how to proceed. So I don't think I hold the views you're trying to ascribe to me.

Essentially you're criticising them for weighing up expert advice against what they think will be popular and pluimping for the latter option.

Of course they've done that - they're politicians!

Good politicians get out in front of public opinion, do what they think will be best for the whole country and try to shape opinion through action and argument. The fact that this government operates as you suggest is why this country is becoming more of a shithole every day.

Well, never let it be said that you're not an optimist.

By your standards, we have no good politicians. Sir Keir has had, for at least the last year, the perfect opportunity to act as you say a good politician does. Instead, cheered on by his party's supporters, he has deliberately done and said as little as possible, focusing on trying to win the next election by default.

That's fair. He is overly cautious. I didn't vote for him as leader. The Tories need to go but I don't hold out great hopes for the next Labour government, or indeed for the long term future of this country. We seem to be permanently in thrall to ill-informed voters and their worst prejudices, with our politicians never missing an opportunity to make a stupid, short-sighted decision.
As you might gather, I don't think I am an optimist.

That's the problem with democracy - ill-informed voters.

There is merit in the Shell, Unilever and other multinationals method. The top management emerge, promoted by their peers. Employees and customers can't vote for them. Though shareholders in theory could remove them, in practice they don't. China has a similar system.
It competes with democracy. There are pros and cons.

I still think democracy is the best system both morally and in terms of outcomes, but it needs to be combined with well informed voters and enlightened political leadership to deliver the best results. Right now this country seems to be caught in a downwards spiral of angry, ill informed voters, pandering and opportunistic politicians and stupid policies. It is very depressing.

Morally - I prefer democracy, but that's the way I've been brought up.
On outcomes It's not clear that democracy wins:
Economic GDP

Life expectancy
China 59 in 1970, 77 now and growing.
USA 71 in 1970, 79 now and flat.

On gdp per head both the US and Japan are well ahead of China, the Chinese birthrate is also lower even than most western Nations and China has fewer immigrants percentage wise too

GDP per head is growing much faster in China than US or Japan.
Birthrate is an odd measure. Is a low birthrate good or bad? Depends on the context.

Well course it is because it starts from a much lower level.

If you want to grow gdp overall significantly relative to other nations rather than just gdp per capita then you need a well above replacement level birthrate.

Democratic India will likely thus have overtaken China in terms of gdp by 2050 as it has a much higher birthrate. Nigeria is also rapidly advancing up the gdp rankings because of its high birthrate

What metrics would you use to measure the relative outcomes of democrat nations versus the Chinese (and multinational company) approach?

Gdp and wealth per head, education levels, personal freedom and liberty

A mere passing blip, I'm sure.

If we had Chinese levels of repression you would already be in prison for challenging the authority of the UK government on a public forum

HYUFD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

HYUFD said:

Barnesian said:

HYUFD said:

Barnesian said:

HYUFD said:

Barnesian said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Barnesian said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Driver said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Driver said:

.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Driver said:

Nigelb said:

Driver said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TOPPING said:

Given all the drug taking around and about I'd have thought that laughing gas is just a deckchair move by the govt.

In Israel I've not been following save to see that there are demonstrations in London about it. What has Netanyahu done? Is he saying that the courts can't strike down government legislation? In which case is this something we have touched on previously whereby a democratically-elected government is trying to abolish elections?

As for the demonstrations in London about it it's interesting that these are presumably British Jews vociferously protesting about Israel and hence it is easy to see the complications of trying to separate out Israel and the Jews.

The laughing gas move is a joke, appropriately. Yet again the government overrules the scientists in a populist authoritarian knee-jerk response. For a government that is supposedly so anti cancel culture, they certainly seem to like banning things and telling people what they can and can't do.

The politicians absolutely should be able to "overrule" scientists. We've just seen what happens when they give into the Cult of the Expert.

No one's arguing they shouldn't be able to.

OLB seems to be.

As, indeed, did most of the country in 2020-1.

Not really. You've simply extrapolated what I have said with respect to one issue, applied it to a different issue, and in addition made out that I've said something I haven't. I didn't say government shouldn't be able to overrule scientific advice, and indeed this isn't my position. I said that in this case they've gone against the advice of their scientists in order to chase tabloid headlines. It's stupid policymaking and will cost the taxpayer more money, further waste police time and gum up the legal system, strengthen criminal gangs and quite possibly kill people.
I've offered no opinion on lockdown policy but I would say that while scientific advice should be absolutely front and centre during a global pandemic ultimately it is for our political leaders to decide how to proceed. So I don't think I hold the views you're trying to ascribe to me.

Essentially you're criticising them for weighing up expert advice against what they think will be popular and pluimping for the latter option.

Of course they've done that - they're politicians!

Good politicians get out in front of public opinion, do what they think will be best for the whole country and try to shape opinion through action and argument. The fact that this government operates as you suggest is why this country is becoming more of a shithole every day.

Well, never let it be said that you're not an optimist.

By your standards, we have no good politicians. Sir Keir has had, for at least the last year, the perfect opportunity to act as you say a good politician does. Instead, cheered on by his party's supporters, he has deliberately done and said as little as possible, focusing on trying to win the next election by default.

That's fair. He is overly cautious. I didn't vote for him as leader. The Tories need to go but I don't hold out great hopes for the next Labour government, or indeed for the long term future of this country. We seem to be permanently in thrall to ill-informed voters and their worst prejudices, with our politicians never missing an opportunity to make a stupid, short-sighted decision.
As you might gather, I don't think I am an optimist.

That's the problem with democracy - ill-informed voters.

There is merit in the Shell, Unilever and other multinationals method. The top management emerge, promoted by their peers. Employees and customers can't vote for them. Though shareholders in theory could remove them, in practice they don't. China has a similar system.
It competes with democracy. There are pros and cons.

I still think democracy is the best system both morally and in terms of outcomes, but it needs to be combined with well informed voters and enlightened political leadership to deliver the best results. Right now this country seems to be caught in a downwards spiral of angry, ill informed voters, pandering and opportunistic politicians and stupid policies. It is very depressing.

Morally - I prefer democracy, but that's the way I've been brought up.
On outcomes It's not clear that democracy wins:
Economic GDP

Life expectancy
China 59 in 1970, 77 now and growing.
USA 71 in 1970, 79 now and flat.

On gdp per head both the US and Japan are well ahead of China, the Chinese birthrate is also lower even than most western Nations and China has fewer immigrants percentage wise too

GDP per head is growing much faster in China than US or Japan.
Birthrate is an odd measure. Is a low birthrate good or bad? Depends on the context.

Well course it is because it starts from a much lower level.

If you want to grow gdp overall significantly relative to other nations rather than just gdp per capita then you need a well above replacement level birthrate.

Democratic India will likely thus have overtaken China in terms of gdp by 2050 as it has a much higher birthrate. Nigeria is also rapidly advancing up the gdp rankings because of its high birthrate

What metrics would you use to measure the relative outcomes of democrat nations versus the Chinese (and multinational company) approach?

Gdp and wealth per head, education levels, personal freedom and liberty

A mere passing blip, I'm sure.

If we had Chinese levels of repression you would already be in prison for challenging the authority of the UK government on a public forum

Barnesian said:

Barnesian said:

HYUFD said:

Barnesian said:

HYUFD said:

Barnesian said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Barnesian said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Driver said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Driver said:

.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Driver said:

Nigelb said:

Driver said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TOPPING said:

Given all the drug taking around and about I'd have thought that laughing gas is just a deckchair move by the govt.

In Israel I've not been following save to see that there are demonstrations in London about it. What has Netanyahu done? Is he saying that the courts can't strike down government legislation? In which case is this something we have touched on previously whereby a democratically-elected government is trying to abolish elections?

As for the demonstrations in London about it it's interesting that these are presumably British Jews vociferously protesting about Israel and hence it is easy to see the complications of trying to separate out Israel and the Jews.

The laughing gas move is a joke, appropriately. Yet again the government overrules the scientists in a populist authoritarian knee-jerk response. For a government that is supposedly so anti cancel culture, they certainly seem to like banning things and telling people what they can and can't do.

The politicians absolutely should be able to "overrule" scientists. We've just seen what happens when they give into the Cult of the Expert.

No one's arguing they shouldn't be able to.

OLB seems to be.

As, indeed, did most of the country in 2020-1.

Not really. You've simply extrapolated what I have said with respect to one issue, applied it to a different issue, and in addition made out that I've said something I haven't. I didn't say government shouldn't be able to overrule scientific advice, and indeed this isn't my position. I said that in this case they've gone against the advice of their scientists in order to chase tabloid headlines. It's stupid policymaking and will cost the taxpayer more money, further waste police time and gum up the legal system, strengthen criminal gangs and quite possibly kill people.
I've offered no opinion on lockdown policy but I would say that while scientific advice should be absolutely front and centre during a global pandemic ultimately it is for our political leaders to decide how to proceed. So I don't think I hold the views you're trying to ascribe to me.

Essentially you're criticising them for weighing up expert advice against what they think will be popular and pluimping for the latter option.

Of course they've done that - they're politicians!

Good politicians get out in front of public opinion, do what they think will be best for the whole country and try to shape opinion through action and argument. The fact that this government operates as you suggest is why this country is becoming more of a shithole every day.

Well, never let it be said that you're not an optimist.

By your standards, we have no good politicians. Sir Keir has had, for at least the last year, the perfect opportunity to act as you say a good politician does. Instead, cheered on by his party's supporters, he has deliberately done and said as little as possible, focusing on trying to win the next election by default.

That's fair. He is overly cautious. I didn't vote for him as leader. The Tories need to go but I don't hold out great hopes for the next Labour government, or indeed for the long term future of this country. We seem to be permanently in thrall to ill-informed voters and their worst prejudices, with our politicians never missing an opportunity to make a stupid, short-sighted decision.
As you might gather, I don't think I am an optimist.

That's the problem with democracy - ill-informed voters.

There is merit in the Shell, Unilever and other multinationals method. The top management emerge, promoted by their peers. Employees and customers can't vote for them. Though shareholders in theory could remove them, in practice they don't. China has a similar system.
It competes with democracy. There are pros and cons.

I still think democracy is the best system both morally and in terms of outcomes, but it needs to be combined with well informed voters and enlightened political leadership to deliver the best results. Right now this country seems to be caught in a downwards spiral of angry, ill informed voters, pandering and opportunistic politicians and stupid policies. It is very depressing.

Morally - I prefer democracy, but that's the way I've been brought up.
On outcomes It's not clear that democracy wins:
Economic GDP

Life expectancy
China 59 in 1970, 77 now and growing.
USA 71 in 1970, 79 now and flat.

On gdp per head both the US and Japan are well ahead of China, the Chinese birthrate is also lower even than most western Nations and China has fewer immigrants percentage wise too

GDP per head is growing much faster in China than US or Japan.
Birthrate is an odd measure. Is a low birthrate good or bad? Depends on the context.

Well course it is because it starts from a much lower level.

If you want to grow gdp overall significantly relative to other nations rather than just gdp per capita then you need a well above replacement level birthrate.

Democratic India will likely thus have overtaken China in terms of gdp by 2050 as it has a much higher birthrate. Nigeria is also rapidly advancing up the gdp rankings because of its high birthrate

What metrics would you use to measure the relative outcomes of democrat nations versus the Chinese (and multinational company) approach?

To be clear:
I prefer to live in a democracy rather than in China. But that's because I am a liberal and rather anti-authority. I'd get into trouble in China.

But I don't have a religious type faith in democracy and I can see it's flaws.

If I was born and brought up in China, I'd probably prefer the Chinese system to eg the US one.

Barnesian said:

HYUFD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

HYUFD said:

Barnesian said:

HYUFD said:

Barnesian said:

HYUFD said:

Barnesian said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Barnesian said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Driver said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Driver said:

.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Driver said:

Nigelb said:

Driver said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TOPPING said:

Given all the drug taking around and about I'd have thought that laughing gas is just a deckchair move by the govt.

In Israel I've not been following save to see that there are demonstrations in London about it. What has Netanyahu done? Is he saying that the courts can't strike down government legislation? In which case is this something we have touched on previously whereby a democratically-elected government is trying to abolish elections?

As for the demonstrations in London about it it's interesting that these are presumably British Jews vociferously protesting about Israel and hence it is easy to see the complications of trying to separate out Israel and the Jews.

The laughing gas move is a joke, appropriately. Yet again the government overrules the scientists in a populist authoritarian knee-jerk response. For a government that is supposedly so anti cancel culture, they certainly seem to like banning things and telling people what they can and can't do.

The politicians absolutely should be able to "overrule" scientists. We've just seen what happens when they give into the Cult of the Expert.

No one's arguing they shouldn't be able to.

OLB seems to be.

As, indeed, did most of the country in 2020-1.

Not really. You've simply extrapolated what I have said with respect to one issue, applied it to a different issue, and in addition made out that I've said something I haven't. I didn't say government shouldn't be able to overrule scientific advice, and indeed this isn't my position. I said that in this case they've gone against the advice of their scientists in order to chase tabloid headlines. It's stupid policymaking and will cost the taxpayer more money, further waste police time and gum up the legal system, strengthen criminal gangs and quite possibly kill people.
I've offered no opinion on lockdown policy but I would say that while scientific advice should be absolutely front and centre during a global pandemic ultimately it is for our political leaders to decide how to proceed. So I don't think I hold the views you're trying to ascribe to me.

Essentially you're criticising them for weighing up expert advice against what they think will be popular and pluimping for the latter option.

Of course they've done that - they're politicians!

Good politicians get out in front of public opinion, do what they think will be best for the whole country and try to shape opinion through action and argument. The fact that this government operates as you suggest is why this country is becoming more of a shithole every day.

Well, never let it be said that you're not an optimist.

By your standards, we have no good politicians. Sir Keir has had, for at least the last year, the perfect opportunity to act as you say a good politician does. Instead, cheered on by his party's supporters, he has deliberately done and said as little as possible, focusing on trying to win the next election by default.

That's fair. He is overly cautious. I didn't vote for him as leader. The Tories need to go but I don't hold out great hopes for the next Labour government, or indeed for the long term future of this country. We seem to be permanently in thrall to ill-informed voters and their worst prejudices, with our politicians never missing an opportunity to make a stupid, short-sighted decision.
As you might gather, I don't think I am an optimist.

That's the problem with democracy - ill-informed voters.

There is merit in the Shell, Unilever and other multinationals method. The top management emerge, promoted by their peers. Employees and customers can't vote for them. Though shareholders in theory could remove them, in practice they don't. China has a similar system.
It competes with democracy. There are pros and cons.

I still think democracy is the best system both morally and in terms of outcomes, but it needs to be combined with well informed voters and enlightened political leadership to deliver the best results. Right now this country seems to be caught in a downwards spiral of angry, ill informed voters, pandering and opportunistic politicians and stupid policies. It is very depressing.

Morally - I prefer democracy, but that's the way I've been brought up.
On outcomes It's not clear that democracy wins:
Economic GDP

Life expectancy
China 59 in 1970, 77 now and growing.
USA 71 in 1970, 79 now and flat.

On gdp per head both the US and Japan are well ahead of China, the Chinese birthrate is also lower even than most western Nations and China has fewer immigrants percentage wise too

GDP per head is growing much faster in China than US or Japan.
Birthrate is an odd measure. Is a low birthrate good or bad? Depends on the context.

Well course it is because it starts from a much lower level.

If you want to grow gdp overall significantly relative to other nations rather than just gdp per capita then you need a well above replacement level birthrate.

Democratic India will likely thus have overtaken China in terms of gdp by 2050 as it has a much higher birthrate. Nigeria is also rapidly advancing up the gdp rankings because of its high birthrate

What metrics would you use to measure the relative outcomes of democrat nations versus the Chinese (and multinational company) approach?

Gdp and wealth per head, education levels, personal freedom and liberty

A mere passing blip, I'm sure.

If we had Chinese levels of repression you would already be in prison for challenging the authority of the UK government on a public forum

Numbers in jail
USA 505/100, 000
China 164/100,000

RochdalePioneers said:

Heathener said:

I do have a fear, which is all-too-depressing, that the anti-woke culture wars will stir up a sufficient number of the indignant right to stop a colossal Labour victory. The fact that people endlessly bang on about a pointless sideshow narrative (trans rights), as evidenced on here by carlotta and his stuck needle, is depressing.

However, I suspect that come the General Election proper, the trans issue will burn brightly for a couple of days as the Daily Malicious vents its spleen and then will pass.

Most people will realise that we had all of this nonsense, and exactly the same arguments, with gay rights 40 years ago and that there are FAR more pressing and important matters that we face than whether Steve in the neighbouring town wishes to self-identify as Susan. (I didn't put 'Steve next door' because most people don't have a trans neighbour and never will).

As you were.

Scotland is a good tester for this theory. I kept pointing out that the row over the GRR bill was largely irrelevant as nobody who wasn't shouting cared about it. IRRELEVANT??? they screamed.

And then came the polling. Putting GRR third bottom on the list of voters' concerns. Not an issue for an electorate who (shockingly) care about jobs services and prosperity, not gender ID issues.

For the handful of mouthfoamers who are obsessed by fear it is THE issue. For almost everyone else it is a non-issue politically.

DavidL said:

Oh the tension on who our new Supreme Leader is going to be is almost unbearable.

Perhaps I should follow the guidance of Boris and prepare peons of gratitude for both of them. Not going to bother with Regan though.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Andy_JS said:

Radio 4 talking about the fact that sales of petrol and diesel cars are supposed to end in 7 years. Does anyone believe this will happen at that time?

Yes.

HYUFD said:

Barnesian said:

HYUFD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

HYUFD said:

Barnesian said:

HYUFD said:

Barnesian said:

HYUFD said:

Barnesian said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Barnesian said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Driver said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Driver said:

.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Driver said:

Nigelb said:

Driver said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TOPPING said:

Given all the drug taking around and about I'd have thought that laughing gas is just a deckchair move by the govt.

In Israel I've not been following save to see that there are demonstrations in London about it. What has Netanyahu done? Is he saying that the courts can't strike down government legislation? In which case is this something we have touched on previously whereby a democratically-elected government is trying to abolish elections?

As for the demonstrations in London about it it's interesting that these are presumably British Jews vociferously protesting about Israel and hence it is easy to see the complications of trying to separate out Israel and the Jews.

The laughing gas move is a joke, appropriately. Yet again the government overrules the scientists in a populist authoritarian knee-jerk response. For a government that is supposedly so anti cancel culture, they certainly seem to like banning things and telling people what they can and can't do.

The politicians absolutely should be able to "overrule" scientists. We've just seen what happens when they give into the Cult of the Expert.

No one's arguing they shouldn't be able to.

OLB seems to be.

As, indeed, did most of the country in 2020-1.

Not really. You've simply extrapolated what I have said with respect to one issue, applied it to a different issue, and in addition made out that I've said something I haven't. I didn't say government shouldn't be able to overrule scientific advice, and indeed this isn't my position. I said that in this case they've gone against the advice of their scientists in order to chase tabloid headlines. It's stupid policymaking and will cost the taxpayer more money, further waste police time and gum up the legal system, strengthen criminal gangs and quite possibly kill people.
I've offered no opinion on lockdown policy but I would say that while scientific advice should be absolutely front and centre during a global pandemic ultimately it is for our political leaders to decide how to proceed. So I don't think I hold the views you're trying to ascribe to me.

Essentially you're criticising them for weighing up expert advice against what they think will be popular and pluimping for the latter option.

Of course they've done that - they're politicians!

Good politicians get out in front of public opinion, do what they think will be best for the whole country and try to shape opinion through action and argument. The fact that this government operates as you suggest is why this country is becoming more of a shithole every day.

Well, never let it be said that you're not an optimist.

By your standards, we have no good politicians. Sir Keir has had, for at least the last year, the perfect opportunity to act as you say a good politician does. Instead, cheered on by his party's supporters, he has deliberately done and said as little as possible, focusing on trying to win the next election by default.

That's fair. He is overly cautious. I didn't vote for him as leader. The Tories need to go but I don't hold out great hopes for the next Labour government, or indeed for the long term future of this country. We seem to be permanently in thrall to ill-informed voters and their worst prejudices, with our politicians never missing an opportunity to make a stupid, short-sighted decision.
As you might gather, I don't think I am an optimist.

That's the problem with democracy - ill-informed voters.

There is merit in the Shell, Unilever and other multinationals method. The top management emerge, promoted by their peers. Employees and customers can't vote for them. Though shareholders in theory could remove them, in practice they don't. China has a similar system.
It competes with democracy. There are pros and cons.

I still think democracy is the best system both morally and in terms of outcomes, but it needs to be combined with well informed voters and enlightened political leadership to deliver the best results. Right now this country seems to be caught in a downwards spiral of angry, ill informed voters, pandering and opportunistic politicians and stupid policies. It is very depressing.

Morally - I prefer democracy, but that's the way I've been brought up.
On outcomes It's not clear that democracy wins:
Economic GDP

Life expectancy
China 59 in 1970, 77 now and growing.
USA 71 in 1970, 79 now and flat.

On gdp per head both the US and Japan are well ahead of China, the Chinese birthrate is also lower even than most western Nations and China has fewer immigrants percentage wise too

GDP per head is growing much faster in China than US or Japan.
Birthrate is an odd measure. Is a low birthrate good or bad? Depends on the context.

Well course it is because it starts from a much lower level.

If you want to grow gdp overall significantly relative to other nations rather than just gdp per capita then you need a well above replacement level birthrate.

Democratic India will likely thus have overtaken China in terms of gdp by 2050 as it has a much higher birthrate. Nigeria is also rapidly advancing up the gdp rankings because of its high birthrate

What metrics would you use to measure the relative outcomes of democrat nations versus the Chinese (and multinational company) approach?

Gdp and wealth per head, education levels, personal freedom and liberty

A mere passing blip, I'm sure.

If we had Chinese levels of repression you would already be in prison for challenging the authority of the UK government on a public forum

Numbers in jail
USA 505/100, 000
China 164/100,000

The fact the US has a better rate of convicting and imprisoning criminals than China doesn't mean it has less political freedom.

You can tweet or write or say what you want about the US government under the First amendment to the US constitution as long as it isn't classified information. In China however you can't criticise Xi or the Chinese government in public without risk of arrest