politicalbetting
Home› General

Howdy, Stranger!

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

Sign In Register

Categories

LAB no longer odds on to win a majority – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,125
edited April 2023 in General
imageLAB no longer odds on to win a majority – politicalbetting.com

Read the full story here

«1

Comments

  • FishingFishing Posts: 4,945
    edited April 2023
    Neither party deserves to win next time as neither has a convincing answer to any of the major problems that face the country.

    In fact, tbh, they barely pretend to. Starmer's offer is that he isn't the Conservatives (something that could have been said of his former boss and "friend" Jeremy Corbyn), and Sunak's is that he is doing a better job than his predecessor. Both true, but they'll hardly get the economy going again or sort out the public services.

    If either come up with any good ideas, we can reassess.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,226
    Fishing said:

    Neither party deserves to win next time as neither has a convincing answer to any of the major problems that face the country.

    In fact, tbh, they barely pretend to. Starmer's offer is that he isn't the Conservatives, and Sunak's is that he is doing a better job than his predecessor. Both true, but they'll hardly get the economy going again or sort out the public services.

    If either come up with any good ideas, we can reassess.

    I remain convinced it will end up more 2010 in reverse than 1997
  • londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 3,629
    LAB = Arsenal?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,972
    I've taken some of the 5/1 on Labour minority with Skybet.

    DYOR
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,293
    Arsenal are a bit Laboury Spursy?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,293
    Picard, that is all.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,339
    Labour should never have been fav for a majority.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 49,575
    On topic - a small closing of the gap was inevitable. Boris and the Truss had pushed away even core voters. Sunak has returned some semblance of government.
  • maxhmaxh Posts: 1,194
    maxh said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    maxh said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Luckyguy1983 said:

    kle4 said:

    Luckyguy1983 said:

    kle4 said:

    Luckyguy1983 said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    darkage said:

    Sandpit said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Farmer gets 12 months in jail for dredging a river.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/environment/2023/04/20/farmer-jailed-dredging-stretch-river-stop-homes-flooding

    That punishment does seem wholly disproportionate, given that child rapists can now manage to avoid prison, and the same newspaper carries the story of the man found guilty of manslaughter who got less time.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/04/20/less-than-a-year-for-electrician-who-killed-banker/
    Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
    Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
    No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places

    He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
    It probably needed dredging.
    Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.

    Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?

    When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
    I am sure the people who avoided being knee deep in river water are quite satisfied with the job he did.
    So you believe people can break the law if it is popular then? That'd be quite the step from believing the sentence is simply excessive.
    I believe that when someone has taken the job of a Government agency (more often it is the police) into their own hands, it is an opportunity to ask why, as well as mete out a proportionate punishment.
    I don't get this. Some ultra-libertarian that people can do whatever the hell they like with their land?

    In principle, I have sympathy with that, but that right does sometimes need to be qualified and restricted* where it impinges on the common good.

    How is this different from the Left?

    We do it the other way round. We start from a presumption in favour of private property rights, and then work back from that if we need to do so.

    (*Incidentally, I think rivers/oceans are underprotected and badgers/foxes overprotected, FWIW)
    What’s the logic of starting from a presumption of property rights? Is it a moral case (those property rights are naturally derived, it tend to be in the hands of those most deserving, for instance) or a pragmatic case (preserving property rights is important for prosperity, say). I’m genuinely interested.
    I would suggest the latter. For both prosperity and the stability of the country property rights are one of the most important cornerstones.

    I would not go as far as the Propertarian wing of Libertarianism which goes beyond the basic rights not to have your property taken off you but goes on to advocate that you have the right to do whatever the hell you want - up to and including murder on your own property. That is simply lunacy but it is a strain of thought that exists and has its strong advocates. But I would agree that it is extremely difficult to have a stable society without some basic property rights.

    In the case of the farmer, we have started from the basis of property rights and then moderated them for the good of others. Those saying he was preventing flooding actually have it 180 degrees the wrong way round. By dredging and cutting down trees he was preventing flooding on uninhabited flood plain and increasing the risk of flooding downstream where people actually have homes because he was increasing the flow across his land.

    If he believed so strongly that the law was wrong he should have advocated and campaigned to get it changed or modified, not simply broken it. I happen to think many of the tax laws in this country are wrong. I will happily campaign and advocate for changes. But as long as they are the laws I am going to abide by them rather than thinking they uniquely should not apply to me.

    Thanks (and sorry for a slow response - kids bedtime). That makes a lot of sense.

    If it’s the pragmatic case (which I agree wholeheartedly with), it then seems highly desirable to moderate property rights because of their tendency to exacerbate inequality.

    Specifically, if the case for property rights are that they are essential to prosperity, it is consistent with that to have a strong presumption that those who benefit from the wealth generated by those rights should
    share that wealth. If they aren’t morally deserving of the extra wealth, but nevertheless keep a large proportion of it, as is currently the case, then forced redistribution through high taxes seems the best answer.
    FPT - always doing that!
  • maxhmaxh Posts: 1,194
    maxh said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    maxh said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Luckyguy1983 said:

    kle4 said:

    Luckyguy1983 said:

    kle4 said:

    Luckyguy1983 said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    darkage said:

    Sandpit said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Farmer gets 12 months in jail for dredging a river.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/environment/2023/04/20/farmer-jailed-dredging-stretch-river-stop-homes-flooding

    That punishment does seem wholly disproportionate, given that child rapists can now manage to avoid prison, and the same newspaper carries the story of the man found guilty of manslaughter who got less time.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/04/20/less-than-a-year-for-electrician-who-killed-banker/
    Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
    Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
    No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places

    He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
    It probably needed dredging.
    Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.

    Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?

    When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
    I am sure the people who avoided being knee deep in river water are quite satisfied with the job he did.
    So you believe people can break the law if it is popular then? That'd be quite the step from believing the sentence is simply excessive.
    I believe that when someone has taken the job of a Government agency (more often it is the police) into their own hands, it is an opportunity to ask why, as well as mete out a proportionate punishment.
    I don't get this. Some ultra-libertarian that people can do whatever the hell they like with their land?

    In principle, I have sympathy with that, but that right does sometimes need to be qualified and restricted* where it impinges on the common good.

    How is this different from the Left?

    We do it the other way round. We start from a presumption in favour of private property rights, and then work back from that if we need to do so.

    (*Incidentally, I think rivers/oceans are underprotected and badgers/foxes overprotected, FWIW)
    What’s the logic of starting from a presumption of property rights? Is it a moral case (those property rights are naturally derived, it tend to be in the hands of those most deserving, for instance) or a pragmatic case (preserving property rights is important for prosperity, say). I’m genuinely interested.
    If you've invested to own property, and you've taken on the risks and liabilities of doing so, then my starting position would be that it's yours to do with as you please.

    I think free societies depend on this, as does wider economic prosperity.
    Does it depend on where you get the money from to invest? I agree with you in the case of eg an entrepreneur who has got rich from inventing a widget that others benefit from. I disagree in the case of, say, inherited wealth.

    And how would you compare the risks of property investment with, say, the risks of a zero hours contract?

    Again, genuine questions, not loaded.
    Sorry to repost - but interested in your answers CR if you read it.
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 3,701
    FPT (as I just finished dinner and am late to the party)
    Malmesbury said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Incidentally I thought it was rather ironic that on a day when a minister was fired for allegations of what appears to be fairly low-level bullying being upheld, OFSTED, against who, there have been literally countless allegations of bullying, fraud, and even safeguarding breaches against children, announced it would not change any of its behaviours despite their bullying literally killing people.

    Does anyone else sense a double standard?

    I was struck by that this morning, listening to the latest news report regarding OFSTED. They appear to assume they are immune from any responsibility for the results of their actions.
    They are the Guardians

    Read the Republic to realise how stupid the idea is. To the point that some philosophers resort to the "Plato was being sarcastic" excuse.
    This reminds me to rewatch the wonderful & curious 70s TV show 'The Guardians' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardians_(British_TV_series)

    "The Guardians is a dystopian political thriller set in the 1980s. Following economic chaos, democratic government has been overthrown in a bloodless coup, the Royal Family fled into self-imposed exile and the United Kingdom is ruled autocratically by Prime Minister Sir Timothy Hobson. Hobson is initially a pawn of 'the General'; a military officer by the name of Roger, who later becomes the Minister of Defence. Hobson subscribes to an outwardly benevolent paternalistic fascism, based on the principle that "democracy is a form of group suicide.""

    Some episodes are tosh, but some are really very good and the overall series is a good window into 1970s 'dystopian thought'.

    '1990' is another 70s variation on the theme from an almost opposite viewpoint (left-wing authoritarian government & starring Edward Woodward).
  • spudgfshspudgfsh Posts: 1,490
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Picard, that is all.

    make it so
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,573
    MarqueeMark said:

    Labour should never have been fav for a majority.

    Yeah... not really.
  • maxhmaxh Posts: 1,194
    On topic: I suspect the consensus will swing wildly in the next 18 months or so - local elections will probably throw the cards up on the air again.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,339
    Tres said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    Labour should never have been fav for a majority.

    Well Liz Truss should never have been Prime Minister.
    An abberation quickly corrected.

    As with Labour majority.

    Labour short of a majority does lead to the next question: is the country going to vote for the crazy ride of a rainbow coalition?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,340
    ohnotnow said:

    FPT (as I just finished dinner and am late to the party)

    Malmesbury said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Incidentally I thought it was rather ironic that on a day when a minister was fired for allegations of what appears to be fairly low-level bullying being upheld, OFSTED, against who, there have been literally countless allegations of bullying, fraud, and even safeguarding breaches against children, announced it would not change any of its behaviours despite their bullying literally killing people.

    Does anyone else sense a double standard?

    I was struck by that this morning, listening to the latest news report regarding OFSTED. They appear to assume they are immune from any responsibility for the results of their actions.
    They are the Guardians

    Read the Republic to realise how stupid the idea is. To the point that some philosophers resort to the "Plato was being sarcastic" excuse.
    This reminds me to rewatch the wonderful & curious 70s TV show 'The Guardians' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardians_(British_TV_series)

    "The Guardians is a dystopian political thriller set in the 1980s. Following economic chaos, democratic government has been overthrown in a bloodless coup, the Royal Family fled into self-imposed exile and the United Kingdom is ruled autocratically by Prime Minister Sir Timothy Hobson. Hobson is initially a pawn of 'the General'; a military officer by the name of Roger, who later becomes the Minister of Defence. Hobson subscribes to an outwardly benevolent paternalistic fascism, based on the principle that "democracy is a form of group suicide.""

    Some episodes are tosh, but some are really very good and the overall series is a good window into 1970s 'dystopian thought'.

    '1990' is another 70s variation on the theme from an almost opposite viewpoint (left-wing authoritarian government & starring Edward Woodward).
    Interesting snippet. The series was judged unsuitable for broadcast in Northern Ireland.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,573
    ohnotnow said:

    FPT (as I just finished dinner and am late to the party)

    Malmesbury said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Incidentally I thought it was rather ironic that on a day when a minister was fired for allegations of what appears to be fairly low-level bullying being upheld, OFSTED, against who, there have been literally countless allegations of bullying, fraud, and even safeguarding breaches against children, announced it would not change any of its behaviours despite their bullying literally killing people.

    Does anyone else sense a double standard?

    I was struck by that this morning, listening to the latest news report regarding OFSTED. They appear to assume they are immune from any responsibility for the results of their actions.
    They are the Guardians

    Read the Republic to realise how stupid the idea is. To the point that some philosophers resort to the "Plato was being sarcastic" excuse.
    This reminds me to rewatch the wonderful & curious 70s TV show 'The Guardians' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardians_(British_TV_series)

    "The Guardians is a dystopian political thriller set in the 1980s. Following economic chaos, democratic government has been overthrown in a bloodless coup, the Royal Family fled into self-imposed exile and the United Kingdom is ruled autocratically by Prime Minister Sir Timothy Hobson. Hobson is initially a pawn of 'the General'; a military officer by the name of Roger, who later becomes the Minister of Defence. Hobson subscribes to an outwardly benevolent paternalistic fascism, based on the principle that "democracy is a form of group suicide.""

    Some episodes are tosh, but some are really very good and the overall series is a good window into 1970s 'dystopian thought'.

    '1990' is another 70s variation on the theme from an almost opposite viewpoint (left-wing authoritarian government & starring Edward Woodward).
    I think we read the book at school! This is the one where the UK is split into the "City" and the "County" by a massive wall, right?
  • SirNorfolkPassmoreSirNorfolkPassmore Posts: 7,123
    MarqueeMark said:

    Tres said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    Labour should never have been fav for a majority.

    Well Liz Truss should never have been Prime Minister.
    An abberation quickly corrected.
    It wasn't "quickly corrected" in the sense that we are still paying a very large premium for the loss of confidence in UK economic policy, and will for some time.

    It was a crazy move foisted on the country by a party jam packed with crazies... who are also still there.

  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,270
    FPT
    maxh said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    maxh said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Luckyguy1983 said:

    kle4 said:

    Luckyguy1983 said:

    kle4 said:

    Luckyguy1983 said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    darkage said:

    Sandpit said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Farmer gets 12 months in jail for dredging a river.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/environment/2023/04/20/farmer-jailed-dredging-stretch-river-stop-homes-flooding

    That punishment does seem wholly disproportionate, given that child rapists can now manage to avoid prison, and the same newspaper carries the story of the man found guilty of manslaughter who got less time.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/04/20/less-than-a-year-for-electrician-who-killed-banker/
    Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
    Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
    No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places

    He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
    It probably needed dredging.
    Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.

    Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?

    When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
    I am sure the people who avoided being knee deep in river water are quite satisfied with the job he did.
    So you believe people can break the law if it is popular then? That'd be quite the step from believing the sentence is simply excessive.
    I believe that when someone has taken the job of a Government agency (more often it is the police) into their own hands, it is an opportunity to ask why, as well as mete out a proportionate punishment.
    I don't get this. Some ultra-libertarian that people can do whatever the hell they like with their land?

    In principle, I have sympathy with that, but that right does sometimes need to be qualified and restricted* where it impinges on the common good.

    How is this different from the Left?

    We do it the other way round. We start from a presumption in favour of private property rights, and then work back from that if we need to do so.

    (*Incidentally, I think rivers/oceans are underprotected and badgers/foxes overprotected, FWIW)
    What’s the logic of starting from a presumption of property rights? Is it a moral case (those property rights are naturally derived, it tend to be in the hands of those most deserving, for instance) or a pragmatic case (preserving property rights is important for prosperity, say). I’m genuinely interested.
    I would suggest the latter. For both prosperity and the stability of the country property rights are one of the most important cornerstones.

    I would not go as far as the Propertarian wing of Libertarianism which goes beyond the basic rights not to have your property taken off you but goes on to advocate that you have the right to do whatever the hell you want - up to and including murder on your own property. That is simply lunacy but it is a strain of thought that exists and has its strong advocates. But I would agree that it is extremely difficult to have a stable society without some basic property rights.

    In the case of the farmer, we have started from the basis of property rights and then moderated them for the good of others. Those saying he was preventing flooding actually have it 180 degrees the wrong way round. By dredging and cutting down trees he was preventing flooding on uninhabited flood plain and increasing the risk of flooding downstream where people actually have homes because he was increasing the flow across his land.

    If he believed so strongly that the law was wrong he should have advocated and campaigned to get it changed or modified, not simply broken it. I happen to think many of the tax laws in this country are wrong. I will happily campaign and advocate for changes. But as long as they are the laws I am going to abide by them rather than thinking they uniquely should not apply to me.

    Thanks (and sorry for a slow response - kids bedtime). That makes a lot of sense.

    If it’s the pragmatic case (which I agree wholeheartedly with), it then seems highly desirable to moderate property rights because of their tendency to exacerbate inequality.

    Specifically, if the case for property rights are that they are essential to prosperity, it is consistent with that to have a strong presumption that those who benefit from the wealth generated by those rights should
    share that wealth. If they aren’t morally deserving of the extra wealth, but nevertheless keep a large proportion of it, as is currently the case, then forced redistribution through high taxes seems the best answer.
    I would suggest you are perhaps conflating two separate things. The ownership of property does not automatically mean the accumulation of wealth to be redistributed. That has only really been the case during the house price boom of the last 50 years or so. Indeed at times prior to the explosion in property prices it was the justifiable complaint of larger property owners that they were a drain on resources rather than a benefit.

    So I would entirely separate the need for reasonably strong property rights from the question of wealth and its redistribution. Not least because whatever wealth accrues to property ownership is only theoretical until such times as it is actually sold. Forced redistribution of a theoretical wealth seems fundamentally wrong to me.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,661
    Casino_Royale said:

    I've taken some of the 5/1 on Labour minority with Skybet.

    DYOR

    Starmer =arsenal goalkeeper
  • DialupDialup Posts: 561
    My view is that a majority for either party would be a disaster
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,129
    Fishing said:

    Neither party deserves to win next time as neither has a convincing answer to any of the major problems that face the country.

    In fact, tbh, they barely pretend to. Starmer's offer is that he isn't the Conservatives (something that could have been said of his former boss and "friend" Jeremy Corbyn), and Sunak's is that he is doing a better job than his predecessor. Both true, but they'll hardly get the economy going again or sort out the public services.

    If either come up with any good ideas, we can reassess.

    I wouldn't mind the result being total deadlock, so that the parties are forced to come up with new ideas for working together.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,339
    edited April 2023
    SirNorfolkPassmore said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    Tres said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    Labour should never have been fav for a majority.

    Well Liz Truss should never have been Prime Minister.
    An abberation quickly corrected.
    It wasn't "quickly corrected" in the sense that we are still paying a very large premium for the loss of confidence in UK economic policy, and will for some time.

    It was a crazy move foisted on the country by a party jam packed with crazies... who are also still there.

    But it was corrected.

    And the consequence of the Truss Interregnum is that Labour will have virtually no room to borrow. So if it is to move the dial at all, it will have to tax. Whether that sinks in before the next election rather dictates the outcome of that next election.
  • maxhmaxh Posts: 1,194
    Richard_Tyndall said:

    FPT

    maxh said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    maxh said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Luckyguy1983 said:

    kle4 said:

    Luckyguy1983 said:

    kle4 said:

    Luckyguy1983 said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    darkage said:

    Sandpit said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Farmer gets 12 months in jail for dredging a river.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/environment/2023/04/20/farmer-jailed-dredging-stretch-river-stop-homes-flooding

    That punishment does seem wholly disproportionate, given that child rapists can now manage to avoid prison, and the same newspaper carries the story of the man found guilty of manslaughter who got less time.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/04/20/less-than-a-year-for-electrician-who-killed-banker/
    Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
    Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
    No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places

    He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
    It probably needed dredging.
    Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.

    Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?

    When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
    I am sure the people who avoided being knee deep in river water are quite satisfied with the job he did.
    So you believe people can break the law if it is popular then? That'd be quite the step from believing the sentence is simply excessive.
    I believe that when someone has taken the job of a Government agency (more often it is the police) into their own hands, it is an opportunity to ask why, as well as mete out a proportionate punishment.
    I don't get this. Some ultra-libertarian that people can do whatever the hell they like with their land?

    In principle, I have sympathy with that, but that right does sometimes need to be qualified and restricted* where it impinges on the common good.

    How is this different from the Left?

    We do it the other way round. We start from a presumption in favour of private property rights, and then work back from that if we need to do so.

    (*Incidentally, I think rivers/oceans are underprotected and badgers/foxes overprotected, FWIW)
    What’s the logic of starting from a presumption of property rights? Is it a moral case (those property rights are naturally derived, it tend to be in the hands of those most deserving, for instance) or a pragmatic case (preserving property rights is important for prosperity, say). I’m genuinely interested.
    I would suggest the latter. For both prosperity and the stability of the country property rights are one of the most important cornerstones.

    I would not go as far as the Propertarian wing of Libertarianism which goes beyond the basic rights not to have your property taken off you but goes on to advocate that you have the right to do whatever the hell you want - up to and including murder on your own property. That is simply lunacy but it is a strain of thought that exists and has its strong advocates. But I would agree that it is extremely difficult to have a stable society without some basic property rights.

    In the case of the farmer, we have started from the basis of property rights and then moderated them for the good of others. Those saying he was preventing flooding actually have it 180 degrees the wrong way round. By dredging and cutting down trees he was preventing flooding on uninhabited flood plain and increasing the risk of flooding downstream where people actually have homes because he was increasing the flow across his land.

    If he believed so strongly that the law was wrong he should have advocated and campaigned to get it changed or modified, not simply broken it. I happen to think many of the tax laws in this country are wrong. I will happily campaign and advocate for changes. But as long as they are the laws I am going to abide by them rather than thinking they uniquely should not apply to me.

    Thanks (and sorry for a slow response - kids bedtime). That makes a lot of sense.

    If it’s the pragmatic case (which I agree wholeheartedly with), it then seems highly desirable to moderate property rights because of their tendency to exacerbate inequality.

    Specifically, if the case for property rights are that they are essential to prosperity, it is consistent with that to have a strong presumption that those who benefit from the wealth generated by those rights should
    share that wealth. If they aren’t morally deserving of the extra wealth, but nevertheless keep a large proportion of it, as is currently the case, then forced redistribution through high taxes seems the best answer.
    I would suggest you are perhaps conflating two separate things. The ownership of property does not automatically mean the accumulation of wealth to be redistributed. That has only really been the case during the house price boom of the last 50 years or so. Indeed at times prior to the explosion in property prices it was the justifiable complaint of larger property owners that they were a drain on resources rather than a benefit.

    So I would entirely separate the need for reasonably strong property rights from the question of wealth and its redistribution. Not least because whatever wealth accrues to property ownership is only theoretical until such times as it is actually sold. Forced redistribution of a theoretical wealth seems fundamentally wrong to me.
    Again, I largely agree with your first paragraph and I wholeheartedly agree that there is nothing inherent in property rights that requires redistribution.

    But, the last 50 years being what they are, the contingent case for redistribution at present seems strong. I guess I’d go so far as to say the system of property rights you’re defending has been allowed to be bent so far out of shape that it risks being broken entirely.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,481
    The knives are definitely out for DeSantis.

    ‘I don’t think he cares about people’: DeSantis struggles with former Hill colleagues
    A growing string of anecdotes describes the Florida governor’s lack of a personal touch during his six years in the House.
    https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/21/i-dont-think-he-cares-about-people-desantis-struggles-with-former-hill-colleagues-00093281

    Either Trump is the nominee, or they’re trying to destroy the Florida autocrat before Trump succumbs to his legal travails.

    There’s a (narrow and slightly unlikely) lane for one of the long shots.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,390
    edited April 2023
    Andy_JS said:

    Fishing said:

    Neither party deserves to win next time as neither has a convincing answer to any of the major problems that face the country.

    In fact, tbh, they barely pretend to. Starmer's offer is that he isn't the Conservatives (something that could have been said of his former boss and "friend" Jeremy Corbyn), and Sunak's is that he is doing a better job than his predecessor. Both true, but they'll hardly get the economy going again or sort out the public services.

    If either come up with any good ideas, we can reassess.

    I wouldn't mind the result being total deadlock, so that the parties are forced to come up with new ideas for working together.
    Deadlock worked brilliantly between 2017-2019, right?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,764
    Richard_Tyndall said:

    FPT

    maxh said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    maxh said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Luckyguy1983 said:

    kle4 said:

    Luckyguy1983 said:

    kle4 said:

    Luckyguy1983 said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    darkage said:

    Sandpit said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Farmer gets 12 months in jail for dredging a river.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/environment/2023/04/20/farmer-jailed-dredging-stretch-river-stop-homes-flooding

    That punishment does seem wholly disproportionate, given that child rapists can now manage to avoid prison, and the same newspaper carries the story of the man found guilty of manslaughter who got less time.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/04/20/less-than-a-year-for-electrician-who-killed-banker/
    Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
    Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
    No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places

    He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
    It probably needed dredging.
    Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.

    Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?

    When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
    I am sure the people who avoided being knee deep in river water are quite satisfied with the job he did.
    So you believe people can break the law if it is popular then? That'd be quite the step from believing the sentence is simply excessive.
    I believe that when someone has taken the job of a Government agency (more often it is the police) into their own hands, it is an opportunity to ask why, as well as mete out a proportionate punishment.
    I don't get this. Some ultra-libertarian that people can do whatever the hell they like with their land?

    In principle, I have sympathy with that, but that right does sometimes need to be qualified and restricted* where it impinges on the common good.

    How is this different from the Left?

    We do it the other way round. We start from a presumption in favour of private property rights, and then work back from that if we need to do so.

    (*Incidentally, I think rivers/oceans are underprotected and badgers/foxes overprotected, FWIW)
    What’s the logic of starting from a presumption of property rights? Is it a moral case (those property rights are naturally derived, it tend to be in the hands of those most deserving, for instance) or a pragmatic case (preserving property rights is important for prosperity, say). I’m genuinely interested.
    I would suggest the latter. For both prosperity and the stability of the country property rights are one of the most important cornerstones.

    I would not go as far as the Propertarian wing of Libertarianism which goes beyond the basic rights not to have your property taken off you but goes on to advocate that you have the right to do whatever the hell you want - up to and including murder on your own property. That is simply lunacy but it is a strain of thought that exists and has its strong advocates. But I would agree that it is extremely difficult to have a stable society without some basic property rights.

    In the case of the farmer, we have started from the basis of property rights and then moderated them for the good of others. Those saying he was preventing flooding actually have it 180 degrees the wrong way round. By dredging and cutting down trees he was preventing flooding on uninhabited flood plain and increasing the risk of flooding downstream where people actually have homes because he was increasing the flow across his land.

    If he believed so strongly that the law was wrong he should have advocated and campaigned to get it changed or modified, not simply broken it. I happen to think many of the tax laws in this country are wrong. I will happily campaign and advocate for changes. But as long as they are the laws I am going to abide by them rather than thinking they uniquely should not apply to me.

    Thanks (and sorry for a slow response - kids bedtime). That makes a lot of sense.

    If it’s the pragmatic case (which I agree wholeheartedly with), it then seems highly desirable to moderate property rights because of their tendency to exacerbate inequality.

    Specifically, if the case for property rights are that they are essential to prosperity, it is consistent with that to have a strong presumption that those who benefit from the wealth generated by those rights should
    share that wealth. If they aren’t morally deserving of the extra wealth, but nevertheless keep a large proportion of it, as is currently the case, then forced redistribution through high taxes seems the best answer.
    I would suggest you are perhaps conflating two separate things. The ownership of property does not automatically mean the accumulation of wealth to be redistributed. That has only really been the case during the house price boom of the last 50 years or so. Indeed at times prior to the explosion in property prices it was the justifiable complaint of larger property owners that they were a drain on resources rather than a benefit.

    So I would entirely separate the need for reasonably strong property rights from the question of wealth and its redistribution. Not least because whatever wealth accrues to property ownership is only theoretical until such times as it is actually sold. Forced redistribution of a theoretical wealth seems fundamentally wrong to me.
    But it was undeniably a good thing that the world of Downton Abbey passed away as running large homes with servants became uneconomic and property ownership began to become more common amongst ordinary folk, replacing the large scale private renting that had been common earlier in the 20th C. This process only really went into reverse this century, and that isn’t a good thing.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,481
    Richard_Tyndall said:

    FPT

    maxh said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    maxh said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Luckyguy1983 said:

    kle4 said:

    Luckyguy1983 said:

    kle4 said:

    Luckyguy1983 said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    darkage said:

    Sandpit said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Farmer gets 12 months in jail for dredging a river.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/environment/2023/04/20/farmer-jailed-dredging-stretch-river-stop-homes-flooding

    That punishment does seem wholly disproportionate, given that child rapists can now manage to avoid prison, and the same newspaper carries the story of the man found guilty of manslaughter who got less time.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/04/20/less-than-a-year-for-electrician-who-killed-banker/
    Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
    Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
    No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places

    He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
    It probably needed dredging.
    Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.

    Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?

    When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
    I am sure the people who avoided being knee deep in river water are quite satisfied with the job he did.
    So you believe people can break the law if it is popular then? That'd be quite the step from believing the sentence is simply excessive.
    I believe that when someone has taken the job of a Government agency (more often it is the police) into their own hands, it is an opportunity to ask why, as well as mete out a proportionate punishment.
    I don't get this. Some ultra-libertarian that people can do whatever the hell they like with their land?

    In principle, I have sympathy with that, but that right does sometimes need to be qualified and restricted* where it impinges on the common good.

    How is this different from the Left?

    We do it the other way round. We start from a presumption in favour of private property rights, and then work back from that if we need to do so.

    (*Incidentally, I think rivers/oceans are underprotected and badgers/foxes overprotected, FWIW)
    What’s the logic of starting from a presumption of property rights? Is it a moral case (those property rights are naturally derived, it tend to be in the hands of those most deserving, for instance) or a pragmatic case (preserving property rights is important for prosperity, say). I’m genuinely interested.
    I would suggest the latter. For both prosperity and the stability of the country property rights are one of the most important cornerstones.

    I would not go as far as the Propertarian wing of Libertarianism which goes beyond the basic rights not to have your property taken off you but goes on to advocate that you have the right to do whatever the hell you want - up to and including murder on your own property. That is simply lunacy but it is a strain of thought that exists and has its strong advocates. But I would agree that it is extremely difficult to have a stable society without some basic property rights.

    In the case of the farmer, we have started from the basis of property rights and then moderated them for the good of others. Those saying he was preventing flooding actually have it 180 degrees the wrong way round. By dredging and cutting down trees he was preventing flooding on uninhabited flood plain and increasing the risk of flooding downstream where people actually have homes because he was increasing the flow across his land.

    If he believed so strongly that the law was wrong he should have advocated and campaigned to get it changed or modified, not simply broken it. I happen to think many of the tax laws in this country are wrong. I will happily campaign and advocate for changes. But as long as they are the laws I am going to abide by them rather than thinking they uniquely should not apply to me.

    Thanks (and sorry for a slow response - kids bedtime). That makes a lot of sense.

    If it’s the pragmatic case (which I agree wholeheartedly with), it then seems highly desirable to moderate property rights because of their tendency to exacerbate inequality.

    Specifically, if the case for property rights are that they are essential to prosperity, it is consistent with that to have a strong presumption that those who benefit from the wealth generated by those rights should
    share that wealth. If they aren’t morally deserving of the extra wealth, but nevertheless keep a large proportion of it, as is currently the case, then forced redistribution through high taxes seems the best answer.
    I would suggest you are perhaps conflating two separate things. The ownership of property does not automatically mean the accumulation of wealth to be redistributed. That has only really been the case during the house price boom of the last 50 years or so. Indeed at times prior to the explosion in property prices it was the justifiable complaint of larger property owners that they were a drain on resources rather than a benefit.

    So I would entirely separate the need for reasonably strong property rights from the question of wealth and its redistribution. Not least because whatever wealth accrues to property ownership is only theoretical until such times as it is actually sold. Forced redistribution of a theoretical wealth seems fundamentally wrong to me.
    Property, of course, is a somewhat ambiguous term anyway.
    ‘Property rights’ certainly doesn’t apply only to land and buildings.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,150
    Nigelb said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    FPT

    maxh said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    maxh said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Luckyguy1983 said:

    kle4 said:

    Luckyguy1983 said:

    kle4 said:

    Luckyguy1983 said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    darkage said:

    Sandpit said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Farmer gets 12 months in jail for dredging a river.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/environment/2023/04/20/farmer-jailed-dredging-stretch-river-stop-homes-flooding

    That punishment does seem wholly disproportionate, given that child rapists can now manage to avoid prison, and the same newspaper carries the story of the man found guilty of manslaughter who got less time.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/04/20/less-than-a-year-for-electrician-who-killed-banker/
    Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
    Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
    No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places

    He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
    It probably needed dredging.
    Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.

    Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?

    When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
    I am sure the people who avoided being knee deep in river water are quite satisfied with the job he did.
    So you believe people can break the law if it is popular then? That'd be quite the step from believing the sentence is simply excessive.
    I believe that when someone has taken the job of a Government agency (more often it is the police) into their own hands, it is an opportunity to ask why, as well as mete out a proportionate punishment.
    I don't get this. Some ultra-libertarian that people can do whatever the hell they like with their land?

    In principle, I have sympathy with that, but that right does sometimes need to be qualified and restricted* where it impinges on the common good.

    How is this different from the Left?

    We do it the other way round. We start from a presumption in favour of private property rights, and then work back from that if we need to do so.

    (*Incidentally, I think rivers/oceans are underprotected and badgers/foxes overprotected, FWIW)
    What’s the logic of starting from a presumption of property rights? Is it a moral case (those property rights are naturally derived, it tend to be in the hands of those most deserving, for instance) or a pragmatic case (preserving property rights is important for prosperity, say). I’m genuinely interested.
    I would suggest the latter. For both prosperity and the stability of the country property rights are one of the most important cornerstones.

    I would not go as far as the Propertarian wing of Libertarianism which goes beyond the basic rights not to have your property taken off you but goes on to advocate that you have the right to do whatever the hell you want - up to and including murder on your own property. That is simply lunacy but it is a strain of thought that exists and has its strong advocates. But I would agree that it is extremely difficult to have a stable society without some basic property rights.

    In the case of the farmer, we have started from the basis of property rights and then moderated them for the good of others. Those saying he was preventing flooding actually have it 180 degrees the wrong way round. By dredging and cutting down trees he was preventing flooding on uninhabited flood plain and increasing the risk of flooding downstream where people actually have homes because he was increasing the flow across his land.

    If he believed so strongly that the law was wrong he should have advocated and campaigned to get it changed or modified, not simply broken it. I happen to think many of the tax laws in this country are wrong. I will happily campaign and advocate for changes. But as long as they are the laws I am going to abide by them rather than thinking they uniquely should not apply to me.

    Thanks (and sorry for a slow response - kids bedtime). That makes a lot of sense.

    If it’s the pragmatic case (which I agree wholeheartedly with), it then seems highly desirable to moderate property rights because of their tendency to exacerbate inequality.

    Specifically, if the case for property rights are that they are essential to prosperity, it is consistent with that to have a strong presumption that those who benefit from the wealth generated by those rights should
    share that wealth. If they aren’t morally deserving of the extra wealth, but nevertheless keep a large proportion of it, as is currently the case, then forced redistribution through high taxes seems the best answer.
    I would suggest you are perhaps conflating two separate things. The ownership of property does not automatically mean the accumulation of wealth to be redistributed. That has only really been the case during the house price boom of the last 50 years or so. Indeed at times prior to the explosion in property prices it was the justifiable complaint of larger property owners that they were a drain on resources rather than a benefit.

    So I would entirely separate the need for reasonably strong property rights from the question of wealth and its redistribution. Not least because whatever wealth accrues to property ownership is only theoretical until such times as it is actually sold. Forced redistribution of a theoretical wealth seems fundamentally wrong to me.
    Property, of course, is a somewhat ambiguous term anyway.
    ‘Property rights’ certainly doesn’t apply only to land and buildings.
    Thing about rivers though is that while legally they may be part of the surrounding landholding, as Heraclitus pointed out the water keeps moving on elsewhere.

    So anything you do on *your* land has effects on somebody else's.*

    How does that feed in to property rights?

    *Particularly if you damn a river and cause a section of it to dry up, as this dickhead did.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947
    MarqueeMark said:

    Tres said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    Labour should never have been fav for a majority.

    Well Liz Truss should never have been Prime Minister.
    An abberation quickly corrected.

    As with Labour majority.

    Labour short of a majority does lead to the next question: is the country going to vote for the crazy ride of a rainbow coalition?
    Unless the country are drooling idiots susceptible to the same con over and over again - Yes.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,481
    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    FPT

    maxh said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    maxh said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Luckyguy1983 said:

    kle4 said:

    Luckyguy1983 said:

    kle4 said:

    Luckyguy1983 said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    darkage said:

    Sandpit said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Farmer gets 12 months in jail for dredging a river.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/environment/2023/04/20/farmer-jailed-dredging-stretch-river-stop-homes-flooding

    That punishment does seem wholly disproportionate, given that child rapists can now manage to avoid prison, and the same newspaper carries the story of the man found guilty of manslaughter who got less time.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/04/20/less-than-a-year-for-electrician-who-killed-banker/
    Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
    Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
    No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places

    He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
    It probably needed dredging.
    Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.

    Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?

    When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
    I am sure the people who avoided being knee deep in river water are quite satisfied with the job he did.
    So you believe people can break the law if it is popular then? That'd be quite the step from believing the sentence is simply excessive.
    I believe that when someone has taken the job of a Government agency (more often it is the police) into their own hands, it is an opportunity to ask why, as well as mete out a proportionate punishment.
    I don't get this. Some ultra-libertarian that people can do whatever the hell they like with their land?

    In principle, I have sympathy with that, but that right does sometimes need to be qualified and restricted* where it impinges on the common good.

    How is this different from the Left?

    We do it the other way round. We start from a presumption in favour of private property rights, and then work back from that if we need to do so.

    (*Incidentally, I think rivers/oceans are underprotected and badgers/foxes overprotected, FWIW)
    What’s the logic of starting from a presumption of property rights? Is it a moral case (those property rights are naturally derived, it tend to be in the hands of those most deserving, for instance) or a pragmatic case (preserving property rights is important for prosperity, say). I’m genuinely interested.
    I would suggest the latter. For both prosperity and the stability of the country property rights are one of the most important cornerstones.

    I would not go as far as the Propertarian wing of Libertarianism which goes beyond the basic rights not to have your property taken off you but goes on to advocate that you have the right to do whatever the hell you want - up to and including murder on your own property. That is simply lunacy but it is a strain of thought that exists and has its strong advocates. But I would agree that it is extremely difficult to have a stable society without some basic property rights.

    In the case of the farmer, we have started from the basis of property rights and then moderated them for the good of others. Those saying he was preventing flooding actually have it 180 degrees the wrong way round. By dredging and cutting down trees he was preventing flooding on uninhabited flood plain and increasing the risk of flooding downstream where people actually have homes because he was increasing the flow across his land.

    If he believed so strongly that the law was wrong he should have advocated and campaigned to get it changed or modified, not simply broken it. I happen to think many of the tax laws in this country are wrong. I will happily campaign and advocate for changes. But as long as they are the laws I am going to abide by them rather than thinking they uniquely should not apply to me.

    Thanks (and sorry for a slow response - kids bedtime). That makes a lot of sense.

    If it’s the pragmatic case (which I agree wholeheartedly with), it then seems highly desirable to moderate property rights because of their tendency to exacerbate inequality.

    Specifically, if the case for property rights are that they are essential to prosperity, it is consistent with that to have a strong presumption that those who benefit from the wealth generated by those rights should
    share that wealth. If they aren’t morally deserving of the extra wealth, but nevertheless keep a large proportion of it, as is currently the case, then forced redistribution through high taxes seems the best answer.
    I would suggest you are perhaps conflating two separate things. The ownership of property does not automatically mean the accumulation of wealth to be redistributed. That has only really been the case during the house price boom of the last 50 years or so. Indeed at times prior to the explosion in property prices it was the justifiable complaint of larger property owners that they were a drain on resources rather than a benefit.

    So I would entirely separate the need for reasonably strong property rights from the question of wealth and its redistribution. Not least because whatever wealth accrues to property ownership is only theoretical until such times as it is actually sold. Forced redistribution of a theoretical wealth seems fundamentally wrong to me.
    Property, of course, is a somewhat ambiguous term anyway.
    ‘Property rights’ certainly doesn’t apply only to land and buildings.
    Thing about rivers though is that while legally they may be part of the surrounding landholding, as Heraclitus pointed out the water keeps moving on elsewhere.

    So anything you do on *your* land has effects on somebody else's.*

    How does that feed in to property rights?

    *Particularly if you damn a river and cause a section of it to dry up, as this dickhead did.
    Have there not anyway been laws relating to land, outside of property owbpnership rights and which constrain those rights, for many centuries ?

    The absolutist case for property is just nonsense.
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 2,950
    Reposted from previous thread:

    Completely off topic, but I thought what I saw on my walk to get groceries this morning would interest some of you:

    I shop more at a local QFC (a subsidiary of Kroger) than anywhere else. The most direct walk there takes me 10 short blocks north, and then northeast across a large park.

    In those 10 blocks I saw people gathering at the Iman Center for an EID* celebration, a Presbyterian church, which holds services in both English and Chinese, a Unitarian church that also hosts a Jewish meeting, behind that a Baptist church, and further along, a 100 year old Episcopalian Church.

    And on the way back, I had a nice talk with two elderly Jehovah Witness ladies. (The Jehovah Witnesses regularly set up at the front of the local library, and I often chat with them, there.

    I am mildly disappointed that there are no Hindu or Buddhist gathering places along the route. But the Unitarians do have a sign asking us to support the Duwamish tribe, who probably have a religion of their own.

    (*Equity, Inclusion, and Diversity? Probably not, since they made no effort to include me.)
  • BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 2,729
    Excellent article on Fox, Murdoch and Trump by Matthew d'Ancona

    Eye-opening and horrifying.

    https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ideas/media/60928/how-fox-and-murdoch-are-destroying-us-democracy

    "In the end, the Fox was more like the scorpion in the well-known fable, stinging the frog of democracy it was being carried on, sinking them both into a quagmire of dishonesty, disinformation and disorder. It was simply being true to its nature. It still is. "
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,796
    Andrea Jenkyns to the English language:





  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,129
    O/T

    This is wonderful news.

    https://www.theguardian.com/music/2023/apr/20/fun-way-consume-music-why-sales-of-cassette-tapes-soaring

    "‘Such a fun way to consume music’: why sales of the ‘obsolete’ cassette are soaring

    With more cassette tapes being bought than since 2003, readers tell why they prefer them to modern music players"
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,573
    Theuniondivvie said:

    Andrea Jenkyns to the English language:





    Tweed Mubarak, @Theuniondivvie
  • FossFoss Posts: 990
    kinabalu said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    Tres said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    Labour should never have been fav for a majority.

    Well Liz Truss should never have been Prime Minister.
    An abberation quickly corrected.

    As with Labour majority.

    Labour short of a majority does lead to the next question: is the country going to vote for the crazy ride of a rainbow coalition?
    Unless the country are drooling idiots susceptible to the same con over and over again - Yes.
    Labour may be better off going the '74 route; minorty gov and then bounce into a second GE while the Tories are still hanging each other.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947
    edited April 2023
    Nigelb said:

    The knives are definitely out for DeSantis.

    ‘I don’t think he cares about people’: DeSantis struggles with former Hill colleagues
    A growing string of anecdotes describes the Florida governor’s lack of a personal touch during his six years in the House.
    https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/21/i-dont-think-he-cares-about-people-desantis-struggles-with-former-hill-colleagues-00093281

    Either Trump is the nominee, or they’re trying to destroy the Florida autocrat before Trump succumbs to his legal travails.

    There’s a (narrow and slightly unlikely) lane for one of the long shots.

    Hi Democratic Party!
    Hi yourself, GOP. How's tricks?
    Oh fine fine. But listen ... fancy 4 more years in the WH?
    What, you're not actually going to pick HIM, are you?
    Yup, reckon so.
    Well blow me down. Much obliged.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,360
    My view is that NOM is the favourite, and that the odds are still wrong.

    However, if you look back at the odds, and then think forward, the only conclusion can be that we had no idea in the past how it would look now, now now we have no idea how it will look in 12 months time.

    I think a Tory victory is nearer a 20% chance than 13%. NOM is nearer 45%-50%. Lab victory over rated.

    But what do know? I recently dipped a toe in the water on Arsenal for the Premiership.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,481
    Florida, of course.

    Florida prosecutor apologizes for memo that called for harsher penalties for Hispanic defendants
    https://thehill.com/homenews/3963168-florida-prosecutor-apologizes-for-memo-that-called-for-harsher-penalties-for-hispanic-defendants/
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,573
    Andy_JS said:

    O/T

    This is wonderful news.

    https://www.theguardian.com/music/2023/apr/20/fun-way-consume-music-why-sales-of-cassette-tapes-soaring

    "‘Such a fun way to consume music’: why sales of the ‘obsolete’ cassette are soaring

    With more cassette tapes being bought than since 2003, readers tell why they prefer them to modern music players"

    Bah, I made do with just the CD and MP3 versions of Depeche Mode's new album.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 21,964
    Raab C. Exit
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,150
    Theuniondivvie said:

    Andrea Jenkyns to the English language:





    And she was still better than Nick Gibb.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 62,748
    Arsenal 1 Southampton 3

    Squeaky bum time for Arsenal
  • londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 3,629
    Arteta's getting sacked in the morning!
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947
    Arsenal blowing the title. 😞
  • londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 3,629
    kinabalu said:

    Arsenal blowing the title. 😞

    The title was gone after the West Ham game. They may struggle to finish second now.
  • londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 3,629
    Arsenal = Watford
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,696
    londonpubman said:

    kinabalu said:

    Arsenal blowing the title. 😞

    The title was gone after the West Ham game. They may struggle to finish second now.
    Did you see the way Utd played against Sevilla? Absolutely shocking.
    But City are being handed this on a plate.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 4,591
    edited April 2023
    kinabalu said:

    Arsenal blowing the title. 😞

    You never know - they might only concede 5 at City.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,501
    maxh said:

    On topic: I suspect the consensus will swing wildly in the next 18 months or so - local elections will probably throw the cards up on the air again.

    Perversely after my previous subdued reports, this evening was easily the best Labour canvass yet - including an 86-year-old former Tory member who said, very quietly, "After their contempt for democracy in the last few years, including today's nonsense, I have resolved never to vote for them again."

    But sweet-natured voters of all colours. One still-Tory elderly lady who had given me directions to a nearby road walked quickly down the steep hill outside her home to say "So sorry, I got it wrong, it's the second turning, not the first. I'm so glad I caught you."
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947
    londonpubman said:

    kinabalu said:

    Arsenal blowing the title. 😞

    The title was gone after the West Ham game. They may struggle to finish second now.
    Or they might beat City at City and be favs again. I'll back that if the betting overreacts and they go to a stupid price. Often happens with football, market overreaction.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,661
    londonpubman said:

    Arsenal = Watford

    Arsenal could be Keir Starmer......
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947
    SandyRentool said:

    Raab C. Exit

    To a GB News gig, I gather.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,785
    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    FPT

    maxh said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    maxh said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Luckyguy1983 said:

    kle4 said:

    Luckyguy1983 said:

    kle4 said:

    Luckyguy1983 said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    darkage said:

    Sandpit said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Farmer gets 12 months in jail for dredging a river.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/environment/2023/04/20/farmer-jailed-dredging-stretch-river-stop-homes-flooding

    That punishment does seem wholly disproportionate, given that child rapists can now manage to avoid prison, and the same newspaper carries the story of the man found guilty of manslaughter who got less time.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/04/20/less-than-a-year-for-electrician-who-killed-banker/
    Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
    Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
    No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places

    He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
    It probably needed dredging.
    Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.

    Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?

    When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
    I am sure the people who avoided being knee deep in river water are quite satisfied with the job he did.
    So you believe people can break the law if it is popular then? That'd be quite the step from believing the sentence is simply excessive.
    I believe that when someone has taken the job of a Government agency (more often it is the police) into their own hands, it is an opportunity to ask why, as well as mete out a proportionate punishment.
    I don't get this. Some ultra-libertarian that people can do whatever the hell they like with their land?

    In principle, I have sympathy with that, but that right does sometimes need to be qualified and restricted* where it impinges on the common good.

    How is this different from the Left?

    We do it the other way round. We start from a presumption in favour of private property rights, and then work back from that if we need to do so.

    (*Incidentally, I think rivers/oceans are underprotected and badgers/foxes overprotected, FWIW)
    What’s the logic of starting from a presumption of property rights? Is it a moral case (those property rights are naturally derived, it tend to be in the hands of those most deserving, for instance) or a pragmatic case (preserving property rights is important for prosperity, say). I’m genuinely interested.
    I would suggest the latter. For both prosperity and the stability of the country property rights are one of the most important cornerstones.

    I would not go as far as the Propertarian wing of Libertarianism which goes beyond the basic rights not to have your property taken off you but goes on to advocate that you have the right to do whatever the hell you want - up to and including murder on your own property. That is simply lunacy but it is a strain of thought that exists and has its strong advocates. But I would agree that it is extremely difficult to have a stable society without some basic property rights.

    In the case of the farmer, we have started from the basis of property rights and then moderated them for the good of others. Those saying he was preventing flooding actually have it 180 degrees the wrong way round. By dredging and cutting down trees he was preventing flooding on uninhabited flood plain and increasing the risk of flooding downstream where people actually have homes because he was increasing the flow across his land.

    If he believed so strongly that the law was wrong he should have advocated and campaigned to get it changed or modified, not simply broken it. I happen to think many of the tax laws in this country are wrong. I will happily campaign and advocate for changes. But as long as they are the laws I am going to abide by them rather than thinking they uniquely should not apply to me.

    Thanks (and sorry for a slow response - kids bedtime). That makes a lot of sense.

    If it’s the pragmatic case (which I agree wholeheartedly with), it then seems highly desirable to moderate property rights because of their tendency to exacerbate inequality.

    Specifically, if the case for property rights are that they are essential to prosperity, it is consistent with that to have a strong presumption that those who benefit from the wealth generated by those rights should
    share that wealth. If they aren’t morally deserving of the extra wealth, but nevertheless keep a large proportion of it, as is currently the case, then forced redistribution through high taxes seems the best answer.
    I would suggest you are perhaps conflating two separate things. The ownership of property does not automatically mean the accumulation of wealth to be redistributed. That has only really been the case during the house price boom of the last 50 years or so. Indeed at times prior to the explosion in property prices it was the justifiable complaint of larger property owners that they were a drain on resources rather than a benefit.

    So I would entirely separate the need for reasonably strong property rights from the question of wealth and its redistribution. Not least because whatever wealth accrues to property ownership is only theoretical until such times as it is actually sold. Forced redistribution of a theoretical wealth seems fundamentally wrong to me.
    Property, of course, is a somewhat ambiguous term anyway.
    ‘Property rights’ certainly doesn’t apply only to land and buildings.
    Thing about rivers though is that while legally they may be part of the surrounding landholding, as Heraclitus pointed out the water keeps moving on elsewhere.

    So anything you do on *your* land has effects on somebody else's.*

    How does that feed in to property rights?

    *Particularly if you damn a river and cause a section of it to dry up, as this dickhead did.
    Have there not anyway been laws relating to land, outside of property owbpnership rights and which constrain those rights, for many centuries ?

    The absolutist case for property is just nonsense.
    Whoever's is the soil, it is theirs all the way to Heaven and all the way to Hell.

    Perhaps taken a bit too literally by some.
  • DialupDialup Posts: 561
    Keir Starmer may be rubbish but he’s still 10 points ahead at worst.

    So what is the Tory strategy from here?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 62,748
    2nd half possession

    Arsenal 82% Southampton 18% and yet it remains 1 - 3 with 5 mins plus injury time to go
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,785
    Dialup said:

    Keir Starmer may be rubbish but he’s still 10 points ahead at worst.

    So what is the Tory strategy from here?

    Play for time, hope for an economic upturn, rely on the huge majority being hard to overturn.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 21,774
    Top Gear Robin Reliant Starship
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 62,748
    I back
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,228
    SirNorfolkPassmore said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    Tres said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    Labour should never have been fav for a majority.

    Well Liz Truss should never have been Prime Minister.
    An abberation quickly corrected.
    It wasn't "quickly corrected" in the sense that we are still paying a very large premium for the loss of confidence in UK economic policy, and will for some time.

    It was a crazy move foisted on the country by a party jam packed with crazies... who are also still there.

    Do you have any details of this 'premium' we are 'still paying'? Anything with some figures would be good.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 62,748
    Equaliser
  • londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 3,629
    Turn round central?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947
    Flatlander said:

    kinabalu said:

    Arsenal blowing the title. 😞

    You never know - they might only concede 5 at City.
    Or, with pressure off, now chasing, a one off big match, not expected to win, City focus on CL, Arse win the match ... I can see that quite easily.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,785
    Nigelb said:

    The knives are definitely out for DeSantis.

    ‘I don’t think he cares about people’: DeSantis struggles with former Hill colleagues
    A growing string of anecdotes describes the Florida governor’s lack of a personal touch during his six years in the House.
    https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/21/i-dont-think-he-cares-about-people-desantis-struggles-with-former-hill-colleagues-00093281

    Either Trump is the nominee, or they’re trying to destroy the Florida autocrat before Trump succumbs to his legal travails.

    There’s a (narrow and slightly unlikely) lane for one of the long shots.

    For DeSantis it all seems a long time since his glorious heydey after winning re-election. He looks almost bereft, flailing about trying to look cool taking on Disney of all people.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 49,575
    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    FPT

    maxh said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    maxh said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Luckyguy1983 said:

    kle4 said:

    Luckyguy1983 said:

    kle4 said:

    Luckyguy1983 said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    darkage said:

    Sandpit said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Farmer gets 12 months in jail for dredging a river.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/environment/2023/04/20/farmer-jailed-dredging-stretch-river-stop-homes-flooding

    That punishment does seem wholly disproportionate, given that child rapists can now manage to avoid prison, and the same newspaper carries the story of the man found guilty of manslaughter who got less time.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/04/20/less-than-a-year-for-electrician-who-killed-banker/
    Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
    Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
    No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places

    He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
    It probably needed dredging.
    Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.

    Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?

    When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
    I am sure the people who avoided being knee deep in river water are quite satisfied with the job he did.
    So you believe people can break the law if it is popular then? That'd be quite the step from believing the sentence is simply excessive.
    I believe that when someone has taken the job of a Government agency (more often it is the police) into their own hands, it is an opportunity to ask why, as well as mete out a proportionate punishment.
    I don't get this. Some ultra-libertarian that people can do whatever the hell they like with their land?

    In principle, I have sympathy with that, but that right does sometimes need to be qualified and restricted* where it impinges on the common good.

    How is this different from the Left?

    We do it the other way round. We start from a presumption in favour of private property rights, and then work back from that if we need to do so.

    (*Incidentally, I think rivers/oceans are underprotected and badgers/foxes overprotected, FWIW)
    What’s the logic of starting from a presumption of property rights? Is it a moral case (those property rights are naturally derived, it tend to be in the hands of those most deserving, for instance) or a pragmatic case (preserving property rights is important for prosperity, say). I’m genuinely interested.
    I would suggest the latter. For both prosperity and the stability of the country property rights are one of the most important cornerstones.

    I would not go as far as the Propertarian wing of Libertarianism which goes beyond the basic rights not to have your property taken off you but goes on to advocate that you have the right to do whatever the hell you want - up to and including murder on your own property. That is simply lunacy but it is a strain of thought that exists and has its strong advocates. But I would agree that it is extremely difficult to have a stable society without some basic property rights.

    In the case of the farmer, we have started from the basis of property rights and then moderated them for the good of others. Those saying he was preventing flooding actually have it 180 degrees the wrong way round. By dredging and cutting down trees he was preventing flooding on uninhabited flood plain and increasing the risk of flooding downstream where people actually have homes because he was increasing the flow across his land.

    If he believed so strongly that the law was wrong he should have advocated and campaigned to get it changed or modified, not simply broken it. I happen to think many of the tax laws in this country are wrong. I will happily campaign and advocate for changes. But as long as they are the laws I am going to abide by them rather than thinking they uniquely should not apply to me.

    Thanks (and sorry for a slow response - kids bedtime). That makes a lot of sense.

    If it’s the pragmatic case (which I agree wholeheartedly with), it then seems highly desirable to moderate property rights because of their tendency to exacerbate inequality.

    Specifically, if the case for property rights are that they are essential to prosperity, it is consistent with that to have a strong presumption that those who benefit from the wealth generated by those rights should
    share that wealth. If they aren’t morally deserving of the extra wealth, but nevertheless keep a large proportion of it, as is currently the case, then forced redistribution through high taxes seems the best answer.
    I would suggest you are perhaps conflating two separate things. The ownership of property does not automatically mean the accumulation of wealth to be redistributed. That has only really been the case during the house price boom of the last 50 years or so. Indeed at times prior to the explosion in property prices it was the justifiable complaint of larger property owners that they were a drain on resources rather than a benefit.

    So I would entirely separate the need for reasonably strong property rights from the question of wealth and its redistribution. Not least because whatever wealth accrues to property ownership is only theoretical until such times as it is actually sold. Forced redistribution of a theoretical wealth seems fundamentally wrong to me.
    Property, of course, is a somewhat ambiguous term anyway.
    ‘Property rights’ certainly doesn’t apply only to land and buildings.
    Thing about rivers though is that while legally they may be part of the surrounding landholding, as Heraclitus pointed out the water keeps moving on elsewhere.

    So anything you do on *your* land has effects on somebody else's.*

    How does that feed in to property rights?

    *Particularly if you damn a river and cause a section of it to dry up, as this dickhead did.
    Have there not anyway been laws relating to land, outside of property owbpnership rights and which constrain those rights, for many centuries ?

    The absolutist case for property is just nonsense.
    A major purpose of the law is to mediate when the rights one one conflicts with the right of another. Which is why water rights and the management of rivers has been the subject of law and legal judgements for many centuries.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,785
    Malmesbury said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    FPT

    maxh said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    maxh said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Luckyguy1983 said:

    kle4 said:

    Luckyguy1983 said:

    kle4 said:

    Luckyguy1983 said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    darkage said:

    Sandpit said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Farmer gets 12 months in jail for dredging a river.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/environment/2023/04/20/farmer-jailed-dredging-stretch-river-stop-homes-flooding

    That punishment does seem wholly disproportionate, given that child rapists can now manage to avoid prison, and the same newspaper carries the story of the man found guilty of manslaughter who got less time.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/04/20/less-than-a-year-for-electrician-who-killed-banker/
    Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
    Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
    No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places

    He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
    It probably needed dredging.
    Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.

    Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?

    When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
    I am sure the people who avoided being knee deep in river water are quite satisfied with the job he did.
    So you believe people can break the law if it is popular then? That'd be quite the step from believing the sentence is simply excessive.
    I believe that when someone has taken the job of a Government agency (more often it is the police) into their own hands, it is an opportunity to ask why, as well as mete out a proportionate punishment.
    I don't get this. Some ultra-libertarian that people can do whatever the hell they like with their land?

    In principle, I have sympathy with that, but that right does sometimes need to be qualified and restricted* where it impinges on the common good.

    How is this different from the Left?

    We do it the other way round. We start from a presumption in favour of private property rights, and then work back from that if we need to do so.

    (*Incidentally, I think rivers/oceans are underprotected and badgers/foxes overprotected, FWIW)
    What’s the logic of starting from a presumption of property rights? Is it a moral case (those property rights are naturally derived, it tend to be in the hands of those most deserving, for instance) or a pragmatic case (preserving property rights is important for prosperity, say). I’m genuinely interested.
    I would suggest the latter. For both prosperity and the stability of the country property rights are one of the most important cornerstones.

    I would not go as far as the Propertarian wing of Libertarianism which goes beyond the basic rights not to have your property taken off you but goes on to advocate that you have the right to do whatever the hell you want - up to and including murder on your own property. That is simply lunacy but it is a strain of thought that exists and has its strong advocates. But I would agree that it is extremely difficult to have a stable society without some basic property rights.

    In the case of the farmer, we have started from the basis of property rights and then moderated them for the good of others. Those saying he was preventing flooding actually have it 180 degrees the wrong way round. By dredging and cutting down trees he was preventing flooding on uninhabited flood plain and increasing the risk of flooding downstream where people actually have homes because he was increasing the flow across his land.

    If he believed so strongly that the law was wrong he should have advocated and campaigned to get it changed or modified, not simply broken it. I happen to think many of the tax laws in this country are wrong. I will happily campaign and advocate for changes. But as long as they are the laws I am going to abide by them rather than thinking they uniquely should not apply to me.

    Thanks (and sorry for a slow response - kids bedtime). That makes a lot of sense.

    If it’s the pragmatic case (which I agree wholeheartedly with), it then seems highly desirable to moderate property rights because of their tendency to exacerbate inequality.

    Specifically, if the case for property rights are that they are essential to prosperity, it is consistent with that to have a strong presumption that those who benefit from the wealth generated by those rights should
    share that wealth. If they aren’t morally deserving of the extra wealth, but nevertheless keep a large proportion of it, as is currently the case, then forced redistribution through high taxes seems the best answer.
    I would suggest you are perhaps conflating two separate things. The ownership of property does not automatically mean the accumulation of wealth to be redistributed. That has only really been the case during the house price boom of the last 50 years or so. Indeed at times prior to the explosion in property prices it was the justifiable complaint of larger property owners that they were a drain on resources rather than a benefit.

    So I would entirely separate the need for reasonably strong property rights from the question of wealth and its redistribution. Not least because whatever wealth accrues to property ownership is only theoretical until such times as it is actually sold. Forced redistribution of a theoretical wealth seems fundamentally wrong to me.
    Property, of course, is a somewhat ambiguous term anyway.
    ‘Property rights’ certainly doesn’t apply only to land and buildings.
    Thing about rivers though is that while legally they may be part of the surrounding landholding, as Heraclitus pointed out the water keeps moving on elsewhere.

    So anything you do on *your* land has effects on somebody else's.*

    How does that feed in to property rights?

    *Particularly if you damn a river and cause a section of it to dry up, as this dickhead did.
    Have there not anyway been laws relating to land, outside of property owbpnership rights and which constrain those rights, for many centuries ?

    The absolutist case for property is just nonsense.
    A major purpose of the law is to mediate when the rights one one conflicts with the right of another. Which is why water rights and the management of rivers has been the subject of law and legal judgements for many centuries.
    I thought the purpose of the law was to find ways for rich people to avoid paying taxes whilst complaining about the taxes they do pay.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 62,748
    What a game but over to City now
  • londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 3,629
    Ok a good fightback and I THINK it's still in their own hands.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,685
    Nigelb said:

    The knives are definitely out for DeSantis.

    ‘I don’t think he cares about people’: DeSantis struggles with former Hill colleagues
    A growing string of anecdotes describes the Florida governor’s lack of a personal touch during his six years in the House.
    https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/21/i-dont-think-he-cares-about-people-desantis-struggles-with-former-hill-colleagues-00093281

    Either Trump is the nominee, or they’re trying to destroy the Florida autocrat before Trump succumbs to his legal travails.

    There’s a (narrow and slightly unlikely) lane for one of the long shots.

    I wasn't really aware of De Santis's prior career in the House of Representatives, where apparently he was utterly undestinguished. He has six billionaires backing him but is otherwise a total dud. I don't fancy his chances.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947
    londonpubman said:

    Ok a good fightback and I THINK it's still in their own hands.

    It's in both their hands, oddly.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,456
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Equaliser

    Good for my team, but we need to beat Wolves tomorrow.

    It's going to be interesting at both ends of the table these next couple of weeks.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,661
    Dialup said:

    Keir Starmer may be rubbish but he’s still 10 points ahead at worst.

    So what is the Tory strategy from here?

    Watch Starmer fuck.it up
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,129
    If Starmer fails to win the projected national vote at the local elections, would his position as leader come under pressure?
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,661
    Andy_JS said:

    If Starmer fails to win the projected national vote at the local elections, would his position as leader come under pressure?

    Nope ...Labour are unable to sack their leaders.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,456
    Andy_JS said:

    If Starmer fails to win the projected national vote at the local elections, would his position as leader come under pressure?

    If Sunak is more than 10% behind in the projected national vote, will his position be under pressure?
  • londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 3,629
    Andy_JS said:

    If Starmer fails to win the projected national vote at the local elections, would his position as leader come under pressure?

    I think he is certain to win the projected adjusted national vote (IE once it's adjusted to take account of what areas are being contested and what aren't?). But it will be a LOT less than the polls say. LAB always underperform in the real vote.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 21,774
    Andy_JS said:

    If Starmer fails to win the projected national vote at the local elections, would his position as leader come under pressure?

    Not really. Regicide is the Con secret weapon, not Lab. Besides, Starmer has purged his opponents IIUC.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,150
    Andy_JS said:

    If Starmer fails to win the projected national vote at the local elections, would his position as leader come under pressure?

    The last Labour leader to be forced out without facing the electorate was George Lansbury in 1935. Under very unusual circumstances. It just doesn't happen, not least because there is no effective mechanism to remove them.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 6,200
    The Tories obituaries were always overstated .

    Labour need to come out with some eye catching proposals and not just rely on “ its time for a change “.



  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,785
    edited April 2023
    NickPalmer said:

    maxh said:

    On topic: I suspect the consensus will swing wildly in the next 18 months or so - local elections will probably throw the cards up on the air again.

    Perversely after my previous subdued reports, this evening was easily the best Labour canvass yet - including an 86-year-old former Tory member who said, very quietly, "After their contempt for democracy in the last few years, including today's nonsense, I have resolved never to vote for them again."

    But sweet-natured voters of all colours. One still-Tory elderly lady who had given me directions to a nearby road walked quickly down the steep hill outside her home to say "So sorry, I got it wrong, it's the second turning, not the first. I'm so glad I caught you."
    Sounds to me like her conscience got the better of her after her initial plan to send that pesky Labour canvasser the wrong way :)
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,780
    londonpubman said:

    Andy_JS said:

    If Starmer fails to win the projected national vote at the local elections, would his position as leader come under pressure?

    I think he is certain to win the projected adjusted national vote (IE once it's adjusted to take account of what areas are being contested and what aren't?). But it will be a LOT less than the polls say. LAB always underperform in the real vote.
    You should qualify that. Labour always underperform in the real vote in local elections, compared to expectations based on national GE polling. But there's no similar pattern in general elections. In 2010 and 2017 Labour overperformed, while in 2015 and 2019 Labour underperformed. No obvious pattern in that.




  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,150
    kle4 said:

    NickPalmer said:

    maxh said:

    On topic: I suspect the consensus will swing wildly in the next 18 months or so - local elections will probably throw the cards up on the air again.

    Perversely after my previous subdued reports, this evening was easily the best Labour canvass yet - including an 86-year-old former Tory member who said, very quietly, "After their contempt for democracy in the last few years, including today's nonsense, I have resolved never to vote for them again."

    But sweet-natured voters of all colours. One still-Tory elderly lady who had given me directions to a nearby road walked quickly down the steep hill outside her home to say "So sorry, I got it wrong, it's the second turning, not the first. I'm so glad I caught you."
    Sounds to me like her conscience got the better of her after her initial plan to send that pesky Labour canvasser the wrong way :)
    Clearly, she'd googled him, found his recent comment about - ahem - other activities and was mightily impressed by them.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,796
    kle4 said:

    NickPalmer said:

    maxh said:

    On topic: I suspect the consensus will swing wildly in the next 18 months or so - local elections will probably throw the cards up on the air again.

    Perversely after my previous subdued reports, this evening was easily the best Labour canvass yet - including an 86-year-old former Tory member who said, very quietly, "After their contempt for democracy in the last few years, including today's nonsense, I have resolved never to vote for them again."

    But sweet-natured voters of all colours. One still-Tory elderly lady who had given me directions to a nearby road walked quickly down the steep hill outside her home to say "So sorry, I got it wrong, it's the second turning, not the first. I'm so glad I caught you."
    Sounds to me like her conscience got the better of her after her initial plan to send that pesky Labour canvasser the wrong way :)
    Perhaps she'd quickly logged on to PB and read confessions of an xmp from last night.

    Nothing like a threesome anecdote to put a human face to a political opponent.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,800
    edited April 2023
    londonpubman said:

    Andy_JS said:

    If Starmer fails to win the projected national vote at the local elections, would his position as leader come under pressure?

    I think he is certain to win the projected adjusted national vote (IE once it's adjusted to take account of what areas are being contested and what aren't?). But it will be a LOT less than the polls say. LAB always underperform in the real vote.
    Indeed. In 2022, the Techne poll immediately before the local elections had Labour on 40%, Conservatives on 34% and the LDs on 10% but the projected figures from the local elections themselves were Labour 35%, Conservatives 30% and LDs 19%.

    Techne now has 44-31-10 so Labour a little higher and the Conservatives a little lower so you'd be thinking perhaps an 8-9 point notional lead as well.

    2019 was a strange polling time - the last YouGov before that year's locals had Conservative and Labour on 29% each and the LDs on 13% but the projected vote shares from the local polls were 28-28-19.

    So, on that basis you could see a small swing from LDs to the Conservatives but a much bigger move from Conservative to Labour - perhaps a swing of 6-7%.

    In terms of actual votes cast, the Conservatives beat Labour by roughly five points - 31.5 to 26.5 with the LDs on 17%, Greens on 9%, UKIP on 4,5% and 11.5% split between various Independents, Residents and others.

    That's not reliable because it's not an exact match of seats being contested.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,635
    On Topic ROFL

    Wait till the GE the liar that is SKS is going to be pulverised by the right wing press
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,780
    Labour may need only a 5% lead in the popular vote to secure a GE majority.

    eg. General election modelling using Electoral Calculus, using the new boundaries:
    GB: Con 35%, Lab 40%, LD 12%, Reform 3%, Green 3%.
    Assume a quarter of all electors are willing to vote tactically.
    Scotland: Con 20%, Lab 27%, LD 8%, SNP 37%.

    Result: Labour overall majority of 2, with 326 seats.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 4,487
    bigjohnowls said:

    On Topic ROFL

    Wait till the GE the liar that is SKS is going to be pulverised by the right wing press

    "Was he lying then, or is he lying now?" Accompanied by a montage of Starmer's, er, political flexibility ought to do it.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,635
    carnforth said:

    bigjohnowls said:

    On Topic ROFL

    Wait till the GE the liar that is SKS is going to be pulverised by the right wing press

    "Was he lying then, or is he lying now?" Accompanied by a montage of Starmer's, er, political flexibility ought to do it.
    Exactly
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,456
    Just caught up on iplayer with Stacey Dooley "Ready for War?" on the Ukranian recruits training here. Very moving and well done.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,456
    carnforth said:

    bigjohnowls said:

    On Topic ROFL

    Wait till the GE the liar that is SKS is going to be pulverised by the right wing press

    "Was he lying then, or is he lying now?" Accompanied by a montage of Starmer's, er, political flexibility ought to do it.
    Though the Tories know that liars often win in politics, which is why they were led by one with pants like the incredible inferno.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,661
    Wulfrun_Phil said:

    Labour may need only a 5% lead in the popular vote to secure a GE majority.

    eg. General election modelling using Electoral Calculus, using the new boundaries:
    GB: Con 35%, Lab 40%, LD 12%, Reform 3%, Green 3%.
    Assume a quarter of all electors are willing to vote tactically.
    Scotland: Con 20%, Lab 27%, LD 8%, SNP 37%.

    Result: Labour overall majority of 2, with 326 seats.

    That's not what I have read on PB before... sounds gilded lilly numbers.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,661
    squareroot2 said:

    Wulfrun_Phil said:

    Labour may need only a 5% lead in the popular vote to secure a GE majority.

    eg. General election modelling using Electoral Calculus, using the new boundaries:
    GB: Con 35%, Lab 40%, LD 12%, Reform 3%, Green 3%.
    Assume a quarter of all electors are willing to vote tactically.
    Scotland: Con 20%, Lab 27%, LD 8%, SNP 37%.

    Result: Labour overall majority of 2, with 326 seats.

    That's not what I have read on PB before... sounds gilded lilly numbers.
    Just noted the assume 25pc willing to vote tactically... nonsense.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 4,487
    Foxy said:

    carnforth said:

    bigjohnowls said:

    On Topic ROFL

    Wait till the GE the liar that is SKS is going to be pulverised by the right wing press

    "Was he lying then, or is he lying now?" Accompanied by a montage of Starmer's, er, political flexibility ought to do it.
    Though the Tories know that liars often win in politics, which is why they were led by one with pants like the incredible inferno.
    Yes, but the government's lying is an established fact. That Starmer is not a breath of fresh air may be new information to many voters.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,226
    Wulfrun_Phil said:

    Labour may need only a 5% lead in the popular vote to secure a GE majority.

    eg. General election modelling using Electoral Calculus, using the new boundaries:
    GB: Con 35%, Lab 40%, LD 12%, Reform 3%, Green 3%.
    Assume a quarter of all electors are willing to vote tactically.
    Scotland: Con 20%, Lab 27%, LD 8%, SNP 37%.

    Result: Labour overall majority of 2, with 326 seats.

    I think the extent of voters voting tactically against the Tories is much less v a Sunak led Tories than it was against a Johnson or Truss led Tories
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,635
    carnforth said:

    bigjohnowls said:

    On Topic ROFL

    Wait till the GE the liar that is SKS is going to be pulverised by the right wing press

    "Was he lying then, or is he lying now?" Accompanied by a montage of Starmer's, er, political flexibility ought to do it.
    https://twitter.com/skedeschi/status/1649393332370415617
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 21,964
    bigjohnowls said:

    On Topic ROFL

    Wait till the GE the liar that is SKS is going to be pulverised by the right wing press

    The Morning Star and Socialist Worker?
This discussion has been closed.