I saw some posts this morning about the cost of electricity, and some people were trying to tell us that net zero was going to make electricity cheaper.
Co-incidentally, I spent a chunk of this afternoon trying to sort out the electricity contract for work this afternoon. Business electricity is not subject to price caps, so reflects the real costs (unlike domestic pricing). Our site uses about 92,000kwh a year. The electric unit price is similar to current domestic pricing - we're being offered day rates of about 23p/unit. However the standing charge for our site has gone from about £5/a day 5 years ago, and £20/day two years ago to £29/day now. By the time you add the various other charges (eg 11p/kva capacity per day), the full cost for our site is about 35p/unit.
Where is all this extra money going one might ask? Basically businesses like us are funding all the net zero infrastructure costs.
I did the rough sums, if we bought a big diesel generator, binned off our electric connection and went "off-grid", we would save about £5k a year. Generating electricity with a piston engined diesel generator is a terribly inefficient way of producing electricity - if that's cheaper than supplying fairly large amounts of it to one physical location via an existing grid connection, whoever's running the grid have got it very, very wrong.
Now it may be that net zero is worth this expense; that's a political question, although dumping the costs on industry in such a way as to destroy our industrial base seems a particularly dumb way to fund it. But anybody who tells you renewable energy is cheap (i.e. our whole political class) is lying to you. Whilst the sun and wind are free, unfortunately the infrastructure to collect this "free" energy is very expensive.
An excellent post, and one that @BartholomewRoberts should read carefully before claiming to be a supporter both of the current direction of travel in the energy market and of free market principles.
I don't even support Net Zero, but the scenario that @Pagan2 is highly unlikely to be true, because diesel generators come with a massive bunch of compromises.
Firstly, does the generator support the peak load? It's easy to get one that will support your average electricity usage (and that's how people calculate things). But your average load might well be 30% of your maximum load. So to get it working, you may need to spend a lot, lot more than you thought on a generator.
Secondly, at a basic efficiency level, diesel generators are - what - c. 35% efficient. But when under load, that can easily drop to 25%. And then there's maintenance. There's regular thermal expansion and contraction, and there's going to be a lot of wear and tear.
Thirdly, there's hassle. You need to get the diesel to you, and you need to store it. And that is going to cost you both time and money.
If you assume that your only costs are fuel, and that your generator runs at optimal efficiency all the time, you *might* get to £5k/annual saving. But even that is slightly bullshit, because domestic electricity prices lag wholesale ones, while the cost of diesel moves very quickly in line with the world market. And that's before capital cost and maintenance. And you don't even get hot water as a byproduct.
Anyone who thinks they are going to save money by going off grid with a diesel generator is incapable of basic mathematics.
I wasn't suggesting I would actually go and buy us a diesel generator; as you point out, there are various irritations like having to take it offline to service it, and also a bit of capex cost (although tbh, I could find one secondhand that would do our peak load for about £10k - servicing would be under £1k/year, so we'd be ahead by year 3). I sadly don't have any real use for several megawatts worth of hot water a year (you do get free heat out of a diesel, exactly the same as a gas engine, just stick a flat plate heat exchanger in the coolant return between the engine and the cooler group, and help yourself), if I did it would be quite economic!
My point was more that there should be massive economies of scale in generating electricity at grid level and supplying it to industry as required. Apart from anything else, powerstation gas turbines are a lot more efficient than relatively small diesel piston engines.
10 years ago, I'm fairly confident that running my own genset would have been significantly more expensive than a mains electric connection. The fact that it's now even remotely competitive is a massive red flag that our net zero policies are costing us an awful lot of money, mostly by slight of hand, and proof that all the politicians lining up to say that renewables are saving us money are lying to us.
The fact that its even remotely competitive is because gas prices have shot up and we're using gas so that's what you're paying for. Its got nothing to do with net zero policies.
Had we got a net zero power supply before this crisis began then our prices would have remained stable rather than shooting up when gas became expensive.
So explain to me, for I am clearly simple minded, why has the cost of actual electricity per unit (thus linked to gas prices) has merely doubled in five years, but the network costs (standing charge, capacity charges etc) become 6x what it was 5 years ago?
For our site at it's current usage, for every 23p we pay in unit costs for electricity, we pay another 12p in network costs.
It's the additional network cost that's crippling, rather than the increase in unit cost (unit cost is down from 30.9p, two and a half years ago however all the savings are swallowed by the increases in the standing charge) and that increased network cost is basically all thanks to net zero.
Incidentally, our business uses literally tons of LPG gas - the price of which has only gone up 50% since the energy crisis started, and maybe 60% over 5 years, unlike our electricity bill which is 300% up over 5 years.
There is something making UK electricity terribly expensive compared to other sources of energy, and it's not increases in the cost of fuel.
Because the network is straining in its capacity to the limit, which is why capacity charges have gone up. When things are running at capacity they get more expensive.
The grid needs major investment at boosting capacity. Unfortunately I'm not sure how much your capacity charges are going on actually boosting capacity rather than just milking the existing network for what its worth.
EDIT: And yes what others have said about the costs going to bailout those who went bust due to gas prices going up. Which again is an issue you can blame on the fact we were burning gas rather than net zero, those costs wouldn't have been an issue had we already decarbonised when this happened.
The problem with this trap (and every presumptive Government gets caught in it) is that as soon as you say “I won’t raise tax X” you get asked “what about tax Y”? Go far enough down the alphabet and, not wanting to box yourself in, you demur. And then that’s the one the opposition come at you with. But you’re going to be the Government so you have to be responsible and you can’t rule them all out.
No idea what the answer is, every presumptive Government in my lifetime has been caught this way. Just like every Tory opposition gets caught with “what would you cut”?
I think that’s actually an easy No increase.
Because Labour are likely to lower the threshold at which you start having to charge VAT to say £40,000 while potentially lowering the rate by a percentage or 2.
I saw some posts this morning about the cost of electricity, and some people were trying to tell us that net zero was going to make electricity cheaper.
Co-incidentally, I spent a chunk of this afternoon trying to sort out the electricity contract for work this afternoon. Business electricity is not subject to price caps, so reflects the real costs (unlike domestic pricing). Our site uses about 92,000kwh a year. The electric unit price is similar to current domestic pricing - we're being offered day rates of about 23p/unit. However the standing charge for our site has gone from about £5/a day 5 years ago, and £20/day two years ago to £29/day now. By the time you add the various other charges (eg 11p/kva capacity per day), the full cost for our site is about 35p/unit.
Where is all this extra money going one might ask? Basically businesses like us are funding all the net zero infrastructure costs.
I did the rough sums, if we bought a big diesel generator, binned off our electric connection and went "off-grid", we would save about £5k a year. Generating electricity with a piston engined diesel generator is a terribly inefficient way of producing electricity - if that's cheaper than supplying fairly large amounts of it to one physical location via an existing grid connection, whoever's running the grid have got it very, very wrong.
Now it may be that net zero is worth this expense; that's a political question, although dumping the costs on industry in such a way as to destroy our industrial base seems a particularly dumb way to fund it. But anybody who tells you renewable energy is cheap (i.e. our whole political class) is lying to you. Whilst the sun and wind are free, unfortunately the infrastructure to collect this "free" energy is very expensive.
An excellent post, and one that @BartholomewRoberts should read carefully before claiming to be a supporter both of the current direction of travel in the energy market and of free market principles.
I don't even support Net Zero, but the scenario that @Pagan2 is highly unlikely to be true, because diesel generators come with a massive bunch of compromises.
Firstly, does the generator support the peak load? It's easy to get one that will support your average electricity usage (and that's how people calculate things). But your average load might well be 30% of your maximum load. So to get it working, you may need to spend a lot, lot more than you thought on a generator.
Secondly, at a basic efficiency level, diesel generators are - what - c. 35% efficient. But when under load, that can easily drop to 25%. And then there's maintenance. There's regular thermal expansion and contraction, and there's going to be a lot of wear and tear.
Thirdly, there's hassle. You need to get the diesel to you, and you need to store it. And that is going to cost you both time and money.
If you assume that your only costs are fuel, and that your generator runs at optimal efficiency all the time, you *might* get to £5k/annual saving. But even that is slightly bullshit, because domestic electricity prices lag wholesale ones, while the cost of diesel moves very quickly in line with the world market. And that's before capital cost and maintenance. And you don't even get hot water as a byproduct.
Anyone who thinks they are going to save money by going off grid with a diesel generator is incapable of basic mathematics.
I wasn't suggesting I would actually go and buy us a diesel generator; as you point out, there are various irritations like having to take it offline to service it, and also a bit of capex cost (although tbh, I could find one secondhand that would do our peak load for about £10k - servicing would be under £1k/year, so we'd be ahead by year 3). I sadly don't have any real use for several megawatts worth of hot water a year (you do get free heat out of a diesel, exactly the same as a gas engine, just stick a flat plate heat exchanger in the coolant return between the engine and the cooler group, and help yourself), if I did it would be quite economic!
My point was more that there should be massive economies of scale in generating electricity at grid level and supplying it to industry as required. Apart from anything else, powerstation gas turbines are a lot more efficient than relatively small diesel piston engines.
10 years ago, I'm fairly confident that running my own genset would have been significantly more expensive than a mains electric connection. The fact that it's now even remotely competitive is a massive red flag that our net zero policies are costing us an awful lot of money, mostly by slight of hand, and proof that all the politicians lining up to say that renewables are saving us money are lying to us.
The fact that its even remotely competitive is because gas prices have shot up and we're using gas so that's what you're paying for. Its got nothing to do with net zero policies.
Had we got a net zero power supply before this crisis began then our prices would have remained stable rather than shooting up when gas became expensive.
So explain to me, for I am clearly simple minded, why has the cost of actual electricity per unit (thus linked to gas prices) has merely doubled in five years, but the network costs (standing charge, capacity charges etc) become 6x what it was 5 years ago?
For our site at it's current usage, for every 23p we pay in unit costs for electricity, we pay another 12p in network costs.
It's the additional network cost that's crippling, rather than the increase in unit cost (unit cost is down from 30.9p, two and a half years ago however all the savings are swallowed by the increases in the standing charge) and that increased network cost is basically all thanks to net zero.
Incidentally, our business uses literally tons of LPG gas - the price of which has only gone up 50% since the energy crisis started, and maybe 60% over 5 years, unlike our electricity bill which is 300% up over 5 years.
There is something making UK electricity terribly expensive compared to other sources of energy, and it's not increases in the cost of fuel.
Because the network is straining in its capacity to the limit, which is why capacity charges have gone up. When things are running at capacity they get more expensive.
The grid needs major investment at boosting capacity. Unfortunately I'm not sure how much your capacity charges are going on actually boosting capacity rather than just milking the existing network for what its worth.
EDIT: And yes what others have said about the costs going to bailout those who went bust due to gas prices going up. Which again is an issue you can blame on the fact we were burning gas rather than net zero, those costs wouldn't have been an issue had we already decarbonised when this happened.
By 'milking' I assume you mean 'returning shareholder value'? We plebs being externalities to such things
Trouble in paradise between the owner, who is doing his own thing, and the figurehead Leader who would like ot be more substantial than he is?
Think Nige may be orchestrating a split between him and REFORM because he's hoping to rejoin the Tories and become CON leader after the next election?
It’s a crap shoot as to which MPs constitute the majority of the parliamentary party afterward isn’t it? Didn’t I see some analysis that the largest majorities actually tend not to be rabid right wingers?
Under the Tories, water firms will be allowed to pump MORE sewage into the water. Per the Telegraph.
Proposals by the regulator, not the Tories.
Ofwat is a child of "Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs". So yes, it is the Tories who are ultimately responsible.
It would be more correct to say it is the government who are responsible. Whoever is in power after the next election will have to decide whether to go ahead with them or not. Are there reports on whether either party agree with the proposal?
If we were a grown up country with grown up debate the questions would also be “do you believe in independent arms length regulation” and “if you disagree with the legislation and infrastructure leading to the current set of regulations, what changes would you make, what would they cost, and how would you pay for them”?
But it is so much easier to pretend that you can lump billions of extra regulatory costs on water companies and only their shareholders will feel any pain.
Whenever I see/hear/read about the water companies, I get a metal image of Damien Green saying "When I were a kid, we used to swim in shit all the time! People's expectations have changed!"
Or somesuch.
Thing is, he's right.
The surprising thing is, he's surprised...
When I was a kid we had a Council run swimming pool within walking distance which was very cheap and kept us entertained, exercised and happy at a very modest price for a couple of hours whilst our parents had a break. Don't know if it's my memory which is faulty, or I'm an idiot, or the whole Tory Party is just one fucking huge gas lamp or what.
Andrew Neil: Why is it right to wear a Maoist t-shirt, but obviously wrong, because it is, to wear a Hitler t-shirt?
Diane Abbott: I suppose that some people would judge that on balance Mao did more good than harm...
That caused a big stir years ago. Diana's a crazy old leftie and shouldn't be anywhere near power, I think everyone can agree on that.
But that doesn't mean she shouldn't be an MP because she DOES represent a strand of opinion within the public and she is, by all accounts, quite a good constituency MP.
The problem with this trap (and every presumptive Government gets caught in it) is that as soon as you say “I won’t raise tax X” you get asked “what about tax Y”? Go far enough down the alphabet and, not wanting to box yourself in, you demur. And then that’s the one the opposition come at you with. But you’re going to be the Government so you have to be responsible and you can’t rule them all out.
No idea what the answer is, every presumptive Government in my lifetime has been caught this way. Just like every Tory opposition gets caught with “what would you cut”?
I think that’s actually an easy No increase.
Because Labour are likely to lower the threshold at which you start having to charge VAT to say £40,000 while potentially lowering the rate by a percentage or 2.
Andrew Neil: Why is it right to wear a Maoist t-shirt, but obviously wrong, because it is, to wear a Hitler t-shirt?
Diane Abbott: I suppose that some people would judge that on balance Mao did more good than harm...
That caused a big stir years ago. Diana's a crazy old leftie and shouldn't be anywhere near power, I think everyone can agree on that.
But that doesn't mean she shouldn't be an MP because she DOES represent a strand of opinion within the public and she is, by all accounts, quite a good constituency MP.
I think she WAS a good constituency MP. But she’s clearly got dementia.
Andrew Neil: Why is it right to wear a Maoist t-shirt, but obviously wrong, because it is, to wear a Hitler t-shirt?
Diane Abbott: I suppose that some people would judge that on balance Mao did more good than harm...
That caused a big stir years ago. Diana's a crazy old leftie and shouldn't be anywhere near power, I think everyone can agree on that.
But that doesn't mean she shouldn't be an MP because she DOES represent a strand of opinion within the public and she is, by all accounts, quite a good constituency MP.
I'm quite content with certain strands of opinion not being represented in Parliament. That's why we have elections afterall, if your strand isn't popular enough, then tough luck, do better at the next election.
Under the Tories, water firms will be allowed to pump MORE sewage into the water. Per the Telegraph.
Proposals by the regulator, not the Tories.
Ofwat is a child of "Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs". So yes, it is the Tories who are ultimately responsible.
It would be more correct to say it is the government who are responsible. Whoever is in power after the next election will have to decide whether to go ahead with them or not. Are there reports on whether either party agree with the proposal?
If we were a grown up country with grown up debate the questions would also be “do you believe in independent arms length regulation” and “if you disagree with the legislation and infrastructure leading to the current set of regulations, what changes would you make, what would they cost, and how would you pay for them”?
But it is so much easier to pretend that you can lump billions of extra regulatory costs on water companies and only their shareholders will feel any pain.
Whenever I see/hear/read about the water companies, I get a metal image of Damien Green saying "When I were a kid, we used to swim in shit all the time! People's expectations have changed!"
Or somesuch.
Thing is, he's right.
The surprising thing is, he's surprised...
When I was a kid we had a Council run swimming pool within walking distance which was very cheap and kept us entertained, exercised and happy at a very modest price for a couple of hours whilst our parents had a break. Don't know if it's my memory which is faulty, or I'm an idiot, or the whole Tory Party is just one fucking huge gas lamp or what. My me
The takeover of leisure centres by franchise firms, and the consequent price increases and inability to actually just turn up and go for a swim, is a scandal that needs more attention given to it.
Trouble in paradise between the owner, who is doing his own thing, and the figurehead Leader who would like ot be more substantial than he is?
Think Nige may be orchestrating a split between him and REFORM because he's hoping to rejoin the Tories and become CON leader after the next election?
It’s a crap shoot as to which MPs constitute the majority of the parliamentary party afterward isn’t it? Didn’t I see some analysis that the largest majorities actually tend not to be rabid right wingers?
Farage will never lead the Tories (or be a Tory MP) - After the coming drubbing there will be a desire within the party to move on from this whole 2010-2024 period.
Whatevers left of the Tory Party after 4th July they'll be looking for a fresh face and some new ideas, IMO.
Voters who don’t think someone should lose their job for appearing on a podcast of someone whom others find objectionable. They give a sh!t.
Jess Philips, the queen of cancel culture, and a great example of the attitude a Labour government will have towards freedom of speech.
It seems pretty reasonable to me that Jess Phillips should have strong opinions about a senior politician who hangs out with someone who has repeatedly talked about raping her.
From the quote in the latter, it appears that the gentleman in question was talking about not raping her.
I'll quote the double down.
“There’s been an awful lot of talk about whether I would or wouldn’t rape Jess Phillips. I suppose with enough pressure I might cave, but let’s be honest nobody’s got that much beer.”
And really if anyone's going to be talking about attractiveness, it's not like Carl Benjamin is an Adonis.
It’s a joke, not a rape threat. That was my point. Perhaps in poor taste, but a joke nonetheless.
Truss is out to get Reform supporters voting Conservitive in the “Red Wall” seats, so why wouldn’t she appear on a podcast with 400k Youtube subscribers? It’s only the left who have this obsession with “sharing a platform”.
By all means Truss is free to share a platform with various alt-right figures who joke about raping MPs.
And we are free to form an opinion of what kind of person that makes her.
The quotes where from 2018, and as I said above, 2018 “Sargon of Akkad” is a very different person from 2022 Carl Benjamin, who’s no more controversial today than GB News, and has 400k followers on Youtube.
Should people not be allowed to be rehabilitated into society?
From Wikipedia: “In February 2020, Benjamin launched the group Hearts of Oak with British far-right activist Tommy Robinson”.
Here he is a few months ago at a Hearts of Oak event with another conspiracy theorist, Andrew Bridgen: https://youtu.be/SsRayGgi_4Y
Why, Sandpit, are you watching the output of far right conspiracy theorists?
I listen to his videos sometimes, usually at double speed because he takes forever to get to his point. That's why I know that Carl now is the same guy as Carl in 2019. I listen to The Quartering and Knights Watch too but mainly for unintended entertainment.
Why? Do you agree with Tommy Robinson and Andrew Bridgen as well?
No but I don't think that jamming my fingers into my ears helps my understanding of the world. Speaking of Bridgen, there is a funny one on Bridgen and his list of 'world experts' https://youtu.be/U1mHK7gBryM
You yourself said that “180 hours of video is uploaded to YouTube every minute.” But you have gone out of your way to listen to his videos. That’s not not jamming your fingers in your ears.
Unless you are specifically doing a study of far right social media figures, I do not understand what you get out of listening to far right conspiracy theorists.
If you want to understand why people think a certain way, it helps to understand them, don't you think?
Yes, it does. I have found, personally, that it doesn’t take very long to get the measure of far right conspiracy theorists, and they’re all much of a muchness. I’ve also found that you don’t need to wade through the sewage they spew to understand them: you can read the analysis of those who have done that previously. It’s quicker and less unpleasant.
I have, however, for the purposes of research on this topic, just listened to a very recent 11-minute video by Carl Benjamin on Twitter where he outlines his political agenda. It’s full of talk of people of “foreign stock”, and the value of “traditional roles” for men and women. He explains how, “An evil will has taken control of the educational system”. His Twitter feed also had lots of retweets of Tommy Robinson as they’re at an event in London together in a few days time. It all confirms to me that he is a far right conspiracy theorist.
So, you did indeed benefit from watching it, as you are now rather better informed. (Of his views, obviously.)
I'm glad we've cleared that up.
I've never heard of him.
I dislike the phrase conspiracy theorist. It's for dullards. Conspiracies happen sometimes. One assumes people who like to call other people conspiracy theorist don't actually deny the notion of conspiracy itself. Therefore 'conspiracy theorist' as a value judgement makes no sense. It's like insulting someone by calling them 'a person who thinks it's another person's birthday'. A birthday believer. Or a person who thinks it's Friday. A friday freak. Sometimes it is Friday. Sometimes it's someone else's birthday.
Indeed the covid lab leak theory was initially denounced as a conspiracy theory.
Not just that. The lab leak hypothesis was a “racist conspiracy theory” and the scientific powers-that-be managed to silence it for a year on TwiX and Facebook. You literally weren’t allowed to talk about it, like we were all Galileo trying to push heliocentrism
Does anyone nowadays not think it came from the lab?
Otherwise no. No one on earth now believes it came from the market. That includes the US government (democrats as well as republicans) who are now firmly gunning for Ecohealth and Peter Daszak who likely made the virus in the Wuhan lab with US money
I believe it came from the market.
It just probably came from the lab to the market. Perhaps some janitor on 50cents an hour grabbed some bats to sell at the wet market.
Or perhaps it was another animal in a container on the plane next to a bat that was being sent to Wuhan. The bat went to the Wuhan institute of virology, while the armadillo (or whatever) ended up at the wet market.
Or perhaps a lab worker got bit by a bat, developed a snuffle, and then did his evening's shopping at the market.
The idea that the two theories are mutually incompatible exists only in the mind of the mentally subnormal.
The market is a 40 minute drive and on the other side of a major river to the lab. Why did this janitor go all the way there, without transmitting the disease to anyone else along the way or to anyone else subsequently?
Generally samples were taken to the lab, not live animals. They weren't transported along side animals for the wet market. Armadillos are an American group: you're thinking of pangolins.
If the bat was being sent to the WIV and infected a pangolin, or whatever, then that's not a lab leak. That's a zoonotic event from a wild animal, as most scientists understand to be the cause of the pandemic.
All of your other scenarios add complications and coincidences. Occam's razor suggests they all fail against the simple theory of zoonosis via the market.
"If the bat was being sent to the WIV and infected a pangolin, or whatever, then that's not a lab leak. That's a zoonotic event from a wild animal, as most scientists understand to be the cause of the pandemic."
Here's why I hate the phrase "lab leak". Some will read it as "they were experimenting with gain of function viruses and one got loose", when that is only one of a gazillion ways that a virus can escape as a result of bat virus research.
I learn a lot from PB.
Turns out I can read loads of posts about the origins of covid-19 on here and learn precisely nothing.
(Not a dig at you in any way Robert, I just find the back and forth so amusingly opaque.)
Thanks, I did see that and appreciate the reposting. I've put it on a list to read.
However, the article falls into the category of low-quality info for me because: (a) it has come to me via two posters who are on one side of a debate and so may be being selective in what they post, (b) I've no idea who astral codex ten is/are and what if any skin they have in the game and (c) I don't spend enough time on substack to be able to discern what if any quality control exists for this article.
Ho hum. Still, thanks for making the effort!
The arguments for and against the lab leak theory are in the debate itself. This article summarises the arguments so we don't have to watch the full thirty plus hours. The question is whether the summary is accurate. It is certainly detailed.
Ultimately we have to make up our own minds based on the evidence. The issue with the way it's discussed on PB is that we don't agree on what the evidence is, let alone the interpretation of it. The usefulness of the rootclaim debate is that it collates the evidence that people informed on the subject think is important. I am doubtful about the Bayesian rationales.
The problem with this trap (and every presumptive Government gets caught in it) is that as soon as you say “I won’t raise tax X” you get asked “what about tax Y”? Go far enough down the alphabet and, not wanting to box yourself in, you demur. And then that’s the one the opposition come at you with. But you’re going to be the Government so you have to be responsible and you can’t rule them all out.
No idea what the answer is, every presumptive Government in my lifetime has been caught this way. Just like every Tory opposition gets caught with “what would you cut”?
I think that’s actually an easy No increase.
Because Labour are likely to lower the threshold at which you start having to charge VAT to say £40,000 while potentially lowering the rate by a percentage or 2.
Small sole traders worrying about VAT? Ouch.
Tax goes digital in 2026 - so a year for people to prep and the flat rate scheme does make it incredibly simple and relatively profitably compared to the standard keep complete records.
Under the Tories, water firms will be allowed to pump MORE sewage into the water. Per the Telegraph.
Proposals by the regulator, not the Tories.
Ofwat is a child of "Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs". So yes, it is the Tories who are ultimately responsible.
It would be more correct to say it is the government who are responsible. Whoever is in power after the next election will have to decide whether to go ahead with them or not. Are there reports on whether either party agree with the proposal?
If we were a grown up country with grown up debate the questions would also be “do you believe in independent arms length regulation” and “if you disagree with the legislation and infrastructure leading to the current set of regulations, what changes would you make, what would they cost, and how would you pay for them”?
But it is so much easier to pretend that you can lump billions of extra regulatory costs on water companies and only their shareholders will feel any pain.
Whenever I see/hear/read about the water companies, I get a metal image of Damien Green saying "When I were a kid, we used to swim in shit all the time! People's expectations have changed!"
Or somesuch.
Thing is, he's right.
The surprising thing is, he's surprised...
When I was a kid we had a Council run swimming pool within walking distance which was very cheap and kept us entertained, exercised and happy at a very modest price for a couple of hours whilst our parents had a break. Don't know if it's my memory which is faulty, or I'm an idiot, or the whole Tory Party is just one fucking huge gas lamp or what. My me
The takeover of leisure centres by franchise firms, and the consequent price increases and inability to actually just turn up and go for a swim, is a scandal that needs more attention given to it.
🚨 A NEW word-cloud from @RedfieldWilton shows that many voters aren't sure which policies they most associate with the Labour leader, although others mention "Improving the NHS" and "Housebuilding".
Trouble in paradise between the owner, who is doing his own thing, and the figurehead Leader who would like ot be more substantial than he is?
Think Nige may be orchestrating a split between him and REFORM because he's hoping to rejoin the Tories and become CON leader after the next election?
It’s a crap shoot as to which MPs constitute the majority of the parliamentary party afterward isn’t it? Didn’t I see some analysis that the largest majorities actually tend not to be rabid right wingers?
Farage will never lead the Tories (or be a Tory MP) - After the coming drubbing there will be a desire within the party to move on from this whole 2010-2024 period.
Whatevers left of the Tory Party after 4th July they'll be looking for a fresh face and some new ideas, IMO.
I agree on the fresh face, but I think they'll retreat into a comforting state of thinking the same thing but done better would have worked. It was all that nasty Rishi's fault (not that he's blameless, but they've got deeper problems).
If they actually do some soul searching and come to a consistent and coherent view, whether it is more centrism or a harder push to the right or whatever, I shall be surprised.
Trouble in paradise between the owner, who is doing his own thing, and the figurehead Leader who would like ot be more substantial than he is?
Think Nige may be orchestrating a split between him and REFORM because he's hoping to rejoin the Tories and become CON leader after the next election?
It’s a crap shoot as to which MPs constitute the majority of the parliamentary party afterward isn’t it? Didn’t I see some analysis that the largest majorities actually tend not to be rabid right wingers?
Farage will never lead the Tories (or be a Tory MP) - After the coming drubbing there will be a desire within the party to move on from this whole 2010-2024 period.
Whatevers left of the Tory Party after 4th July they'll be looking for a fresh face and some new ideas, IMO.
I agree on the fresh face, but I think they'll retreat into a comforting state of thinking the same thing but done better would have worked. It was all that nasty Rishi's fault (not that he's blameless, but they've got deeper problems).
If they actually do some soul searching and come to a consistent and coherent view, whether it is more centrism or a harder push to the right or whatever, I shall be surprised.
I think they’ll be out for a decade. They’ll go extreme right.
🚨 A NEW word-cloud from @RedfieldWilton shows that many voters aren't sure which policies they most associate with the Labour leader, although others mention "Improving the NHS" and "Housebuilding".
Andrew Neil: Why is it right to wear a Maoist t-shirt, but obviously wrong, because it is, to wear a Hitler t-shirt?
Diane Abbott: I suppose that some people would judge that on balance Mao did more good than harm...
That caused a big stir years ago. Diana's a crazy old leftie and shouldn't be anywhere near power, I think everyone can agree on that.
But that doesn't mean she shouldn't be an MP because she DOES represent a strand of opinion within the public and she is, by all accounts, quite a good constituency MP.
I'm quite content with certain strands of opinion not being represented in Parliament. That's why we have elections afterall, if your strand isn't popular enough, then tough luck, do better at the next election.
Goodness. A direct line to the CCHQ manifesto launch! A PB exclusive!
I'm doing a little 'guess the seat totals' for some work colleagues and providing a spreadsheet for them to fill in. I've had to explain to most that Northern Ireland exists. I've had to explain to a few that Scotland and Wales also exist.
Do we expect Alba to win any seats at all? I can't see it, but can't be sure?
My form has Con, Lab, LD, Green (all three UK parties as one), Reform, SNP, Plaid, DUP, UUP, SDLP, Sinn Fein and Alliance (and speaker autocompleted). Could any other party realistically get a seat?
Trouble in paradise between the owner, who is doing his own thing, and the figurehead Leader who would like ot be more substantial than he is?
Think Nige may be orchestrating a split between him and REFORM because he's hoping to rejoin the Tories and become CON leader after the next election?
It’s a crap shoot as to which MPs constitute the majority of the parliamentary party afterward isn’t it? Didn’t I see some analysis that the largest majorities actually tend not to be rabid right wingers?
Farage will never lead the Tories (or be a Tory MP) - After the coming drubbing there will be a desire within the party to move on from this whole 2010-2024 period.
Whatevers left of the Tory Party after 4th July they'll be looking for a fresh face and some new ideas, IMO.
I agree on the fresh face, but I think they'll retreat into a comforting state of thinking the same thing but done better would have worked. It was all that nasty Rishi's fault (not that he's blameless, but they've got deeper problems).
If they actually do some soul searching and come to a consistent and coherent view, whether it is more centrism or a harder push to the right or whatever, I shall be surprised.
There's an element of truth that the same thing but done better would have worked.
For Truss especially her intentions were good but her implementation was absolutely bloody awful. Same intentions but competently implemented would be a vast improvement.
The problem with Sunak is I don't respect either his intentions or his implementation.
I'm doing a little 'guess the seat totals' for some work colleagues and providing a spreadsheet for them to fill in. I've had to explain to most that Northern Ireland exists. I've had to explain to a few that Scotland and Wales also exist.
Do we expect Alba to win any seats at all? I can't see it, but can't be sure?
My form has Con, Lab, LD, Green (all three UK parties as one), Reform, SNP, Plaid, DUP, UUP, SDLP, Sinn Fein and Alliance (and speaker autocompleted). Could any other party realistically get a seat?
If you're talking about realistically getting seats, why is Reform on the list?
I'm doing a little 'guess the seat totals' for some work colleagues and providing a spreadsheet for them to fill in. I've had to explain to most that Northern Ireland exists. I've had to explain to a few that Scotland and Wales also exist.
Do we expect Alba to win any seats at all? I can't see it, but can't be sure?
My form has Con, Lab, LD, Green (all three UK parties as one), Reform, SNP, Plaid, DUP, UUP, SDLP, Sinn Fein and Alliance (and speaker autocompleted). Could any other party realistically get a seat?
I'm doing a little 'guess the seat totals' for some work colleagues and providing a spreadsheet for them to fill in. I've had to explain to most that Northern Ireland exists. I've had to explain to a few that Scotland and Wales also exist.
Do we expect Alba to win any seats at all? I can't see it, but can't be sure?
My form has Con, Lab, LD, Green (all three UK parties as one), Reform, SNP, Plaid, DUP, UUP, SDLP, Sinn Fein and Alliance (and speaker autocompleted). Could any other party realistically get a seat?
I suspect OFSTED might pick you up for lack of differentiation. Why not just run an overall majority sweep?
Trouble in paradise between the owner, who is doing his own thing, and the figurehead Leader who would like ot be more substantial than he is?
Think Nige may be orchestrating a split between him and REFORM because he's hoping to rejoin the Tories and become CON leader after the next election?
It’s a crap shoot as to which MPs constitute the majority of the parliamentary party afterward isn’t it? Didn’t I see some analysis that the largest majorities actually tend not to be rabid right wingers?
Farage will never lead the Tories (or be a Tory MP) - After the coming drubbing there will be a desire within the party to move on from this whole 2010-2024 period.
Whatevers left of the Tory Party after 4th July they'll be looking for a fresh face and some new ideas, IMO.
I agree on the fresh face, but I think they'll retreat into a comforting state of thinking the same thing but done better would have worked. It was all that nasty Rishi's fault (not that he's blameless, but they've got deeper problems).
If they actually do some soul searching and come to a consistent and coherent view, whether it is more centrism or a harder push to the right or whatever, I shall be surprised.
I think they’ll be out for a decade. They’ll go extreme right.
In think they’ll go “Boris on steroids”, which some would call right wing (I think it’s more some sort of weird socially liberal nationalist) BUT they won’t be out for a decade.
The “revolution” vote that under-wrote Brexit still hasn’t been answered and those feelings are still there.
Amazing. If they could do the same for pure-bred dogs and race-horses that'd be very welcome amongst the poor. Maybe something similar for Gucci handbags and BMW's.
I'm doing a little 'guess the seat totals' for some work colleagues and providing a spreadsheet for them to fill in. I've had to explain to most that Northern Ireland exists. I've had to explain to a few that Scotland and Wales also exist.
Do we expect Alba to win any seats at all? I can't see it, but can't be sure?
My form has Con, Lab, LD, Green (all three UK parties as one), Reform, SNP, Plaid, DUP, UUP, SDLP, Sinn Fein and Alliance (and speaker autocompleted). Could any other party realistically get a seat?
I'm doing a little 'guess the seat totals' for some work colleagues and providing a spreadsheet for them to fill in. I've had to explain to most that Northern Ireland exists. I've had to explain to a few that Scotland and Wales also exist.
Do we expect Alba to win any seats at all? I can't see it, but can't be sure?
My form has Con, Lab, LD, Green (all three UK parties as one), Reform, SNP, Plaid, DUP, UUP, SDLP, Sinn Fein and Alliance (and speaker autocompleted). Could any other party realistically get a seat?
Andrew Neil: Why is it right to wear a Maoist t-shirt, but obviously wrong, because it is, to wear a Hitler t-shirt?
Diane Abbott: I suppose that some people would judge that on balance Mao did more good than harm...
That caused a big stir years ago. Diana's a crazy old leftie and shouldn't be anywhere near power, I think everyone can agree on that.
But that doesn't mean she shouldn't be an MP because she DOES represent a strand of opinion within the public and she is, by all accounts, quite a good constituency MP.
I'm quite content with certain strands of opinion not being represented in Parliament. That's why we have elections after all, if your strand isn't popular enough, then tough luck, do better at the next election.
I get the theory, but I don't think it really works the way described anyway.
I mean, the major parties are all coalitions, of sorts, with a wide array of opinions. Most of the time people don't know, certainly for the first time, where their MP might fall within an internal faction. Even if they do that's no guarantee of where they will be in future, it depends on how loyalist they are, how they react to events and so on.
Then even if you have that it is not as though parties at a national level are micromanaging every single selection (not until Keir gets his way anyway), they don't guarantee who is in every seat, and like the public they won't know whether someone is far left or far right for sure. They will have some indicators based on their pasts, but that's it. That's how the O'Maras of the world get in. Then they don't know who might get elected after all that.
So how on earth is a party even meant to 'represent a strand of opinion' for the public, even if they want to offer in essence a minority report version of their main offering in a certain location?
I think most people would generally agree too much centralised party control is probably bad in the long run, and the party machines are pretty powerful as it is. But I don't see how it follows that they have an obligation to select opponents of the leadership in order to keep a broad array of views - there are probably hard left wingers who are less of a stone in the shoe. Of course, local parties are usually the ones who get to decide, so the circumstances in which the national party get involved is a separate matter entirely.
This Abbott case may be harsh on her, and it may be a sign the leadership is overly controlling, both seem fair enough views. But the public have not been let down one way or another by it I think - we don't usually know what strand of opinion we're getting from within a party, and whilst parties are broad churches, the very point of them is to give us a broad indication of the range of views, and if one is a bit too narrow, the idea is others fill the gap.
Trouble in paradise between the owner, who is doing his own thing, and the figurehead Leader who would like ot be more substantial than he is?
Think Nige may be orchestrating a split between him and REFORM because he's hoping to rejoin the Tories and become CON leader after the next election?
It’s a crap shoot as to which MPs constitute the majority of the parliamentary party afterward isn’t it? Didn’t I see some analysis that the largest majorities actually tend not to be rabid right wingers?
Farage will never lead the Tories (or be a Tory MP) - After the coming drubbing there will be a desire within the party to move on from this whole 2010-2024 period.
Whatevers left of the Tory Party after 4th July they'll be looking for a fresh face and some new ideas, IMO.
I agree on the fresh face, but I think they'll retreat into a comforting state of thinking the same thing but done better would have worked. It was all that nasty Rishi's fault (not that he's blameless, but they've got deeper problems).
If they actually do some soul searching and come to a consistent and coherent view, whether it is more centrism or a harder push to the right or whatever, I shall be surprised.
I think they’ll be out for a decade. They’ll go extreme right.
In think they’ll go “Boris on steroids”, which some would call right wing (I think it’s more some sort of weird socially liberal nationalist) BUT they won’t be out for a decade.
The “revolution” vote that under-wrote Brexit still hasn’t been answered and those feelings are still there.
It's a possibility. There's also the possibility that that revolution dies off through natural wastage. That it was a last gasp death rattle of the old order. Am genuinely unsure where we are headed.
It’s not that great, however politicians don’t have the capacity to vet everyone they meet on the campaign trail. This is something that could happen to anyone in any party it just tends to cause more problems for parties that are waning.
Trouble in paradise between the owner, who is doing his own thing, and the figurehead Leader who would like ot be more substantial than he is?
Think Nige may be orchestrating a split between him and REFORM because he's hoping to rejoin the Tories and become CON leader after the next election?
It’s a crap shoot as to which MPs constitute the majority of the parliamentary party afterward isn’t it? Didn’t I see some analysis that the largest majorities actually tend not to be rabid right wingers?
Farage will never lead the Tories (or be a Tory MP) - After the coming drubbing there will be a desire within the party to move on from this whole 2010-2024 period.
Whatevers left of the Tory Party after 4th July they'll be looking for a fresh face and some new ideas, IMO.
I agree on the fresh face, but I think they'll retreat into a comforting state of thinking the same thing but done better would have worked. It was all that nasty Rishi's fault (not that he's blameless, but they've got deeper problems).
If they actually do some soul searching and come to a consistent and coherent view, whether it is more centrism or a harder push to the right or whatever, I shall be surprised.
I think they’ll be out for a decade. They’ll go extreme right.
In think they’ll go “Boris on steroids”, which some would call right wing (I think it’s more some sort of weird socially liberal nationalist) BUT they won’t be out for a decade.
The “revolution” vote that under-wrote Brexit still hasn’t been answered and those feelings are still there.
It's a possibility. There's also the possibility that that revolution dies off through natural wastage. That it was a last gasp death rattle of the old order. Am genuinely unsure where we are headed.
There's also the possibility that Brexit is done and Brexit voters have moved on to other concerns now.
Andrew Neil: Why is it right to wear a Maoist t-shirt, but obviously wrong, because it is, to wear a Hitler t-shirt?
Diane Abbott: I suppose that some people would judge that on balance Mao did more good than harm...
That caused a big stir years ago. Diana's a crazy old leftie and shouldn't be anywhere near power, I think everyone can agree on that.
But that doesn't mean she shouldn't be an MP because she DOES represent a strand of opinion within the public and she is, by all accounts, quite a good constituency MP.
I'm quite content with certain strands of opinion not being represented in Parliament. That's why we have elections afterall, if your strand isn't popular enough, then tough luck, do better at the next election.
Though Abbott's strand has been popular enough to be elected, comfortably, in her constituency for 37 years.
Under the Tories, water firms will be allowed to pump MORE sewage into the water. Per the Telegraph.
Proposals by the regulator, not the Tories.
Ofwat is a child of "Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs". So yes, it is the Tories who are ultimately responsible.
It would be more correct to say it is the government who are responsible. Whoever is in power after the next election will have to decide whether to go ahead with them or not. Are there reports on whether either party agree with the proposal?
If we were a grown up country with grown up debate the questions would also be “do you believe in independent arms length regulation” and “if you disagree with the legislation and infrastructure leading to the current set of regulations, what changes would you make, what would they cost, and how would you pay for them”?
But it is so much easier to pretend that you can lump billions of extra regulatory costs on water companies and only their shareholders will feel any pain.
Whenever I see/hear/read about the water companies, I get a metal image of Damien Green saying "When I were a kid, we used to swim in shit all the time! People's expectations have changed!"
Or somesuch.
Thing is, he's right.
The surprising thing is, he's surprised...
When I was a kid we had a Council run swimming pool within walking distance which was very cheap and kept us entertained, exercised and happy at a very modest price for a couple of hours whilst our parents had a break. Don't know if it's my memory which is faulty, or I'm an idiot, or the whole Tory Party is just one fucking huge gas lamp or what. My me
The takeover of leisure centres by franchise firms, and the consequent price increases and inability to actually just turn up and go for a swim, is a scandal that needs more attention given to it.
Until councils have money for things besides adult social care and SEND, people will be fortunate if they manage to retain their council leisure centres at all.
Voters who don’t think someone should lose their job for appearing on a podcast of someone whom others find objectionable. They give a sh!t.
Jess Philips, the queen of cancel culture, and a great example of the attitude a Labour government will have towards freedom of speech.
It seems pretty reasonable to me that Jess Phillips should have strong opinions about a senior politician who hangs out with someone who has repeatedly talked about raping her.
From the quote in the latter, it appears that the gentleman in question was talking about not raping her.
I'll quote the double down.
“There’s been an awful lot of talk about whether I would or wouldn’t rape Jess Phillips. I suppose with enough pressure I might cave, but let’s be honest nobody’s got that much beer.”
And really if anyone's going to be talking about attractiveness, it's not like Carl Benjamin is an Adonis.
It’s a joke, not a rape threat. That was my point. Perhaps in poor taste, but a joke nonetheless.
Truss is out to get Reform supporters voting Conservitive in the “Red Wall” seats, so why wouldn’t she appear on a podcast with 400k Youtube subscribers? It’s only the left who have this obsession with “sharing a platform”.
By all means Truss is free to share a platform with various alt-right figures who joke about raping MPs.
And we are free to form an opinion of what kind of person that makes her.
The quotes where from 2018, and as I said above, 2018 “Sargon of Akkad” is a very different person from 2022 Carl Benjamin, who’s no more controversial today than GB News, and has 400k followers on Youtube.
Should people not be allowed to be rehabilitated into society?
From Wikipedia: “In February 2020, Benjamin launched the group Hearts of Oak with British far-right activist Tommy Robinson”.
Here he is a few months ago at a Hearts of Oak event with another conspiracy theorist, Andrew Bridgen: https://youtu.be/SsRayGgi_4Y
Why, Sandpit, are you watching the output of far right conspiracy theorists?
I listen to his videos sometimes, usually at double speed because he takes forever to get to his point. That's why I know that Carl now is the same guy as Carl in 2019. I listen to The Quartering and Knights Watch too but mainly for unintended entertainment.
Why? Do you agree with Tommy Robinson and Andrew Bridgen as well?
No but I don't think that jamming my fingers into my ears helps my understanding of the world. Speaking of Bridgen, there is a funny one on Bridgen and his list of 'world experts' https://youtu.be/U1mHK7gBryM
You yourself said that “180 hours of video is uploaded to YouTube every minute.” But you have gone out of your way to listen to his videos. That’s not not jamming your fingers in your ears.
Unless you are specifically doing a study of far right social media figures, I do not understand what you get out of listening to far right conspiracy theorists.
If you want to understand why people think a certain way, it helps to understand them, don't you think?
Yes, it does. I have found, personally, that it doesn’t take very long to get the measure of far right conspiracy theorists, and they’re all much of a muchness. I’ve also found that you don’t need to wade through the sewage they spew to understand them: you can read the analysis of those who have done that previously. It’s quicker and less unpleasant.
I have, however, for the purposes of research on this topic, just listened to a very recent 11-minute video by Carl Benjamin on Twitter where he outlines his political agenda. It’s full of talk of people of “foreign stock”, and the value of “traditional roles” for men and women. He explains how, “An evil will has taken control of the educational system”. His Twitter feed also had lots of retweets of Tommy Robinson as they’re at an event in London together in a few days time. It all confirms to me that he is a far right conspiracy theorist.
So, you did indeed benefit from watching it, as you are now rather better informed. (Of his views, obviously.)
I'm glad we've cleared that up.
I've never heard of him.
I dislike the phrase conspiracy theorist. It's for dullards. Conspiracies happen sometimes. One assumes people who like to call other people conspiracy theorist don't actually deny the notion of conspiracy itself. Therefore 'conspiracy theorist' as a value judgement makes no sense. It's like insulting someone by calling them 'a person who thinks it's another person's birthday'. A birthday believer. Or a person who thinks it's Friday. A friday freak. Sometimes it is Friday. Sometimes it's someone else's birthday.
Indeed the covid lab leak theory was initially denounced as a conspiracy theory.
Not just that. The lab leak hypothesis was a “racist conspiracy theory” and the scientific powers-that-be managed to silence it for a year on TwiX and Facebook. You literally weren’t allowed to talk about it, like we were all Galileo trying to push heliocentrism
Does anyone nowadays not think it came from the lab?
Otherwise no. No one on earth now believes it came from the market. That includes the US government (democrats as well as republicans) who are now firmly gunning for Ecohealth and Peter Daszak who likely made the virus in the Wuhan lab with US money
I believe it came from the market.
It just probably came from the lab to the market. Perhaps some janitor on 50cents an hour grabbed some bats to sell at the wet market.
Or perhaps it was another animal in a container on the plane next to a bat that was being sent to Wuhan. The bat went to the Wuhan institute of virology, while the armadillo (or whatever) ended up at the wet market.
Or perhaps a lab worker got bit by a bat, developed a snuffle, and then did his evening's shopping at the market.
The idea that the two theories are mutually incompatible exists only in the mind of the mentally subnormal.
The market is a 40 minute drive and on the other side of a major river to the lab. Why did this janitor go all the way there, without transmitting the disease to anyone else along the way or to anyone else subsequently?
Generally samples were taken to the lab, not live animals. They weren't transported along side animals for the wet market. Armadillos are an American group: you're thinking of pangolins.
If the bat was being sent to the WIV and infected a pangolin, or whatever, then that's not a lab leak. That's a zoonotic event from a wild animal, as most scientists understand to be the cause of the pandemic.
All of your other scenarios add complications and coincidences. Occam's razor suggests they all fail against the simple theory of zoonosis via the market.
"If the bat was being sent to the WIV and infected a pangolin, or whatever, then that's not a lab leak. That's a zoonotic event from a wild animal, as most scientists understand to be the cause of the pandemic."
Here's why I hate the phrase "lab leak". Some will read it as "they were experimenting with gain of function viruses and one got loose", when that is only one of a gazillion ways that a virus can escape as a result of bat virus research.
I learn a lot from PB.
Turns out I can read loads of posts about the origins of covid-19 on here and learn precisely nothing.
(Not a dig at you in any way Robert, I just find the back and forth so amusingly opaque.)
Thanks, I did see that and appreciate the reposting. I've put it on a list to read.
However, the article falls into the category of low-quality info for me because: (a) it has come to me via two posters who are on one side of a debate and so may be being selective in what they post, (b) I've no idea who astral codex ten is/are and what if any skin they have in the game and (c) I don't spend enough time on substack to be able to discern what if any quality control exists for this article.
Ho hum. Still, thanks for making the effort!
The arguments for and against the lab leak theory are in the debate itself. This article summarises the arguments so we don't have to watch the full thirty plus hours. The question is whether the summary is accurate. It is certainly detailed.
Ultimately we have to make up our own minds based on the evidence. The issue with the way it's discussed on PB is that we don't agree on what the evidence is, let alone the interpretation of it. The usefulness of the rootclaim debate is that it collates the evidence that people informed on the subject think is important. I am doubtful about the Bayesian rationales.
The "Bayesian" stuff is people making up numbers and saying that's their prior, and the prior fits their conclusions pretty neatly. It can't be taken seriously. I can't think of a field of knowledge where Bayesian reasoning plays a big role.
Andrew Neil: Why is it right to wear a Maoist t-shirt, but obviously wrong, because it is, to wear a Hitler t-shirt?
Diane Abbott: I suppose that some people would judge that on balance Mao did more good than harm...
That caused a big stir years ago. Diana's a crazy old leftie and shouldn't be anywhere near power, I think everyone can agree on that.
But that doesn't mean she shouldn't be an MP because she DOES represent a strand of opinion within the public and she is, by all accounts, quite a good constituency MP.
I'm quite content with certain strands of opinion not being represented in Parliament. That's why we have elections afterall, if your strand isn't popular enough, then tough luck, do better at the next election.
Though Abbott's strand has been popular enough to be elected, comfortably, in her constituency for 37 years.
And if she wants to stand as an independent and test the theory that its her that's popular and not the party she represents, she has every right to do so.
Trouble in paradise between the owner, who is doing his own thing, and the figurehead Leader who would like ot be more substantial than he is?
Think Nige may be orchestrating a split between him and REFORM because he's hoping to rejoin the Tories and become CON leader after the next election?
It’s a crap shoot as to which MPs constitute the majority of the parliamentary party afterward isn’t it? Didn’t I see some analysis that the largest majorities actually tend not to be rabid right wingers?
Farage will never lead the Tories (or be a Tory MP) - After the coming drubbing there will be a desire within the party to move on from this whole 2010-2024 period.
Whatevers left of the Tory Party after 4th July they'll be looking for a fresh face and some new ideas, IMO.
I agree on the fresh face, but I think they'll retreat into a comforting state of thinking the same thing but done better would have worked. It was all that nasty Rishi's fault (not that he's blameless, but they've got deeper problems).
If they actually do some soul searching and come to a consistent and coherent view, whether it is more centrism or a harder push to the right or whatever, I shall be surprised.
I think they’ll be out for a decade. They’ll go extreme right.
In think they’ll go “Boris on steroids”, which some would call right wing (I think it’s more some sort of weird socially liberal nationalist) BUT they won’t be out for a decade.
The “revolution” vote that under-wrote Brexit still hasn’t been answered and those feelings are still there.
It's a possibility. There's also the possibility that that revolution dies off through natural wastage. That it was a last gasp death rattle of the old order. Am genuinely unsure where we are headed.
There's also the possibility that Brexit is done and Brexit voters have moved on to other concerns now.
I didn’t say Brexit: I said the underlying worries and concerned. They voted for Brexit because they thought it would help, but all those “unfairness” frustrations remain.
Trouble in paradise between the owner, who is doing his own thing, and the figurehead Leader who would like ot be more substantial than he is?
Think Nige may be orchestrating a split between him and REFORM because he's hoping to rejoin the Tories and become CON leader after the next election?
It’s a crap shoot as to which MPs constitute the majority of the parliamentary party afterward isn’t it? Didn’t I see some analysis that the largest majorities actually tend not to be rabid right wingers?
Farage will never lead the Tories (or be a Tory MP) - After the coming drubbing there will be a desire within the party to move on from this whole 2010-2024 period.
Whatevers left of the Tory Party after 4th July they'll be looking for a fresh face and some new ideas, IMO.
I think that's right. See the Labour Party after 2019 - they didn't exactly double down on Corbynism. Same after 1987. The Tories will have a year or two soul-searching, though.
It’s not that great, however politicians don’t have the capacity to vet everyone they meet on the campaign trail. This is something that could happen to anyone in any party it just tends to cause more problems for parties that are waning.
The guy served his time and is under no obligation to introduce himself as an ex con and Gullis is not obliged to demand the history of everyone he meets. Non story.
Under the Tories, water firms will be allowed to pump MORE sewage into the water. Per the Telegraph.
Proposals by the regulator, not the Tories.
Ofwat is a child of "Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs". So yes, it is the Tories who are ultimately responsible.
It would be more correct to say it is the government who are responsible. Whoever is in power after the next election will have to decide whether to go ahead with them or not. Are there reports on whether either party agree with the proposal?
If we were a grown up country with grown up debate the questions would also be “do you believe in independent arms length regulation” and “if you disagree with the legislation and infrastructure leading to the current set of regulations, what changes would you make, what would they cost, and how would you pay for them”?
But it is so much easier to pretend that you can lump billions of extra regulatory costs on water companies and only their shareholders will feel any pain.
Whenever I see/hear/read about the water companies, I get a metal image of Damien Green saying "When I were a kid, we used to swim in shit all the time! People's expectations have changed!"
Or somesuch.
Thing is, he's right.
The surprising thing is, he's surprised...
When I was a kid we had a Council run swimming pool within walking distance which was very cheap and kept us entertained, exercised and happy at a very modest price for a couple of hours whilst our parents had a break. Don't know if it's my memory which is faulty, or I'm an idiot, or the whole Tory Party is just one fucking huge gas lamp or what. My me
The takeover of leisure centres by franchise firms, and the consequent price increases and inability to actually just turn up and go for a swim, is a scandal that needs more attention given to it.
Until councils have money for things besides adult social care and SEND, people will be fortunate if they manage to retain their council leisure centres at all.
I've said before if it were up to me then I would abolish Council Tax (and Stamp Duty and all other land-based taxes) and replace with a single centrally-levied Land Value Tax. Not locally controlled or levied at all.
However that could and should be twinned with Councils losing responsibility for financing anything that is nationally mandated. Like social care and SEND. Why should local councils be paying for nationally-mandated care and SEND needs rather than say the national Treasury via the Department for Health and Social Care, or the Department for Education?
Have the national government pay for everything nationally determined and have the local councils cut down to size and paying for genuinely local issues, like bin collection and other rubbish.
Under the Tories, water firms will be allowed to pump MORE sewage into the water. Per the Telegraph.
Proposals by the regulator, not the Tories.
Ofwat is a child of "Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs". So yes, it is the Tories who are ultimately responsible.
It would be more correct to say it is the government who are responsible. Whoever is in power after the next election will have to decide whether to go ahead with them or not. Are there reports on whether either party agree with the proposal?
If we were a grown up country with grown up debate the questions would also be “do you believe in independent arms length regulation” and “if you disagree with the legislation and infrastructure leading to the current set of regulations, what changes would you make, what would they cost, and how would you pay for them”?
But it is so much easier to pretend that you can lump billions of extra regulatory costs on water companies and only their shareholders will feel any pain.
Whenever I see/hear/read about the water companies, I get a metal image of Damien Green saying "When I were a kid, we used to swim in shit all the time! People's expectations have changed!"
Or somesuch.
Thing is, he's right.
The surprising thing is, he's surprised...
When I was a kid we had a Council run swimming pool within walking distance which was very cheap and kept us entertained, exercised and happy at a very modest price for a couple of hours whilst our parents had a break. Don't know if it's my memory which is faulty, or I'm an idiot, or the whole Tory Party is just one fucking huge gas lamp or what. My me
The takeover of leisure centres by franchise firms, and the consequent price increases and inability to actually just turn up and go for a swim, is a scandal that needs more attention given to it.
Until councils have money for things besides adult social care and SEND, people will be fortunate if they manage to retain their council leisure centres at all.
Under the Tories, water firms will be allowed to pump MORE sewage into the water. Per the Telegraph.
Proposals by the regulator, not the Tories.
Ofwat is a child of "Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs". So yes, it is the Tories who are ultimately responsible.
It would be more correct to say it is the government who are responsible. Whoever is in power after the next election will have to decide whether to go ahead with them or not. Are there reports on whether either party agree with the proposal?
If we were a grown up country with grown up debate the questions would also be “do you believe in independent arms length regulation” and “if you disagree with the legislation and infrastructure leading to the current set of regulations, what changes would you make, what would they cost, and how would you pay for them”?
But it is so much easier to pretend that you can lump billions of extra regulatory costs on water companies and only their shareholders will feel any pain.
Whenever I see/hear/read about the water companies, I get a metal image of Damien Green saying "When I were a kid, we used to swim in shit all the time! People's expectations have changed!"
Or somesuch.
Thing is, he's right.
The surprising thing is, he's surprised...
When I was a kid we had a Council run swimming pool within walking distance which was very cheap and kept us entertained, exercised and happy at a very modest price for a couple of hours whilst our parents had a break. Don't know if it's my memory which is faulty, or I'm an idiot, or the whole Tory Party is just one fucking huge gas lamp or what. My me
The takeover of leisure centres by franchise firms, and the consequent price increases and inability to actually just turn up and go for a swim, is a scandal that needs more attention given to it.
Until councils have money for things besides adult social care and SEND, people will be fortunate if they manage to retain their council leisure centres at all.
Separate argument, and I agree with it, but I also think that the current Leisure Centre model is broken and the contracting has (as is often the case in local government) been influenced by brown paper envelopes full of cash.
Andrew Neil: Why is it right to wear a Maoist t-shirt, but obviously wrong, because it is, to wear a Hitler t-shirt?
Diane Abbott: I suppose that some people would judge that on balance Mao did more good than harm...
That caused a big stir years ago. Diana's a crazy old leftie and shouldn't be anywhere near power, I think everyone can agree on that.
But that doesn't mean she shouldn't be an MP because she DOES represent a strand of opinion within the public and she is, by all accounts, quite a good constituency MP.
I'm quite content with certain strands of opinion not being represented in Parliament. That's why we have elections afterall, if your strand isn't popular enough, then tough luck, do better at the next election.
Though Abbott's strand has been popular enough to be elected, comfortably, in her constituency for 37 years.
Yet she would have stood down at some point and someone new selected, was the party obliged to represent that strand there still? If they pick a new candidate who is on the right of the party and, for sake of argument, that person gets just as much of the vote as Abbott, would that indicate the party was right to not offer her 'strand'?
Trouble in paradise between the owner, who is doing his own thing, and the figurehead Leader who would like ot be more substantial than he is?
Think Nige may be orchestrating a split between him and REFORM because he's hoping to rejoin the Tories and become CON leader after the next election?
It’s a crap shoot as to which MPs constitute the majority of the parliamentary party afterward isn’t it? Didn’t I see some analysis that the largest majorities actually tend not to be rabid right wingers?
Farage will never lead the Tories (or be a Tory MP) - After the coming drubbing there will be a desire within the party to move on from this whole 2010-2024 period.
Whatevers left of the Tory Party after 4th July they'll be looking for a fresh face and some new ideas, IMO.
I agree on the fresh face, but I think they'll retreat into a comforting state of thinking the same thing but done better would have worked. It was all that nasty Rishi's fault (not that he's blameless, but they've got deeper problems).
If they actually do some soul searching and come to a consistent and coherent view, whether it is more centrism or a harder push to the right or whatever, I shall be surprised.
I think they’ll be out for a decade. They’ll go extreme right.
In think they’ll go “Boris on steroids”, which some would call right wing (I think it’s more some sort of weird socially liberal nationalist) BUT they won’t be out for a decade.
The “revolution” vote that under-wrote Brexit still hasn’t been answered and those feelings are still there.
It's a possibility. There's also the possibility that that revolution dies off through natural wastage. That it was a last gasp death rattle of the old order. Am genuinely unsure where we are headed.
There's also the possibility that Brexit is done and Brexit voters have moved on to other concerns now.
I get that. I'm thinking more widely about the motivations behind it and a paradigm shift in attitudes.
Trouble in paradise between the owner, who is doing his own thing, and the figurehead Leader who would like ot be more substantial than he is?
Think Nige may be orchestrating a split between him and REFORM because he's hoping to rejoin the Tories and become CON leader after the next election?
It’s a crap shoot as to which MPs constitute the majority of the parliamentary party afterward isn’t it? Didn’t I see some analysis that the largest majorities actually tend not to be rabid right wingers?
Farage will never lead the Tories (or be a Tory MP) - After the coming drubbing there will be a desire within the party to move on from this whole 2010-2024 period.
Whatevers left of the Tory Party after 4th July they'll be looking for a fresh face and some new ideas, IMO.
I agree on the fresh face, but I think they'll retreat into a comforting state of thinking the same thing but done better would have worked. It was all that nasty Rishi's fault (not that he's blameless, but they've got deeper problems).
If they actually do some soul searching and come to a consistent and coherent view, whether it is more centrism or a harder push to the right or whatever, I shall be surprised.
I think they’ll be out for a decade. They’ll go extreme right.
In think they’ll go “Boris on steroids”, which some would call right wing (I think it’s more some sort of weird socially liberal nationalist) BUT they won’t be out for a decade.
The “revolution” vote that under-wrote Brexit still hasn’t been answered and those feelings are still there.
It's a possibility. There's also the possibility that that revolution dies off through natural wastage. That it was a last gasp death rattle of the old order. Am genuinely unsure where we are headed.
There's also the possibility that Brexit is done and Brexit voters have moved on to other concerns now.
I didn’t say Brexit: I said the underlying worries and concerned. They voted for Brexit because they thought it would help, but all those “unfairness” frustrations remain.
Do they?
People act like everyone who voted for Brexit was underserved and frustrated or angry but that's not really the case at all.
@Leon shared a poll here arguing that the whole country is frustrated with migration for instance, but the details of the poll said that migration was a concern bothering just 24% of people. Three quarters of the population don't care or didn't care enough to mention it when asked.
What frustrations exist? People's frustrations vary dramatically and vary by individual, but I don't see any actual evidence that the concerns of 2024 are the same as 2016. Cost of living and other things like that are far more likely to be an issue now, people have moved on already, even if @Scott_xP is still fighting the good fight.
Voters who don’t think someone should lose their job for appearing on a podcast of someone whom others find objectionable. They give a sh!t.
Jess Philips, the queen of cancel culture, and a great example of the attitude a Labour government will have towards freedom of speech.
It seems pretty reasonable to me that Jess Phillips should have strong opinions about a senior politician who hangs out with someone who has repeatedly talked about raping her.
From the quote in the latter, it appears that the gentleman in question was talking about not raping her.
I'll quote the double down.
“There’s been an awful lot of talk about whether I would or wouldn’t rape Jess Phillips. I suppose with enough pressure I might cave, but let’s be honest nobody’s got that much beer.”
And really if anyone's going to be talking about attractiveness, it's not like Carl Benjamin is an Adonis.
It’s a joke, not a rape threat. That was my point. Perhaps in poor taste, but a joke nonetheless.
Truss is out to get Reform supporters voting Conservitive in the “Red Wall” seats, so why wouldn’t she appear on a podcast with 400k Youtube subscribers? It’s only the left who have this obsession with “sharing a platform”.
By all means Truss is free to share a platform with various alt-right figures who joke about raping MPs.
And we are free to form an opinion of what kind of person that makes her.
The quotes where from 2018, and as I said above, 2018 “Sargon of Akkad” is a very different person from 2022 Carl Benjamin, who’s no more controversial today than GB News, and has 400k followers on Youtube.
Should people not be allowed to be rehabilitated into society?
From Wikipedia: “In February 2020, Benjamin launched the group Hearts of Oak with British far-right activist Tommy Robinson”.
Here he is a few months ago at a Hearts of Oak event with another conspiracy theorist, Andrew Bridgen: https://youtu.be/SsRayGgi_4Y
Why, Sandpit, are you watching the output of far right conspiracy theorists?
I listen to his videos sometimes, usually at double speed because he takes forever to get to his point. That's why I know that Carl now is the same guy as Carl in 2019. I listen to The Quartering and Knights Watch too but mainly for unintended entertainment.
Why? Do you agree with Tommy Robinson and Andrew Bridgen as well?
No but I don't think that jamming my fingers into my ears helps my understanding of the world. Speaking of Bridgen, there is a funny one on Bridgen and his list of 'world experts' https://youtu.be/U1mHK7gBryM
You yourself said that “180 hours of video is uploaded to YouTube every minute.” But you have gone out of your way to listen to his videos. That’s not not jamming your fingers in your ears.
Unless you are specifically doing a study of far right social media figures, I do not understand what you get out of listening to far right conspiracy theorists.
If you want to understand why people think a certain way, it helps to understand them, don't you think?
Yes, it does. I have found, personally, that it doesn’t take very long to get the measure of far right conspiracy theorists, and they’re all much of a muchness. I’ve also found that you don’t need to wade through the sewage they spew to understand them: you can read the analysis of those who have done that previously. It’s quicker and less unpleasant.
I have, however, for the purposes of research on this topic, just listened to a very recent 11-minute video by Carl Benjamin on Twitter where he outlines his political agenda. It’s full of talk of people of “foreign stock”, and the value of “traditional roles” for men and women. He explains how, “An evil will has taken control of the educational system”. His Twitter feed also had lots of retweets of Tommy Robinson as they’re at an event in London together in a few days time. It all confirms to me that he is a far right conspiracy theorist.
So, you did indeed benefit from watching it, as you are now rather better informed. (Of his views, obviously.)
I'm glad we've cleared that up.
I've never heard of him.
I dislike the phrase conspiracy theorist. It's for dullards. Conspiracies happen sometimes. One assumes people who like to call other people conspiracy theorist don't actually deny the notion of conspiracy itself. Therefore 'conspiracy theorist' as a value judgement makes no sense. It's like insulting someone by calling them 'a person who thinks it's another person's birthday'. A birthday believer. Or a person who thinks it's Friday. A friday freak. Sometimes it is Friday. Sometimes it's someone else's birthday.
Indeed the covid lab leak theory was initially denounced as a conspiracy theory.
Not just that. The lab leak hypothesis was a “racist conspiracy theory” and the scientific powers-that-be managed to silence it for a year on TwiX and Facebook. You literally weren’t allowed to talk about it, like we were all Galileo trying to push heliocentrism
Does anyone nowadays not think it came from the lab?
Otherwise no. No one on earth now believes it came from the market. That includes the US government (democrats as well as republicans) who are now firmly gunning for Ecohealth and Peter Daszak who likely made the virus in the Wuhan lab with US money
I believe it came from the market.
It just probably came from the lab to the market. Perhaps some janitor on 50cents an hour grabbed some bats to sell at the wet market.
Or perhaps it was another animal in a container on the plane next to a bat that was being sent to Wuhan. The bat went to the Wuhan institute of virology, while the armadillo (or whatever) ended up at the wet market.
Or perhaps a lab worker got bit by a bat, developed a snuffle, and then did his evening's shopping at the market.
The idea that the two theories are mutually incompatible exists only in the mind of the mentally subnormal.
The market is a 40 minute drive and on the other side of a major river to the lab. Why did this janitor go all the way there, without transmitting the disease to anyone else along the way or to anyone else subsequently?
Generally samples were taken to the lab, not live animals. They weren't transported along side animals for the wet market. Armadillos are an American group: you're thinking of pangolins.
If the bat was being sent to the WIV and infected a pangolin, or whatever, then that's not a lab leak. That's a zoonotic event from a wild animal, as most scientists understand to be the cause of the pandemic.
All of your other scenarios add complications and coincidences. Occam's razor suggests they all fail against the simple theory of zoonosis via the market.
"If the bat was being sent to the WIV and infected a pangolin, or whatever, then that's not a lab leak. That's a zoonotic event from a wild animal, as most scientists understand to be the cause of the pandemic."
Here's why I hate the phrase "lab leak". Some will read it as "they were experimenting with gain of function viruses and one got loose", when that is only one of a gazillion ways that a virus can escape as a result of bat virus research.
I learn a lot from PB.
Turns out I can read loads of posts about the origins of covid-19 on here and learn precisely nothing.
(Not a dig at you in any way Robert, I just find the back and forth so amusingly opaque.)
Thanks, I did see that and appreciate the reposting. I've put it on a list to read.
However, the article falls into the category of low-quality info for me because: (a) it has come to me via two posters who are on one side of a debate and so may be being selective in what they post, (b) I've no idea who astral codex ten is/are and what if any skin they have in the game and (c) I don't spend enough time on substack to be able to discern what if any quality control exists for this article.
Ho hum. Still, thanks for making the effort!
The arguments for and against the lab leak theory are in the debate itself. This article summarises the arguments so we don't have to watch the full thirty plus hours. The question is whether the summary is accurate. It is certainly detailed.
Ultimately we have to make up our own minds based on the evidence. The issue with the way it's discussed on PB is that we don't agree on what the evidence is, let alone the interpretation of it. The usefulness of the rootclaim debate is that it collates the evidence that people informed on the subject think is important. I am doubtful about the Bayesian rationales.
The "Bayesian" stuff is people making up numbers and saying that's their prior, and the prior fits their conclusions pretty neatly. It can't be taken seriously. I can't think of a field of knowledge where Bayesian reasoning plays a big role.
I agree. The value of this exercise is in the collation of evidence that informed people are using to argue for lab leak or zoonosis. I do agree with one of the judges however that the lab leak evidence is a lot more contradictory. Evidence that might be plausible individually contradicts other evidence being deployed in the same argument. Whereas the evidence for zoonosis is much more cohesive. So there may be a case for some additive logic there
Voters who don’t think someone should lose their job for appearing on a podcast of someone whom others find objectionable. They give a sh!t.
Jess Philips, the queen of cancel culture, and a great example of the attitude a Labour government will have towards freedom of speech.
It seems pretty reasonable to me that Jess Phillips should have strong opinions about a senior politician who hangs out with someone who has repeatedly talked about raping her.
From the quote in the latter, it appears that the gentleman in question was talking about not raping her.
I'll quote the double down.
“There’s been an awful lot of talk about whether I would or wouldn’t rape Jess Phillips. I suppose with enough pressure I might cave, but let’s be honest nobody’s got that much beer.”
And really if anyone's going to be talking about attractiveness, it's not like Carl Benjamin is an Adonis.
It’s a joke, not a rape threat. That was my point. Perhaps in poor taste, but a joke nonetheless.
Truss is out to get Reform supporters voting Conservitive in the “Red Wall” seats, so why wouldn’t she appear on a podcast with 400k Youtube subscribers? It’s only the left who have this obsession with “sharing a platform”.
By all means Truss is free to share a platform with various alt-right figures who joke about raping MPs.
And we are free to form an opinion of what kind of person that makes her.
The quotes where from 2018, and as I said above, 2018 “Sargon of Akkad” is a very different person from 2022 Carl Benjamin, who’s no more controversial today than GB News, and has 400k followers on Youtube.
Should people not be allowed to be rehabilitated into society?
From Wikipedia: “In February 2020, Benjamin launched the group Hearts of Oak with British far-right activist Tommy Robinson”.
Here he is a few months ago at a Hearts of Oak event with another conspiracy theorist, Andrew Bridgen: https://youtu.be/SsRayGgi_4Y
Why, Sandpit, are you watching the output of far right conspiracy theorists?
I listen to his videos sometimes, usually at double speed because he takes forever to get to his point. That's why I know that Carl now is the same guy as Carl in 2019. I listen to The Quartering and Knights Watch too but mainly for unintended entertainment.
Why? Do you agree with Tommy Robinson and Andrew Bridgen as well?
No but I don't think that jamming my fingers into my ears helps my understanding of the world. Speaking of Bridgen, there is a funny one on Bridgen and his list of 'world experts' https://youtu.be/U1mHK7gBryM
You yourself said that “180 hours of video is uploaded to YouTube every minute.” But you have gone out of your way to listen to his videos. That’s not not jamming your fingers in your ears.
Unless you are specifically doing a study of far right social media figures, I do not understand what you get out of listening to far right conspiracy theorists.
If you want to understand why people think a certain way, it helps to understand them, don't you think?
Yes, it does. I have found, personally, that it doesn’t take very long to get the measure of far right conspiracy theorists, and they’re all much of a muchness. I’ve also found that you don’t need to wade through the sewage they spew to understand them: you can read the analysis of those who have done that previously. It’s quicker and less unpleasant.
I have, however, for the purposes of research on this topic, just listened to a very recent 11-minute video by Carl Benjamin on Twitter where he outlines his political agenda. It’s full of talk of people of “foreign stock”, and the value of “traditional roles” for men and women. He explains how, “An evil will has taken control of the educational system”. His Twitter feed also had lots of retweets of Tommy Robinson as they’re at an event in London together in a few days time. It all confirms to me that he is a far right conspiracy theorist.
So, you did indeed benefit from watching it, as you are now rather better informed. (Of his views, obviously.)
I'm glad we've cleared that up.
I've never heard of him.
I dislike the phrase conspiracy theorist. It's for dullards. Conspiracies happen sometimes. One assumes people who like to call other people conspiracy theorist don't actually deny the notion of conspiracy itself. Therefore 'conspiracy theorist' as a value judgement makes no sense. It's like insulting someone by calling them 'a person who thinks it's another person's birthday'. A birthday believer. Or a person who thinks it's Friday. A friday freak. Sometimes it is Friday. Sometimes it's someone else's birthday.
Indeed the covid lab leak theory was initially denounced as a conspiracy theory.
Not just that. The lab leak hypothesis was a “racist conspiracy theory” and the scientific powers-that-be managed to silence it for a year on TwiX and Facebook. You literally weren’t allowed to talk about it, like we were all Galileo trying to push heliocentrism
Does anyone nowadays not think it came from the lab?
Otherwise no. No one on earth now believes it came from the market. That includes the US government (democrats as well as republicans) who are now firmly gunning for Ecohealth and Peter Daszak who likely made the virus in the Wuhan lab with US money
I believe it came from the market.
It just probably came from the lab to the market. Perhaps some janitor on 50cents an hour grabbed some bats to sell at the wet market.
Or perhaps it was another animal in a container on the plane next to a bat that was being sent to Wuhan. The bat went to the Wuhan institute of virology, while the armadillo (or whatever) ended up at the wet market.
Or perhaps a lab worker got bit by a bat, developed a snuffle, and then did his evening's shopping at the market.
The idea that the two theories are mutually incompatible exists only in the mind of the mentally subnormal.
The market is a 40 minute drive and on the other side of a major river to the lab. Why did this janitor go all the way there, without transmitting the disease to anyone else along the way or to anyone else subsequently?
Generally samples were taken to the lab, not live animals. They weren't transported along side animals for the wet market. Armadillos are an American group: you're thinking of pangolins.
If the bat was being sent to the WIV and infected a pangolin, or whatever, then that's not a lab leak. That's a zoonotic event from a wild animal, as most scientists understand to be the cause of the pandemic.
All of your other scenarios add complications and coincidences. Occam's razor suggests they all fail against the simple theory of zoonosis via the market.
"If the bat was being sent to the WIV and infected a pangolin, or whatever, then that's not a lab leak. That's a zoonotic event from a wild animal, as most scientists understand to be the cause of the pandemic."
Here's why I hate the phrase "lab leak". Some will read it as "they were experimenting with gain of function viruses and one got loose", when that is only one of a gazillion ways that a virus can escape as a result of bat virus research.
I learn a lot from PB.
Turns out I can read loads of posts about the origins of covid-19 on here and learn precisely nothing.
(Not a dig at you in any way Robert, I just find the back and forth so amusingly opaque.)
Thanks, I did see that and appreciate the reposting. I've put it on a list to read.
However, the article falls into the category of low-quality info for me because: (a) it has come to me via two posters who are on one side of a debate and so may be being selective in what they post, (b) I've no idea who astral codex ten is/are and what if any skin they have in the game and (c) I don't spend enough time on substack to be able to discern what if any quality control exists for this article.
Ho hum. Still, thanks for making the effort!
The arguments for and against the lab leak theory are in the debate itself. This article summarises the arguments so we don't have to watch the full thirty plus hours. The question is whether the summary is accurate. It is certainly detailed.
Ultimately we have to make up our own minds based on the evidence. The issue with the way it's discussed on PB is that we don't agree on what the evidence is, let alone the interpretation of it. The usefulness of the rootclaim debate is that it collates the evidence that people informed on the subject think is important. I am doubtful about the Bayesian rationales.
The "Bayesian" stuff is people making up numbers and saying that's their prior, and the prior fits their conclusions pretty neatly. It can't be taken seriously. I can't think of a field of knowledge where Bayesian reasoning plays a big role.
I have no idea what Bayesian means to be honest. The way it gets tossed about makes it look like 'A guess, but I'll dress it up with verbiage' which I doubt is its intended usage.
Evening folks. An observation on social media campaigning in this election. Over that last couple of days I have had lots of FB posts from the Tory candidate in my reboundaried constituency in Lincolnshire. Judging by the spread of comments these are clearly going out to the general public like me rather than targetting supposed Tory faithful.
What has been amusing this evening is travelling by train from Newark to Aberdeen. All the way up there have been local FB messages from Tory candidates. Clearly CCHQ are putting a lot of effort into locally targeted social media campaigning. This culminated a few minutes ago with a FB message as I arrived in Aberdeen from the Aberdeen South Tory candidate with a classic 'only we can bestcthe SNP' bar chart.
I have to say I am surprised at the sophistication of the Tory social media campaign if not with their actual message.
Really hope Starmer takes some of this boldness into No.10 - I'm very tired of living in a world where our GDP per capita is still 10% below 2008 (current USD, legalising housing via zoning would be a good first step) - there are voters in this election who have no concept of a boom period - they'll have been 2 at the time of the GFC.
I'd be curious to see if anyone has done a wealth analysis of Brexit versus Remain voters.
Given the age differential where young people were more likely to be pro-Remain and old people more likely to be pro-Leave, it wouldn't remotely surprise me if rather than people voting Leave because they were treated "unfairly" or "disadvantaged" . . . I wouldn't be surprised if Leave voters were disproportionately more likely to own their own home and more likely to be well off than Remain voters.
Trouble in paradise between the owner, who is doing his own thing, and the figurehead Leader who would like ot be more substantial than he is?
Think Nige may be orchestrating a split between him and REFORM because he's hoping to rejoin the Tories and become CON leader after the next election?
It’s a crap shoot as to which MPs constitute the majority of the parliamentary party afterward isn’t it? Didn’t I see some analysis that the largest majorities actually tend not to be rabid right wingers?
Farage will never lead the Tories (or be a Tory MP) - After the coming drubbing there will be a desire within the party to move on from this whole 2010-2024 period.
Whatevers left of the Tory Party after 4th July they'll be looking for a fresh face and some new ideas, IMO.
I think that's right. See the Labour Party after 2019 - they didn't exactly double down on Corbynism. Same after 1987. The Tories will have a year or two soul-searching, though.
Both those cases were the 3rd or more chance!
The question is whether the Tories will be fortunate to get their shit together after one loss, or if it will take more. The last 50 years suggests more than one is common.
Voters who don’t think someone should lose their job for appearing on a podcast of someone whom others find objectionable. They give a sh!t.
Jess Philips, the queen of cancel culture, and a great example of the attitude a Labour government will have towards freedom of speech.
It seems pretty reasonable to me that Jess Phillips should have strong opinions about a senior politician who hangs out with someone who has repeatedly talked about raping her.
From the quote in the latter, it appears that the gentleman in question was talking about not raping her.
I'll quote the double down.
“There’s been an awful lot of talk about whether I would or wouldn’t rape Jess Phillips. I suppose with enough pressure I might cave, but let’s be honest nobody’s got that much beer.”
And really if anyone's going to be talking about attractiveness, it's not like Carl Benjamin is an Adonis.
It’s a joke, not a rape threat. That was my point. Perhaps in poor taste, but a joke nonetheless.
Truss is out to get Reform supporters voting Conservitive in the “Red Wall” seats, so why wouldn’t she appear on a podcast with 400k Youtube subscribers? It’s only the left who have this obsession with “sharing a platform”.
By all means Truss is free to share a platform with various alt-right figures who joke about raping MPs.
And we are free to form an opinion of what kind of person that makes her.
The quotes where from 2018, and as I said above, 2018 “Sargon of Akkad” is a very different person from 2022 Carl Benjamin, who’s no more controversial today than GB News, and has 400k followers on Youtube.
Should people not be allowed to be rehabilitated into society?
From Wikipedia: “In February 2020, Benjamin launched the group Hearts of Oak with British far-right activist Tommy Robinson”.
Here he is a few months ago at a Hearts of Oak event with another conspiracy theorist, Andrew Bridgen: https://youtu.be/SsRayGgi_4Y
Why, Sandpit, are you watching the output of far right conspiracy theorists?
I listen to his videos sometimes, usually at double speed because he takes forever to get to his point. That's why I know that Carl now is the same guy as Carl in 2019. I listen to The Quartering and Knights Watch too but mainly for unintended entertainment.
Why? Do you agree with Tommy Robinson and Andrew Bridgen as well?
No but I don't think that jamming my fingers into my ears helps my understanding of the world. Speaking of Bridgen, there is a funny one on Bridgen and his list of 'world experts' https://youtu.be/U1mHK7gBryM
You yourself said that “180 hours of video is uploaded to YouTube every minute.” But you have gone out of your way to listen to his videos. That’s not not jamming your fingers in your ears.
Unless you are specifically doing a study of far right social media figures, I do not understand what you get out of listening to far right conspiracy theorists.
If you want to understand why people think a certain way, it helps to understand them, don't you think?
Yes, it does. I have found, personally, that it doesn’t take very long to get the measure of far right conspiracy theorists, and they’re all much of a muchness. I’ve also found that you don’t need to wade through the sewage they spew to understand them: you can read the analysis of those who have done that previously. It’s quicker and less unpleasant.
I have, however, for the purposes of research on this topic, just listened to a very recent 11-minute video by Carl Benjamin on Twitter where he outlines his political agenda. It’s full of talk of people of “foreign stock”, and the value of “traditional roles” for men and women. He explains how, “An evil will has taken control of the educational system”. His Twitter feed also had lots of retweets of Tommy Robinson as they’re at an event in London together in a few days time. It all confirms to me that he is a far right conspiracy theorist.
So, you did indeed benefit from watching it, as you are now rather better informed. (Of his views, obviously.)
I'm glad we've cleared that up.
I've never heard of him.
I dislike the phrase conspiracy theorist. It's for dullards. Conspiracies happen sometimes. One assumes people who like to call other people conspiracy theorist don't actually deny the notion of conspiracy itself. Therefore 'conspiracy theorist' as a value judgement makes no sense. It's like insulting someone by calling them 'a person who thinks it's another person's birthday'. A birthday believer. Or a person who thinks it's Friday. A friday freak. Sometimes it is Friday. Sometimes it's someone else's birthday.
Indeed the covid lab leak theory was initially denounced as a conspiracy theory.
Not just that. The lab leak hypothesis was a “racist conspiracy theory” and the scientific powers-that-be managed to silence it for a year on TwiX and Facebook. You literally weren’t allowed to talk about it, like we were all Galileo trying to push heliocentrism
Does anyone nowadays not think it came from the lab?
Otherwise no. No one on earth now believes it came from the market. That includes the US government (democrats as well as republicans) who are now firmly gunning for Ecohealth and Peter Daszak who likely made the virus in the Wuhan lab with US money
I believe it came from the market.
It just probably came from the lab to the market. Perhaps some janitor on 50cents an hour grabbed some bats to sell at the wet market.
Or perhaps it was another animal in a container on the plane next to a bat that was being sent to Wuhan. The bat went to the Wuhan institute of virology, while the armadillo (or whatever) ended up at the wet market.
Or perhaps a lab worker got bit by a bat, developed a snuffle, and then did his evening's shopping at the market.
The idea that the two theories are mutually incompatible exists only in the mind of the mentally subnormal.
The market is a 40 minute drive and on the other side of a major river to the lab. Why did this janitor go all the way there, without transmitting the disease to anyone else along the way or to anyone else subsequently?
Generally samples were taken to the lab, not live animals. They weren't transported along side animals for the wet market. Armadillos are an American group: you're thinking of pangolins.
If the bat was being sent to the WIV and infected a pangolin, or whatever, then that's not a lab leak. That's a zoonotic event from a wild animal, as most scientists understand to be the cause of the pandemic.
All of your other scenarios add complications and coincidences. Occam's razor suggests they all fail against the simple theory of zoonosis via the market.
"If the bat was being sent to the WIV and infected a pangolin, or whatever, then that's not a lab leak. That's a zoonotic event from a wild animal, as most scientists understand to be the cause of the pandemic."
Here's why I hate the phrase "lab leak". Some will read it as "they were experimenting with gain of function viruses and one got loose", when that is only one of a gazillion ways that a virus can escape as a result of bat virus research.
I learn a lot from PB.
Turns out I can read loads of posts about the origins of covid-19 on here and learn precisely nothing.
(Not a dig at you in any way Robert, I just find the back and forth so amusingly opaque.)
Thanks, I did see that and appreciate the reposting. I've put it on a list to read.
However, the article falls into the category of low-quality info for me because: (a) it has come to me via two posters who are on one side of a debate and so may be being selective in what they post, (b) I've no idea who astral codex ten is/are and what if any skin they have in the game and (c) I don't spend enough time on substack to be able to discern what if any quality control exists for this article.
Ho hum. Still, thanks for making the effort!
The arguments for and against the lab leak theory are in the debate itself. This article summarises the arguments so we don't have to watch the full thirty plus hours. The question is whether the summary is accurate. It is certainly detailed.
Ultimately we have to make up our own minds based on the evidence. The issue with the way it's discussed on PB is that we don't agree on what the evidence is, let alone the interpretation of it. The usefulness of the rootclaim debate is that it collates the evidence that people informed on the subject think is important. I am doubtful about the Bayesian rationales.
The "Bayesian" stuff is people making up numbers and saying that's their prior, and the prior fits their conclusions pretty neatly. It can't be taken seriously. I can't think of a field of knowledge where Bayesian reasoning plays a big role.
I have no idea what Bayesian means to be honest. The way it gets tossed about makes it look like 'A guess, but I'll dress it up with verbiage' which I doubt is its intended usage.
We use Bayesian analysis a lot in archaeology for refining dating and where it can be cross checked against confirmed dates such as dendrochtonology it is remarkably accurate.
The takeover of leisure centres by franchise firms, and the consequent price increases and inability to actually just turn up and go for a swim, is a scandal that needs more attention given to it.
The Brittas Empire was a comedy, but I always got a little sense of wellbeing from it. Chris Barrie's Brittas may have been a comedic character, but his sense of trying to do right, and getting his people to try to do right, for the community and leisure industry could go a long way today.
I'd be curious to see if anyone has done a wealth analysis of Brexit versus Remain voters.
Given the age differential where young people were more likely to be pro-Remain and old people more likely to be pro-Leave, it wouldn't remotely surprise me if rather than people voting Leave because they were treated "unfairly" or "disadvantaged" . . . I wouldn't be surprised if Leave voters were disproportionately more likely to own their own home and more likely to be well off than Remain voters.
I'm doing a little 'guess the seat totals' for some work colleagues and providing a spreadsheet for them to fill in. I've had to explain to most that Northern Ireland exists. I've had to explain to a few that Scotland and Wales also exist.
Do we expect Alba to win any seats at all? I can't see it, but can't be sure?
My form has Con, Lab, LD, Green (all three UK parties as one), Reform, SNP, Plaid, DUP, UUP, SDLP, Sinn Fein and Alliance (and speaker autocompleted). Could any other party realistically get a seat?
If you're talking about realistically getting seats, why is Reform on the list?
I know they won't, but its a sop. They MIGHT, so I include them.
Evening folks. An observation on social media campaigning in this election. Over that last couple of days I have had lots of FB posts from the Tory candidate in my reboundaried constituency in Lincolnshire. Judging by the spread of comments these are clearly going out to the general public like me rather than targetting supposed Tory faithful.
What has been amusing this evening is travelling by train from Newark to Aberdeen. All the way up there have been local FB messages from Tory candidates. Clearly CCHQ are putting a lot of effort into locally targeted social media campaigning. This culminated a few minutes ago with a FB message as I arrived in Aberdeen from the Aberdeen South Tory candidate with a classic 'only we can bestcthe SNP' bar chart.
I have to say I am surprised at the sophistication of the Tory social media campaign if not with their actual message.
So Rishi has stolen a march on the hapless Starmer with his snap election.
I was watching a Times Radio piece earlier.suggesting the Tory war chest is empty.
Wonder if there will be a "tax bombshell" on the way?
Yes:
"The tax burden you face now is the highest in human history.
Don't let Labour make it even higher".
Here's the famous "Tax Bombshell" ad from 1992, where the Conservatives somehow managed to make everyone think Labour were going to make them pay an extra £1000 in tax per year, lol!
Not sure that strategy would work very well for the Conservatives in 2024 though... 😂
"I have a litmus test is you are making a comment about a specific ethnic minority and how would it sound about another ethnic minority group, ..." This is the wisest thing I have heard coming out of your keyboard,
The majority of Israeli and Palestinian politicians and very many of their followers fall foul of this "TSE Test"
Really hope Starmer takes some of this boldness into No.10 - I'm very tired of living in a world where our GDP per capita is still 10% below 2008 (current USD, legalising housing via zoning would be a good first step) - there are voters in this election who have no concept of a boom period - they'll have been 2 at the time of the GFC.
It's not so much what he's doing. It's the way it's coming across that worries me. He seems to be rather confused and there's more than a whiff of conspiracy around both.
Does this matter in the case of Abbott or Russell Moyle? Probably not.
Does it leave question marks over Starmer's judgment? I would say it does.
Hopefully it will be nothing serious. But I'm also thinking a bit about that first crop of shadow ministers he appointed. That didn't display great judgement either.
And the first sign that Sunak wasn't all he was cracked up to be was his lousy cabinet appointments.
What judgment? Would you have preferred him to act earlier, not act at all? What is the issue, I am a bit baffled?
If he's sitting on a report for six months, only to come to a decision now, which he botches, that's not great, is it?
In the case of Lloyd Russell Moyle, yes I can see why this has happened but we now have somebody forced out of a job because of an allegation. I don't think you have to be an admirer of LRM to find that a bit worrying. There should have been workarounds otherwise it's an open invitation to vexatious complaints.
Remember, it's not how things look when they happen to people you dislike that's important - it's how they could be applied to anyone. Without wishing to be all Kantian about this, the implications of these sort of procedures applied across a governing party disturb me.
I believe in the case of Russel-Moyale, an allegation has been made and he's been suspended as a result. The same happened to a moderate MP in 2019. Personally I think it stinks - but the reality is that Labour has been doing this sort of factional behaviour for a while.
On Abbott, she should have been allowed to retire in peace and I am not totally clear why she hasn't been. But I do support her not being allowed to stand again because she is racist.
@BatteryCorrectHorse Which moderate MP are you thinking of because I'm drawing a blank? There was Kelvin Hopkins who was still suspended at the calling of GE19 and wasn't allowed to stand but he was a Corbyn supporter, there's Simon Danczuk but that was 2017, I think the one you might be thinking of was Jas Athwal who wasn't an MP and was up against Sam Tarry for the Ilford South seat but suspended on the eve of the selection meeting.
Trouble in paradise between the owner, who is doing his own thing, and the figurehead Leader who would like ot be more substantial than he is?
Think Nige may be orchestrating a split between him and REFORM because he's hoping to rejoin the Tories and become CON leader after the next election?
It’s a crap shoot as to which MPs constitute the majority of the parliamentary party afterward isn’t it? Didn’t I see some analysis that the largest majorities actually tend not to be rabid right wingers?
Farage will never lead the Tories (or be a Tory MP) - After the coming drubbing there will be a desire within the party to move on from this whole 2010-2024 period.
Whatevers left of the Tory Party after 4th July they'll be looking for a fresh face and some new ideas, IMO.
I think that's right. See the Labour Party after 2019 - they didn't exactly double down on Corbynism. Same after 1987. The Tories will have a year or two soul-searching, though.
Both those cases were the 3rd or more chance!
The question is whether the Tories will be fortunate to get their shit together after one loss, or if it will take more. The last 50 years suggests more than one is common.
Not 2019. The reference was to a drubbing. Labour weren't drubbed in 2017. But they were in 2019. The scale of the defeat makes a difference to the reaction, I think.
Trouble in paradise between the owner, who is doing his own thing, and the figurehead Leader who would like ot be more substantial than he is?
Think Nige may be orchestrating a split between him and REFORM because he's hoping to rejoin the Tories and become CON leader after the next election?
It’s a crap shoot as to which MPs constitute the majority of the parliamentary party afterward isn’t it? Didn’t I see some analysis that the largest majorities actually tend not to be rabid right wingers?
Farage will never lead the Tories (or be a Tory MP) - After the coming drubbing there will be a desire within the party to move on from this whole 2010-2024 period.
Whatevers left of the Tory Party after 4th July they'll be looking for a fresh face and some new ideas, IMO.
I think that's right. See the Labour Party after 2019 - they didn't exactly double down on Corbynism. Same after 1987. The Tories will have a year or two soul-searching, though.
Both those cases were the 3rd or more chance!
The question is whether the Tories will be fortunate to get their shit together after one loss, or if it will take more. The last 50 years suggests more than one is common.
After 1906 and 1945 the Tories bounced back relatively quickly. So it’s possible but maybe not likely.
I'd be curious to see if anyone has done a wealth analysis of Brexit versus Remain voters.
Given the age differential where young people were more likely to be pro-Remain and old people more likely to be pro-Leave, it wouldn't remotely surprise me if rather than people voting Leave because they were treated "unfairly" or "disadvantaged" . . . I wouldn't be surprised if Leave voters were disproportionately more likely to own their own home and more likely to be well off than Remain voters.
1) We’re talking about their perception not their reality; and
2) The folk who felt disenfranchised weren’t all, or even necessarily most, Brexit voters but they got it over the line.
You’re right that the Brexit vote was a wide ranging, and now dispersed coalition. But that group, many of whom didn’t vote before Brexit and Boris, are still there to be won, and capable of pushing a party into a majority. A lot voted for Boris (and it was Boris, not the Tories) in 2019. Some might vote Labour this time but many won’t vote I expect. But they will make their voices heard again one day if they don’t see change.
We’ll see if I am right in the post-election voting analysis.
Evening folks. An observation on social media campaigning in this election. Over that last couple of days I have had lots of FB posts from the Tory candidate in my reboundaried constituency in Lincolnshire. Judging by the spread of comments these are clearly going out to the general public like me rather than targetting supposed Tory faithful.
What has been amusing this evening is travelling by train from Newark to Aberdeen. All the way up there have been local FB messages from Tory candidates. Clearly CCHQ are putting a lot of effort into locally targeted social media campaigning. This culminated a few minutes ago with a FB message as I arrived in Aberdeen from the Aberdeen South Tory candidate with a classic 'only we can bestcthe SNP' bar chart.
I have to say I am surprised at the sophistication of the Tory social media campaign if not with their actual message.
So Rishi has stolen a march on the hapless Starmer with his snap election.
I was watching a Times Radio piece earlier.suggesting the Tory war chest is empty.
I don't think it will make much difference but it is the first election where I have noticed such organised targeted social media activity on constituency basis. I suspect it will become the norm for all parties going forward.
I'm doing a little 'guess the seat totals' for some work colleagues and providing a spreadsheet for them to fill in. I've had to explain to most that Northern Ireland exists. I've had to explain to a few that Scotland and Wales also exist.
Do we expect Alba to win any seats at all? I can't see it, but can't be sure?
My form has Con, Lab, LD, Green (all three UK parties as one), Reform, SNP, Plaid, DUP, UUP, SDLP, Sinn Fein and Alliance (and speaker autocompleted). Could any other party realistically get a seat?
I suspect OFSTED might pick you up for lack of differentiation. Why not just run an overall majority sweep?
Too easy, and too little input. We've got the Euro sweep running at the same time (guess all the results) so I'm trying to emulate that a little. I'm running 'guess the seat totals' but also 'guess your seat', but so far I've got Sefton Central, Bootle, Liverpool Riverside and the new Runcorn and Helsby for people to guess. I expect to add Birkenhead, Wirral West and Liverpool Walton to that list soon. Not much difficulty guessing the results here.....
I'm struggling to make it difficult, so maybe I'll tell people to move house to Caithness or somewhere better.
Trouble in paradise between the owner, who is doing his own thing, and the figurehead Leader who would like ot be more substantial than he is?
Think Nige may be orchestrating a split between him and REFORM because he's hoping to rejoin the Tories and become CON leader after the next election?
It’s a crap shoot as to which MPs constitute the majority of the parliamentary party afterward isn’t it? Didn’t I see some analysis that the largest majorities actually tend not to be rabid right wingers?
Farage will never lead the Tories (or be a Tory MP) - After the coming drubbing there will be a desire within the party to move on from this whole 2010-2024 period.
Whatevers left of the Tory Party after 4th July they'll be looking for a fresh face and some new ideas, IMO.
I think that's right. See the Labour Party after 2019 - they didn't exactly double down on Corbynism. Same after 1987. The Tories will have a year or two soul-searching, though.
Both those cases were the 3rd or more chance!
The question is whether the Tories will be fortunate to get their shit together after one loss, or if it will take more. The last 50 years suggests more than one is common.
Not 2019. The reference was to a drubbing. Labour weren't drubbed in 2017. But they were in 2019. The scale of the defeat makes a difference to the reaction, I think.
Fair point, but I would argue the number of defeats may also eventually have an effect. Have a number of close losses and, sure, you might think 'one more heave' will do it, but if you lost 3-4 times in a row, even if it is relatively close, hopefully you would come to think it is time to make a bigger move.
I'd be curious to see if anyone has done a wealth analysis of Brexit versus Remain voters.
Given the age differential where young people were more likely to be pro-Remain and old people more likely to be pro-Leave, it wouldn't remotely surprise me if rather than people voting Leave because they were treated "unfairly" or "disadvantaged" . . . I wouldn't be surprised if Leave voters were disproportionately more likely to own their own home and more likely to be well off than Remain voters.
Yes it makes perfect sense that those who were in more precarious financial states were more likely to be risk averse, while those who were not were less likely to be afraid of voting Leave.
This is an interesting finding too. People living in left-behind areas were more likely to support Brexit than those living in prosperous areas. The gains of Brexit were perceived to be greater in areas of the country that had experienced economic decline. But within those areas, given people's preferences, we show that wealthier individuals were more likely to vote for Brexit, and poorer individuals were more likely to vote for Remain.
I'd be curious to see if anyone has done a wealth analysis of Brexit versus Remain voters.
Given the age differential where young people were more likely to be pro-Remain and old people more likely to be pro-Leave, it wouldn't remotely surprise me if rather than people voting Leave because they were treated "unfairly" or "disadvantaged" . . . I wouldn't be surprised if Leave voters were disproportionately more likely to own their own home and more likely to be well off than Remain voters.
Leave voters probably owned more property because they were older, but Remain voters probably had higher incomes because they were more likely to be younger and in well-paid jobs. So difficult to say overall. Many of the homes owned by Leave voters won't have been particularly expensive properties.
Voters who don’t think someone should lose their job for appearing on a podcast of someone whom others find objectionable. They give a sh!t.
Jess Philips, the queen of cancel culture, and a great example of the attitude a Labour government will have towards freedom of speech.
It seems pretty reasonable to me that Jess Phillips should have strong opinions about a senior politician who hangs out with someone who has repeatedly talked about raping her.
From the quote in the latter, it appears that the gentleman in question was talking about not raping her.
I'll quote the double down.
“There’s been an awful lot of talk about whether I would or wouldn’t rape Jess Phillips. I suppose with enough pressure I might cave, but let’s be honest nobody’s got that much beer.”
And really if anyone's going to be talking about attractiveness, it's not like Carl Benjamin is an Adonis.
It’s a joke, not a rape threat. That was my point. Perhaps in poor taste, but a joke nonetheless.
Truss is out to get Reform supporters voting Conservitive in the “Red Wall” seats, so why wouldn’t she appear on a podcast with 400k Youtube subscribers? It’s only the left who have this obsession with “sharing a platform”.
By all means Truss is free to share a platform with various alt-right figures who joke about raping MPs.
And we are free to form an opinion of what kind of person that makes her.
The quotes where from 2018, and as I said above, 2018 “Sargon of Akkad” is a very different person from 2022 Carl Benjamin, who’s no more controversial today than GB News, and has 400k followers on Youtube.
Should people not be allowed to be rehabilitated into society?
From Wikipedia: “In February 2020, Benjamin launched the group Hearts of Oak with British far-right activist Tommy Robinson”.
Here he is a few months ago at a Hearts of Oak event with another conspiracy theorist, Andrew Bridgen: https://youtu.be/SsRayGgi_4Y
Why, Sandpit, are you watching the output of far right conspiracy theorists?
I listen to his videos sometimes, usually at double speed because he takes forever to get to his point. That's why I know that Carl now is the same guy as Carl in 2019. I listen to The Quartering and Knights Watch too but mainly for unintended entertainment.
Why? Do you agree with Tommy Robinson and Andrew Bridgen as well?
No but I don't think that jamming my fingers into my ears helps my understanding of the world. Speaking of Bridgen, there is a funny one on Bridgen and his list of 'world experts' https://youtu.be/U1mHK7gBryM
You yourself said that “180 hours of video is uploaded to YouTube every minute.” But you have gone out of your way to listen to his videos. That’s not not jamming your fingers in your ears.
Unless you are specifically doing a study of far right social media figures, I do not understand what you get out of listening to far right conspiracy theorists.
If you want to understand why people think a certain way, it helps to understand them, don't you think?
Yes, it does. I have found, personally, that it doesn’t take very long to get the measure of far right conspiracy theorists, and they’re all much of a muchness. I’ve also found that you don’t need to wade through the sewage they spew to understand them: you can read the analysis of those who have done that previously. It’s quicker and less unpleasant.
I have, however, for the purposes of research on this topic, just listened to a very recent 11-minute video by Carl Benjamin on Twitter where he outlines his political agenda. It’s full of talk of people of “foreign stock”, and the value of “traditional roles” for men and women. He explains how, “An evil will has taken control of the educational system”. His Twitter feed also had lots of retweets of Tommy Robinson as they’re at an event in London together in a few days time. It all confirms to me that he is a far right conspiracy theorist.
So, you did indeed benefit from watching it, as you are now rather better informed. (Of his views, obviously.)
I'm glad we've cleared that up.
I've never heard of him.
I dislike the phrase conspiracy theorist. It's for dullards. Conspiracies happen sometimes. One assumes people who like to call other people conspiracy theorist don't actually deny the notion of conspiracy itself. Therefore 'conspiracy theorist' as a value judgement makes no sense. It's like insulting someone by calling them 'a person who thinks it's another person's birthday'. A birthday believer. Or a person who thinks it's Friday. A friday freak. Sometimes it is Friday. Sometimes it's someone else's birthday.
Indeed the covid lab leak theory was initially denounced as a conspiracy theory.
Not just that. The lab leak hypothesis was a “racist conspiracy theory” and the scientific powers-that-be managed to silence it for a year on TwiX and Facebook. You literally weren’t allowed to talk about it, like we were all Galileo trying to push heliocentrism
Does anyone nowadays not think it came from the lab?
Otherwise no. No one on earth now believes it came from the market. That includes the US government (democrats as well as republicans) who are now firmly gunning for Ecohealth and Peter Daszak who likely made the virus in the Wuhan lab with US money
I believe it came from the market.
It just probably came from the lab to the market. Perhaps some janitor on 50cents an hour grabbed some bats to sell at the wet market.
Or perhaps it was another animal in a container on the plane next to a bat that was being sent to Wuhan. The bat went to the Wuhan institute of virology, while the armadillo (or whatever) ended up at the wet market.
Or perhaps a lab worker got bit by a bat, developed a snuffle, and then did his evening's shopping at the market.
The idea that the two theories are mutually incompatible exists only in the mind of the mentally subnormal.
The market is a 40 minute drive and on the other side of a major river to the lab. Why did this janitor go all the way there, without transmitting the disease to anyone else along the way or to anyone else subsequently?
Generally samples were taken to the lab, not live animals. They weren't transported along side animals for the wet market. Armadillos are an American group: you're thinking of pangolins.
If the bat was being sent to the WIV and infected a pangolin, or whatever, then that's not a lab leak. That's a zoonotic event from a wild animal, as most scientists understand to be the cause of the pandemic.
All of your other scenarios add complications and coincidences. Occam's razor suggests they all fail against the simple theory of zoonosis via the market.
"If the bat was being sent to the WIV and infected a pangolin, or whatever, then that's not a lab leak. That's a zoonotic event from a wild animal, as most scientists understand to be the cause of the pandemic."
Here's why I hate the phrase "lab leak". Some will read it as "they were experimenting with gain of function viruses and one got loose", when that is only one of a gazillion ways that a virus can escape as a result of bat virus research.
I learn a lot from PB.
Turns out I can read loads of posts about the origins of covid-19 on here and learn precisely nothing.
(Not a dig at you in any way Robert, I just find the back and forth so amusingly opaque.)
Thanks, I did see that and appreciate the reposting. I've put it on a list to read.
However, the article falls into the category of low-quality info for me because: (a) it has come to me via two posters who are on one side of a debate and so may be being selective in what they post, (b) I've no idea who astral codex ten is/are and what if any skin they have in the game and (c) I don't spend enough time on substack to be able to discern what if any quality control exists for this article.
Ho hum. Still, thanks for making the effort!
The arguments for and against the lab leak theory are in the debate itself. This article summarises the arguments so we don't have to watch the full thirty plus hours. The question is whether the summary is accurate. It is certainly detailed.
Ultimately we have to make up our own minds based on the evidence. The issue with the way it's discussed on PB is that we don't agree on what the evidence is, let alone the interpretation of it. The usefulness of the rootclaim debate is that it collates the evidence that people informed on the subject think is important. I am doubtful about the Bayesian rationales.
The "Bayesian" stuff is people making up numbers and saying that's their prior, and the prior fits their conclusions pretty neatly. It can't be taken seriously. I can't think of a field of knowledge where Bayesian reasoning plays a big role.
Then you have no idea what you are talking about. There are many areas where Bayesian theory/statistics/modelling/machine Learing/call it what you will has had a huge inpact on our lives. If you have a problem about people using the word Bayesian when it is inappropriate, then good for you, but don't criticise hammers because idiots want to drill a hole with a hammer.
Apparently the old Liberal Party stood in 19 seats in 2019, polling just ahead of the Anna Soubry's Independent Group for Change and Aontu, with about half the votes of UKIP who got only 23k votes.
I'd be curious to see if anyone has done a wealth analysis of Brexit versus Remain voters.
Given the age differential where young people were more likely to be pro-Remain and old people more likely to be pro-Leave, it wouldn't remotely surprise me if rather than people voting Leave because they were treated "unfairly" or "disadvantaged" . . . I wouldn't be surprised if Leave voters were disproportionately more likely to own their own home and more likely to be well off than Remain voters.
1) We’re talking about their perception not their reality; and
2) The folk who felt disenfranchised weren’t all, or even necessarily most, Brexit voters but they got it over the line.
You’re right that the Brexit vote was a wide ranging, and now dispersed coalition. But that group, many of whom didn’t vote before Brexit and Boris, are still there to be won, and capable of pushing a party into a majority. A lot voted for Boris (and it was Boris, not the Tories) in 2019. Some might vote Labour this time but many won’t vote I expect. But they will make their voices heard again one day if they don’t see change.
We’ll see if I am right in the post-election voting analysis.
Since that group were a dispersed coalition they're not capable of pushing a party into a majority, especially today.
In a binary choice you get people of completely different views voting for the same thing, for totally different reasons.
In a general election you don't.
People have moved on. Brexit is done, its history, its not a thing today any more than WWII or the Vietnam War or the Corn Laws are.
Deal with the concerns people have today and that's how you get a majority, not raking over old concerns.
Evening folks. An observation on social media campaigning in this election. Over that last couple of days I have had lots of FB posts from the Tory candidate in my reboundaried constituency in Lincolnshire. Judging by the spread of comments these are clearly going out to the general public like me rather than targetting supposed Tory faithful.
What has been amusing this evening is travelling by train from Newark to Aberdeen. All the way up there have been local FB messages from Tory candidates. Clearly CCHQ are putting a lot of effort into locally targeted social media campaigning. This culminated a few minutes ago with a FB message as I arrived in Aberdeen from the Aberdeen South Tory candidate with a classic 'only we can bestcthe SNP' bar chart.
I have to say I am surprised at the sophistication of the Tory social media campaign if not with their actual message.
So Rishi has stolen a march on the hapless Starmer with his snap election.
I was watching a Times Radio piece earlier.suggesting the Tory war chest is empty.
I don't think it will make much difference but it is the first election where I have noticed such organised targeted social media activity on constituency basis. I suspect it will become the norm for all parties going forward.
I've mentioned it before, but I'm in the 18-30 bucket and I've seen a decent amount of conscription related adverts. Parties would be fools to not be making full use of microtargeting (which Labour aren't if my Lab+8 in 2019 constituency is getting it).
I'm sorry Faiza Shaheen is sad to not be the candidate but her defence for liking an anti-Semitic Tweet seems to be that we can't trust her to not like random Tweets on Twitter.
Voters who don’t think someone should lose their job for appearing on a podcast of someone whom others find objectionable. They give a sh!t.
Jess Philips, the queen of cancel culture, and a great example of the attitude a Labour government will have towards freedom of speech.
It seems pretty reasonable to me that Jess Phillips should have strong opinions about a senior politician who hangs out with someone who has repeatedly talked about raping her.
From the quote in the latter, it appears that the gentleman in question was talking about not raping her.
I'll quote the double down.
“There’s been an awful lot of talk about whether I would or wouldn’t rape Jess Phillips. I suppose with enough pressure I might cave, but let’s be honest nobody’s got that much beer.”
And really if anyone's going to be talking about attractiveness, it's not like Carl Benjamin is an Adonis.
It’s a joke, not a rape threat. That was my point. Perhaps in poor taste, but a joke nonetheless.
Truss is out to get Reform supporters voting Conservitive in the “Red Wall” seats, so why wouldn’t she appear on a podcast with 400k Youtube subscribers? It’s only the left who have this obsession with “sharing a platform”.
By all means Truss is free to share a platform with various alt-right figures who joke about raping MPs.
And we are free to form an opinion of what kind of person that makes her.
The quotes where from 2018, and as I said above, 2018 “Sargon of Akkad” is a very different person from 2022 Carl Benjamin, who’s no more controversial today than GB News, and has 400k followers on Youtube.
Should people not be allowed to be rehabilitated into society?
From Wikipedia: “In February 2020, Benjamin launched the group Hearts of Oak with British far-right activist Tommy Robinson”.
Here he is a few months ago at a Hearts of Oak event with another conspiracy theorist, Andrew Bridgen: https://youtu.be/SsRayGgi_4Y
Why, Sandpit, are you watching the output of far right conspiracy theorists?
I listen to his videos sometimes, usually at double speed because he takes forever to get to his point. That's why I know that Carl now is the same guy as Carl in 2019. I listen to The Quartering and Knights Watch too but mainly for unintended entertainment.
Why? Do you agree with Tommy Robinson and Andrew Bridgen as well?
No but I don't think that jamming my fingers into my ears helps my understanding of the world. Speaking of Bridgen, there is a funny one on Bridgen and his list of 'world experts' https://youtu.be/U1mHK7gBryM
You yourself said that “180 hours of video is uploaded to YouTube every minute.” But you have gone out of your way to listen to his videos. That’s not not jamming your fingers in your ears.
Unless you are specifically doing a study of far right social media figures, I do not understand what you get out of listening to far right conspiracy theorists.
If you want to understand why people think a certain way, it helps to understand them, don't you think?
Yes, it does. I have found, personally, that it doesn’t take very long to get the measure of far right conspiracy theorists, and they’re all much of a muchness. I’ve also found that you don’t need to wade through the sewage they spew to understand them: you can read the analysis of those who have done that previously. It’s quicker and less unpleasant.
I have, however, for the purposes of research on this topic, just listened to a very recent 11-minute video by Carl Benjamin on Twitter where he outlines his political agenda. It’s full of talk of people of “foreign stock”, and the value of “traditional roles” for men and women. He explains how, “An evil will has taken control of the educational system”. His Twitter feed also had lots of retweets of Tommy Robinson as they’re at an event in London together in a few days time. It all confirms to me that he is a far right conspiracy theorist.
So, you did indeed benefit from watching it, as you are now rather better informed. (Of his views, obviously.)
I'm glad we've cleared that up.
I've never heard of him.
I dislike the phrase conspiracy theorist. It's for dullards. Conspiracies happen sometimes. One assumes people who like to call other people conspiracy theorist don't actually deny the notion of conspiracy itself. Therefore 'conspiracy theorist' as a value judgement makes no sense. It's like insulting someone by calling them 'a person who thinks it's another person's birthday'. A birthday believer. Or a person who thinks it's Friday. A friday freak. Sometimes it is Friday. Sometimes it's someone else's birthday.
Indeed the covid lab leak theory was initially denounced as a conspiracy theory.
Not just that. The lab leak hypothesis was a “racist conspiracy theory” and the scientific powers-that-be managed to silence it for a year on TwiX and Facebook. You literally weren’t allowed to talk about it, like we were all Galileo trying to push heliocentrism
Does anyone nowadays not think it came from the lab?
Otherwise no. No one on earth now believes it came from the market. That includes the US government (democrats as well as republicans) who are now firmly gunning for Ecohealth and Peter Daszak who likely made the virus in the Wuhan lab with US money
I believe it came from the market.
It just probably came from the lab to the market. Perhaps some janitor on 50cents an hour grabbed some bats to sell at the wet market.
Or perhaps it was another animal in a container on the plane next to a bat that was being sent to Wuhan. The bat went to the Wuhan institute of virology, while the armadillo (or whatever) ended up at the wet market.
Or perhaps a lab worker got bit by a bat, developed a snuffle, and then did his evening's shopping at the market.
The idea that the two theories are mutually incompatible exists only in the mind of the mentally subnormal.
The market is a 40 minute drive and on the other side of a major river to the lab. Why did this janitor go all the way there, without transmitting the disease to anyone else along the way or to anyone else subsequently?
Generally samples were taken to the lab, not live animals. They weren't transported along side animals for the wet market. Armadillos are an American group: you're thinking of pangolins.
If the bat was being sent to the WIV and infected a pangolin, or whatever, then that's not a lab leak. That's a zoonotic event from a wild animal, as most scientists understand to be the cause of the pandemic.
All of your other scenarios add complications and coincidences. Occam's razor suggests they all fail against the simple theory of zoonosis via the market.
"If the bat was being sent to the WIV and infected a pangolin, or whatever, then that's not a lab leak. That's a zoonotic event from a wild animal, as most scientists understand to be the cause of the pandemic."
Here's why I hate the phrase "lab leak". Some will read it as "they were experimenting with gain of function viruses and one got loose", when that is only one of a gazillion ways that a virus can escape as a result of bat virus research.
I learn a lot from PB.
Turns out I can read loads of posts about the origins of covid-19 on here and learn precisely nothing.
(Not a dig at you in any way Robert, I just find the back and forth so amusingly opaque.)
Thanks, I did see that and appreciate the reposting. I've put it on a list to read.
However, the article falls into the category of low-quality info for me because: (a) it has come to me via two posters who are on one side of a debate and so may be being selective in what they post, (b) I've no idea who astral codex ten is/are and what if any skin they have in the game and (c) I don't spend enough time on substack to be able to discern what if any quality control exists for this article.
Ho hum. Still, thanks for making the effort!
The arguments for and against the lab leak theory are in the debate itself. This article summarises the arguments so we don't have to watch the full thirty plus hours. The question is whether the summary is accurate. It is certainly detailed.
Ultimately we have to make up our own minds based on the evidence. The issue with the way it's discussed on PB is that we don't agree on what the evidence is, let alone the interpretation of it. The usefulness of the rootclaim debate is that it collates the evidence that people informed on the subject think is important. I am doubtful about the Bayesian rationales.
The "Bayesian" stuff is people making up numbers and saying that's their prior, and the prior fits their conclusions pretty neatly. It can't be taken seriously. I can't think of a field of knowledge where Bayesian reasoning plays a big role.
I was under the impression that Bayesian analysis is very important in a lot of fields, although I'm not an expert.
Looking at 2019 and just those that won seats I'm surprised I had not noticed how...proportionate Labour's ratio of seats to votes was. No surprise why the LDs are so salty about FPTP of course, but Plaid, Alliance, and SDLP seem to have ended up pretty proportionate too,
I'm sorry Faiza Shaheen is sad to not be the candidate but her defence for liking an anti-Semitic Tweet seems to be that we can't trust her to not like random Tweets on Twitter.
Is that much of an excuse, really?
Without seeing the example hard to say. People often claim it is oh so complicated to avoid anti-semitic remarks and comments, but it is usually not so complicated as they make out.
I'd be curious to see if anyone has done a wealth analysis of Brexit versus Remain voters.
Given the age differential where young people were more likely to be pro-Remain and old people more likely to be pro-Leave, it wouldn't remotely surprise me if rather than people voting Leave because they were treated "unfairly" or "disadvantaged" . . . I wouldn't be surprised if Leave voters were disproportionately more likely to own their own home and more likely to be well off than Remain voters.
1) We’re talking about their perception not their reality; and
2) The folk who felt disenfranchised weren’t all, or even necessarily most, Brexit voters but they got it over the line.
You’re right that the Brexit vote was a wide ranging, and now dispersed coalition. But that group, many of whom didn’t vote before Brexit and Boris, are still there to be won, and capable of pushing a party into a majority. A lot voted for Boris (and it was Boris, not the Tories) in 2019. Some might vote Labour this time but many won’t vote I expect. But they will make their voices heard again one day if they don’t see change.
We’ll see if I am right in the post-election voting analysis.
Since that group were a dispersed coalition they're not capable of pushing a party into a majority, especially today.
In a binary choice you get people of completely different views voting for the same thing, for totally different reasons.
In a general election you don't.
People have moved on. Brexit is done, its history, its not a thing today any more than WWII or the Vietnam War or the Corn Laws are.
Deal with the concerns people have today and that's how you get a majority, not raking over old concerns.
Except Brexit is still is a concern as it continues to slowly drag our economy down, we could certainly do with that 4% GDP every year to solve the myriad problems voters say they are concerned about.
I'm sorry Faiza Shaheen is sad to not be the candidate but her defence for liking an anti-Semitic Tweet seems to be that we can't trust her to not like random Tweets on Twitter.
Is that much of an excuse, really?
Without seeing the example hard to say. People often claim it is oh so complicated to avoid anti-semitic remarks and comments, but it is usually not so complicated as they make out.
Really hope Starmer takes some of this boldness into No.10 - I'm very tired of living in a world where our GDP per capita is still 10% below 2008 (current USD, legalising housing via zoning would be a good first step) - there are voters in this election who have no concept of a boom period - they'll have been 2 at the time of the GFC.
Seems even worse. You'd have to be in your mid thirties to have even been working before 2008. And its really only workers in their forties who have experienced a good bit of GROWTH!
Comments
The grid needs major investment at boosting capacity. Unfortunately I'm not sure how much your capacity charges are going on actually boosting capacity rather than just milking the existing network for what its worth.
EDIT: And yes what others have said about the costs going to bailout those who went bust due to gas prices going up. Which again is an issue you can blame on the fact we were burning gas rather than net zero, those costs wouldn't have been an issue had we already decarbonised when this happened.
Because Labour are likely to lower the threshold at which you start having to charge VAT to say £40,000 while potentially lowering the rate by a percentage or 2.
Don't know if it's my memory which is faulty, or I'm an idiot, or the whole Tory Party is just one fucking huge gas lamp or what.
But that doesn't mean she shouldn't be an MP because she DOES represent a strand of opinion within the public and she is, by all accounts, quite a good constituency MP.
W00t.
As I believe the tick tockers say.
Whatevers left of the Tory Party after 4th July they'll be looking for a fresh face and some new ideas, IMO.
The loser of the debate responded here; https://blog.rootclaim.com/rootclaims-covid-19-origins-debate-results/. The response contains the links to judgements finding in favour of zoonosis.
Ultimately we have to make up our own minds based on the evidence. The issue with the way it's discussed on PB is that we don't agree on what the evidence is, let alone the interpretation of it. The usefulness of the rootclaim debate is that it collates the evidence that people informed on the subject think is important. I am doubtful about the Bayesian rationales.
🚨 A NEW word-cloud from @RedfieldWilton shows that many voters aren't sure which policies they most associate with the Labour leader, although others mention "Improving the NHS" and "Housebuilding".
https://x.com/itvpeston/status/1795941742438502767
If they actually do some soul searching and come to a consistent and coherent view, whether it is more centrism or a harder push to the right or whatever, I shall be surprised.
Party will demand tech giants install a feature blocking thieves re-registering nicked devices - with threat to force them by law if they fail to act.
https://x.com/jackelsom/status/1795943050700591471
Still confused as to what the clear plan Sunak has that he won't stop banging on about.
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/jonathan-gullis-pictured-on-campaign-trail-convicted-heroin-dealer/
I'm doing a little 'guess the seat totals' for some work colleagues and providing a spreadsheet for them to fill in.
I've had to explain to most that Northern Ireland exists.
I've had to explain to a few that Scotland and Wales also exist.
Do we expect Alba to win any seats at all? I can't see it, but can't be sure?
My form has Con, Lab, LD, Green (all three UK parties as one), Reform, SNP, Plaid, DUP, UUP, SDLP, Sinn Fein and Alliance (and speaker autocompleted). Could any other party realistically get a seat?
For Truss especially her intentions were good but her implementation was absolutely bloody awful. Same intentions but competently implemented would be a vast improvement.
The problem with Sunak is I don't respect either his intentions or his implementation.
Why not just run an overall majority sweep?
The “revolution” vote that under-wrote Brexit still hasn’t been answered and those feelings are still there.
I mean, the major parties are all coalitions, of sorts, with a wide array of opinions. Most of the time people don't know, certainly for the first time, where their MP might fall within an internal faction. Even if they do that's no guarantee of where they will be in future, it depends on how loyalist they are, how they react to events and so on.
Then even if you have that it is not as though parties at a national level are micromanaging every single selection (not until Keir gets his way anyway), they don't guarantee who is in every seat, and like the public they won't know whether someone is far left or far right for sure. They will have some indicators based on their pasts, but that's it. That's how the O'Maras of the world get in. Then they don't know who might get elected after all that.
So how on earth is a party even meant to 'represent a strand of opinion' for the public, even if they want to offer in essence a minority report version of their main offering in a certain location?
I think most people would generally agree too much centralised party control is probably bad in the long run, and the party machines are pretty powerful as it is. But I don't see how it follows that they have an obligation to select opponents of the leadership in order to keep a broad array of views - there are probably hard left wingers who are less of a stone in the shoe. Of course, local parties are usually the ones who get to decide, so the circumstances in which the national party get involved is a separate matter entirely.
This Abbott case may be harsh on her, and it may be a sign the leadership is overly controlling, both seem fair enough views. But the public have not been let down one way or another by it I think - we don't usually know what strand of opinion we're getting from within a party, and whilst parties are broad churches, the very point of them is to give us a broad indication of the range of views, and if one is a bit too narrow, the idea is others fill the gap.
There's also the possibility that that revolution dies off through natural wastage. That it was a last gasp death rattle of the old order.
Am genuinely unsure where we are headed.
https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/1795945617908261113
Why include the words 'Labour will win' on an image, even if above them it is preceded by an If?
However that could and should be twinned with Councils losing responsibility for financing anything that is nationally mandated. Like social care and SEND. Why should local councils be paying for nationally-mandated care and SEND needs rather than say the national Treasury via the Department for Health and Social Care, or the Department for Education?
Have the national government pay for everything nationally determined and have the local councils cut down to size and paying for genuinely local issues, like bin collection and other rubbish.
I'm thinking more widely about the motivations behind it and a paradigm shift in attitudes.
People act like everyone who voted for Brexit was underserved and frustrated or angry but that's not really the case at all.
@Leon shared a poll here arguing that the whole country is frustrated with migration for instance, but the details of the poll said that migration was a concern bothering just 24% of people. Three quarters of the population don't care or didn't care enough to mention it when asked.
What frustrations exist? People's frustrations vary dramatically and vary by individual, but I don't see any actual evidence that the concerns of 2024 are the same as 2016. Cost of living and other things like that are far more likely to be an issue now, people have moved on already, even if @Scott_xP is still fighting the good fight.
What has been amusing this evening is travelling by train from Newark to Aberdeen. All the way up there have been local FB messages from Tory candidates. Clearly CCHQ are putting a lot of effort into locally targeted social media campaigning. This culminated a few minutes ago with a FB message as I arrived in Aberdeen from the Aberdeen South Tory candidate with a classic 'only we can bestcthe SNP' bar chart.
I have to say I am surprised at the sophistication of the Tory social media campaign if not with their actual message.
Since the poor bloody workers seem to take the hit at every turn.
Given the age differential where young people were more likely to be pro-Remain and old people more likely to be pro-Leave, it wouldn't remotely surprise me if rather than people voting Leave because they were treated "unfairly" or "disadvantaged" . . . I wouldn't be surprised if Leave voters were disproportionately more likely to own their own home and more likely to be well off than Remain voters.
The question is whether the Tories will be fortunate to get their shit together after one loss, or if it will take more. The last 50 years suggests more than one is common.
"The tax burden you face now is the highest in human history.
Don't let Labour make it even higher".
I don't understand the maths but it works.
Chris Barrie's Brittas may have been a comedic character, but his sense of trying to do right, and getting his people to try to do right, for the community and leisure industry could go a long way today.
I was watching a Times Radio piece
earlier.suggesting the Tory war chest is empty.
https://youtu.be/DlIsI6W-zQk?si=IqAQpJZ2odvrR76L
Not sure that strategy would work very well for the Conservatives in 2024 though... 😂
#Enjoy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIBZ1QXi610
This is the wisest thing I have heard coming out of your keyboard,
The majority of Israeli and Palestinian politicians and very many of their followers fall foul of this "TSE Test"
2) The folk who felt disenfranchised weren’t all, or even necessarily most, Brexit voters but they got it over the line.
You’re right that the Brexit vote was a wide ranging, and now dispersed coalition. But that group, many of whom didn’t vote before Brexit and Boris, are still there to be won, and capable of pushing a party into a majority. A lot voted for Boris (and it was Boris, not the Tories) in 2019. Some might vote Labour this time but many won’t vote I expect. But they will make their voices heard again one day if they don’t see change.
We’ll see if I am right in the post-election voting analysis.
I'm running 'guess the seat totals' but also 'guess your seat', but so far I've got Sefton Central, Bootle, Liverpool Riverside and the new Runcorn and Helsby for people to guess. I expect to add Birkenhead, Wirral West and Liverpool Walton to that list soon. Not much difficulty guessing the results here.....
I'm struggling to make it difficult, so maybe I'll tell people to move house to Caithness or somewhere better.
This is an interesting finding too.
People living in left-behind areas were more likely to support Brexit than those living in prosperous areas. The gains of Brexit were perceived to be greater in areas of the country that had experienced economic decline. But within those areas, given people's preferences, we show that wealthier individuals were more likely to vote for Brexit, and poorer individuals were more likely to vote for Remain.
In a binary choice you get people of completely different views voting for the same thing, for totally different reasons.
In a general election you don't.
People have moved on. Brexit is done, its history, its not a thing today any more than WWII or the Vietnam War or the Corn Laws are.
Deal with the concerns people have today and that's how you get a majority, not raking over old concerns.
Is that much of an excuse, really?
No surprise why the LDs are so salty about FPTP of course, but Plaid, Alliance, and SDLP seem to have ended up pretty proportionate too,
https://x.com/phl43/status/1789653035456643277
Her defence is that she only watched the video and she liked the Tweet for that reason.