The new normal? Reform ahead of the Tories – politicalbetting.com

JosiasJessop said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jonathan said:

MarqueeMark said:

Jonathan said:

MarqueeMark said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

AnneJGP said:

Good morning, everybody.

It's a time of considerable turmoil and it seems to me that, after such a long time in government, the Conservatives should be focussing on what they truly believe. Sorting themselves out, as @Alanbrooke says.

I think people know what the Conservatives believe. It is just they have spent 14 years not doing what they claim to believe, so why should the voters trust them?

2010 - 2015 were spent in coalition with the LibDems. Should they have spent those years doing Conservatve stuff?

Once you get to 2016, you have the political turmoil that dispatched Cameron and Osborne. Then May lingered in an ever weakened state because Parliament was deadlocked.

A deadlock broken by Boris winning in December 2019. But then you get to the start of 2020, and Covid - when the decision was taken by the government to max out the credit card protecting the private sector from destruction (and the massive overtime bill for the NHS).

Then funding lecky bills to mitigate the Cost of Living Crisis.

About the only time in those 14 years there was scope for a proper Conservative agenda was what Sunak and Hunt were trying to implement from 2022 onwards. Albeit, hideously boxed in by what had gone before.

That’s such a load of old cobblers. Cameron won the 2015 election. He was king of all he surveyed, he had it all in front of him and then proceeded to screw it up. An unforced error.

No one forced May to call a GE in 2017 and Boris brought himself down by being Boris. Truss had the opportunity to reset again, but blew it.

Cameron won in 2015 because the Conservative manifesto committed to "a straight in-out referendum on our membership of the European Union by the end of 2017". (Labour, in an echo of its Ming vase strategy of 2024, did not support this, but did commit to an EU membership referendum if any further powers were transferred to the European Union.)

How long would the King of All He Surveys have lasted if he had not delivered the Referendum?

Having a Referendum was voted for by the population in the 2015 General Election.

Leaving the EU was voted for by the population in 2016.

So a load of old cobblers backatcher....

Cameron wrote the manifesto. He could have taken a different route. He chose the timing and terms of the referendum. He could have bought off Boris and run a different campaign. His hubris got in the way.

He was not a passive consumer of events out of his control. This was his priority, enacted by him in the way he saw as most advantageous to him and his party. The fact he screwed up is irrelevant.

He had a huge opportunity to set his form of Conservatism up for years and blew it.

There wasn't an option to ignore the EU as a political issue. The Overton Window had shifted too far.

If all three mainstream parties had done so then the insurgency would have happened earlier, not later, and it would have dominated our domestic politics anyway.

That's pretty much my view. A referendum was inevitable - and the longer it was left, the less likely it was for remain to win. If Blair had held one in 2001 he would have won massively. Perhaps even got Euro membership as well...

(I am not saying I agree with Euro membership; I was against it. Just positing that anti-EU sentiment increased over the years.)

noneoftheabove said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

Establishment centrists and populist insurgents are about equal, in terms of being self-serving and duplicitous, and selling snake oil.

But the former frequently give the impression that they place the interests of foreigners above the interests of their own people.

The default assumption is that Establishment Centrists must be the more pragmatic and moderate option. But, in recent years, they have taken dogmatic and 'extreme' positions against new nuclear power, the need for a strong defence, and put ideological commitments to free movement, hyper social liberalism and human rights over the pragmatic political and social consequences that causes on the ground.

That's why the noises about them being centrist and sensible don't always resonate.

There is definitely confusion about centrism and being moderate or for the status quo. I'm a radical centrist, I think we are on the wrong track and collectively as a nation deluded about our future, but think the solutions will be a mix of those from the left and right, and we should pick'n'mix what works best, for us, at the moment, from the widest range of policy options, whether mostly socialist or mostly capitalist.

kinabalu said:

Selebian said:

viewcode said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Student activists force RAF to close stalls at university job fairs
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/defence/article/student-activists-force-raf-to-close-stalls-at-university-job-fairs-dr9q2th6v (£££)

This is the problem with university free speech. How do universities guarantee it against this sort of mass protest?

Is that a free speech problem or a public order problem? The RAF were going about their lawful business having obtained the necessary consents and should be allowed to do so unimpeded.

Yep, different things. Free speech - students should be completely free to protest outside the venue while not impeding anyone's access. I don't have the details of this story (no subscription) but if they forced closure of stalls then it seems a lot more than exercising a right to free speech.

It can be a fine line. Imagine a large and noisy group of people getting in your face as you make to enter something. They aren't physically stopping you but it's unpleasant and you think, "no, not worth it, I'll go do something else". So then whatever the event is is severely compromised.

Nigelb said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

Establishment centrists and populist insurgents are about equal, in terms of being self-serving and duplicitous, and selling snake oil.

But the former frequently give the impression that they place the interests of foreigners above the interests of their own people.

The default assumption is that Establishment Centrists must be the more pragmatic and moderate option. But, in recent years, they have taken dogmatic and 'extreme' positions against new nuclear power, the need for a strong defence, and put ideological commitments to free movement, hyper social liberalism and human rights over the pragmatic political and social consequences that causes on the ground.

That's why the noises about them being centrist and sensible don't always resonate.

You would probably label me a centrist.
But I've long argued in favour of nuclear power (just not our crap way of doing it), and in favour of strong defence (but again not managed competently).
And I'd take issue with your labelling yourself a social/political pragmatist. You're as much a dogmatist as those you label as "hyper social liberals", whatever that might mean.

noneoftheabove said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

Establishment centrists and populist insurgents are about equal, in terms of being self-serving and duplicitous, and selling snake oil.

But the former frequently give the impression that they place the interests of foreigners above the interests of their own people.

The default assumption is that Establishment Centrists must be the more pragmatic and moderate option. But, in recent years, they have taken dogmatic and 'extreme' positions against new nuclear power, the need for a strong defence, and put ideological commitments to free movement, hyper social liberalism and human rights over the pragmatic political and social consequences that causes on the ground.

That's why the noises about them being centrist and sensible don't always resonate.

There is definitely confusion about centrism and being moderate or for the status quo. I'm a radical centrist, I think we are on the wrong track and collectively as a nation deluded about our future, but think the solutions will be a mix of those from the left and right, and we should pick'n'mix what works best, for us, at the moment, from the widest range of policy options, whether mostly socialist or mostly capitalist.

Malmesbury said:

SouthamObserver said:

MattW said:

Foxy said:

viewcode said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Student activists force RAF to close stalls at university job fairs
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/defence/article/student-activists-force-raf-to-close-stalls-at-university-job-fairs-dr9q2th6v (£££)

This is the problem with university free speech. How do universities guarantee it against this sort of mass protest?

Is that a free speech problem or a public order problem? The RAF were going about their lawful business having obtained the necessary consents and should be allowed to do so unimpeded.

Surely the protestors were the ones exercising free speech.

I draw the line where it involves impeding or preventing others from going about their lawful business.

At the very least the protestors are breaching the peace, though other offences could apply. I'd suggest a suitable remedy would be a night or two in a police cell and a conditional discharge by the Magistrate the next court day.

And that would apply to farmers driving their tractors down motorways or through London to deliberate slowdown or halt traffic just as much as it would apply to Just Stop Oil protestors.

IIRC the farmers took very considerable legal advice and cooperated with the police on the nature, size and structure of their protest.

So your comparison with Just Stop Oil isn't valid.

Malmesbury said:

noneoftheabove said:

Malmesbury said:

noneoftheabove said:

Malmesbury said:

noneoftheabove said:

Cookie said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jonathan said:

Mexicanpete said:

Nigelb said:

AnneJGP said:

Good morning, everybody.

It's a time of considerable turmoil and it seems to me that, after such a long time in government, the Conservatives should be focussing on what they truly believe. Sorting themselves out, as @Alanbrooke says.

And what would that be ?
You'd get very different answers from (say) TSE, HYUFD, Casino and PtP.

The last decade has fragmented their coalition - and some of those fragments may permanently be lost to them.

Suella was on LBC yesterday doubling down on going full frontal Reform with a view to either a coalition or tacit mutual benefit arrangements. Personally, I would have thought that peels off the left flank to the LDs.

Where do people like Cameron, Osborne or May go on that scenario. A new “Coalition” party would become their natural home.

This is classic 'centrist' establishment thinking.

People want immigration brought under control. End of.

But it's not end of, is it? They also want functioning public services, more housing, people to look after their elderly relatives and so on. So what does immigration control actually look like in those circumstances?

None of that is incompatible with much lower immigration. It does however imply some redistribution in how various groups in society do. Particularly at the expense of comfortably off over 50s. But in favour of the lowest paid.

It is in the short term at least. Construction, care and health each have job vacancies in the hundreds of thousands. If we want to offer more construction, and better care we need immigration.

Longer term you could encourage more people into those jobs by paying more (in the case of care that would be tax rises) but it is not going to happen overnight and it won't be at all easy. Personally to do a care type job I would want to be paid at least double what I can get elsewhere, I doubt that is unusual for many Brits.

80%+ of people working in care homes are native to the UK.

The belief that "Brits are too posh to do the jobs that Proper Immigrants will do" reminds me of Oriental Lassitude. The belief, by pith helmeted men in shorts, sipping G&T, that the locals in Thailand, Malaysia etc were irredeemably lazy.

To be fair, a large part of the belief that Brits Do Not Work comes from opinion formers being in Central London, where the demographics & economics mean that much of the bottom end work *is* done by recent immigrants.

So at current rates of pay and vacancies we are about 30% short in attracting enough domestic workers into thos jobs nationally, and that will be higher in London?

Hard to say - because there are other factors in the mix. Such as a belief that cheap labour is a better solution than automation.

The problem there, in London, is that the housing costs are pricing even "the multiple adults living in each room" type accommodation out of existence. So the cheapo workers live further and further out.

Which is why the chain shops are automating ordering and tills, monitored by a couple of staff, for instance.

In small and medium construction, the adamant refusal to automate is beginning to break down.

It isn't really hard to say because more jobs are available and domestic workers aren't applying for them.

We are seeing a problem, in Central London, of *no-one* offering to do jobs at the rate. Even the cash-in-hand-illegals can't afford to.

It's reached the point where solutions that were regarded as impossible or extreme are being implemented - such as automation.

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

Foxy said:

viewcode said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Student activists force RAF to close stalls at university job fairs
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/defence/article/student-activists-force-raf-to-close-stalls-at-university-job-fairs-dr9q2th6v (£££)

This is the problem with university free speech. How do universities guarantee it against this sort of mass protest?

Is that a free speech problem or a public order problem? The RAF were going about their lawful business having obtained the necessary consents and should be allowed to do so unimpeded.

Surely the protestors were the ones exercising free speech.

Free speech is the absence of a negative - i.e. it means you are not persecuted for making your point - not that you have the right to do it when and where wherever you like and disrupt others doing the same or going about their lawful business.

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jonathan said:

Mexicanpete said:

Nigelb said:

AnneJGP said:

Good morning, everybody.

It's a time of considerable turmoil and it seems to me that, after such a long time in government, the Conservatives should be focussing on what they truly believe. Sorting themselves out, as @Alanbrooke says.

And what would that be ?
You'd get very different answers from (say) TSE, HYUFD, Casino and PtP.

The last decade has fragmented their coalition - and some of those fragments may permanently be lost to them.

Suella was on LBC yesterday doubling down on going full frontal Reform with a view to either a coalition or tacit mutual benefit arrangements. Personally, I would have thought that peels off the left flank to the LDs.

Where do people like Cameron, Osborne or May go on that scenario. A new “Coalition” party would become their natural home.

This is classic 'centrist' establishment thinking.

People want immigration brought under control. End of.

But it's not end of, is it? They also want functioning public services, more housing, people to look after their elderly relatives and so on. So what does immigration control actually look like in those circumstances?

You just don't get it.

You never will.

I get that you do not want to engage with difficult conversations and would prefer everything to be black and white. I also get that black and white is a very compelling political argument. But it does not solve deep-seated economic challenges.

I engage in difficult conversations on here all the time, but you won't brook anything that goes against your world view - which is that you only want immigration to be about economic benefits.

MarqueeMark said:

JosiasJessop said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jonathan said:

MarqueeMark said:

Jonathan said:

MarqueeMark said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

AnneJGP said:

Good morning, everybody.

It's a time of considerable turmoil and it seems to me that, after such a long time in government, the Conservatives should be focussing on what they truly believe. Sorting themselves out, as @Alanbrooke says.

I think people know what the Conservatives believe. It is just they have spent 14 years not doing what they claim to believe, so why should the voters trust them?

2010 - 2015 were spent in coalition with the LibDems. Should they have spent those years doing Conservatve stuff?

Once you get to 2016, you have the political turmoil that dispatched Cameron and Osborne. Then May lingered in an ever weakened state because Parliament was deadlocked.

A deadlock broken by Boris winning in December 2019. But then you get to the start of 2020, and Covid - when the decision was taken by the government to max out the credit card protecting the private sector from destruction (and the massive overtime bill for the NHS).

Then funding lecky bills to mitigate the Cost of Living Crisis.

About the only time in those 14 years there was scope for a proper Conservative agenda was what Sunak and Hunt were trying to implement from 2022 onwards. Albeit, hideously boxed in by what had gone before.

That’s such a load of old cobblers. Cameron won the 2015 election. He was king of all he surveyed, he had it all in front of him and then proceeded to screw it up. An unforced error.

No one forced May to call a GE in 2017 and Boris brought himself down by being Boris. Truss had the opportunity to reset again, but blew it.

Cameron won in 2015 because the Conservative manifesto committed to "a straight in-out referendum on our membership of the European Union by the end of 2017". (Labour, in an echo of its Ming vase strategy of 2024, did not support this, but did commit to an EU membership referendum if any further powers were transferred to the European Union.)

How long would the King of All He Surveys have lasted if he had not delivered the Referendum?

Having a Referendum was voted for by the population in the 2015 General Election.

Leaving the EU was voted for by the population in 2016.

So a load of old cobblers backatcher....

Cameron wrote the manifesto. He could have taken a different route. He chose the timing and terms of the referendum. He could have bought off Boris and run a different campaign. His hubris got in the way.

He was not a passive consumer of events out of his control. This was his priority, enacted by him in the way he saw as most advantageous to him and his party. The fact he screwed up is irrelevant.

He had a huge opportunity to set his form of Conservatism up for years and blew it.

There wasn't an option to ignore the EU as a political issue. The Overton Window had shifted too far.

If all three mainstream parties had done so then the insurgency would have happened earlier, not later, and it would have dominated our domestic politics anyway.

That's pretty much my view. A referendum was inevitable - and the longer it was left, the less likely it was for remain to win. If Blair had held one in 2001 he would have won massively. Perhaps even got Euro membership as well...

(I am not saying I agree with Euro membership; I was against it. Just positing that anti-EU sentiment increased over the years.)

If Cameron and Clegg had held one in 2011, they would have walked it. 60/40. We'd have been locked into the European Project. For ever.

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

Foxy said:

viewcode said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Student activists force RAF to close stalls at university job fairs
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/defence/article/student-activists-force-raf-to-close-stalls-at-university-job-fairs-dr9q2th6v (£££)

This is the problem with university free speech. How do universities guarantee it against this sort of mass protest?

Is that a free speech problem or a public order problem? The RAF were going about their lawful business having obtained the necessary consents and should be allowed to do so unimpeded.

Surely the protestors were the ones exercising free speech.

Free speech is the absence of a negative - i.e. it means you are not persecuted for making your point - not that you have the right to do it when and where wherever you like and disrupt others doing the same or going about their lawful business.

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jonathan said:

Mexicanpete said:

Nigelb said:

AnneJGP said:

Good morning, everybody.

It's a time of considerable turmoil and it seems to me that, after such a long time in government, the Conservatives should be focussing on what they truly believe. Sorting themselves out, as @Alanbrooke says.

And what would that be ?
You'd get very different answers from (say) TSE, HYUFD, Casino and PtP.

The last decade has fragmented their coalition - and some of those fragments may permanently be lost to them.

Suella was on LBC yesterday doubling down on going full frontal Reform with a view to either a coalition or tacit mutual benefit arrangements. Personally, I would have thought that peels off the left flank to the LDs.

Where do people like Cameron, Osborne or May go on that scenario. A new “Coalition” party would become their natural home.

This is classic 'centrist' establishment thinking.

People want immigration brought under control. End of.

But it's not end of, is it? They also want functioning public services, more housing, people to look after their elderly relatives and so on. So what does immigration control actually look like in those circumstances?

You just don't get it.

You never will.

I get that you do not want to engage with difficult conversations and would prefer everything to be black and white. I also get that black and white is a very compelling political argument. But it does not solve deep-seated economic challenges.

I engage in difficult conversations on here all the time, but you won't brook anything that goes against your world view - which is that you only want immigration to be about economic benefits.

SouthamObserver said:

Malmesbury said:

SouthamObserver said:

MattW said:

Foxy said:

viewcode said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Student activists force RAF to close stalls at university job fairs
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/defence/article/student-activists-force-raf-to-close-stalls-at-university-job-fairs-dr9q2th6v (£££)

This is the problem with university free speech. How do universities guarantee it against this sort of mass protest?

Is that a free speech problem or a public order problem? The RAF were going about their lawful business having obtained the necessary consents and should be allowed to do so unimpeded.

Surely the protestors were the ones exercising free speech.

I draw the line where it involves impeding or preventing others from going about their lawful business.

At the very least the protestors are breaching the peace, though other offences could apply. I'd suggest a suitable remedy would be a night or two in a police cell and a conditional discharge by the Magistrate the next court day.

And that would apply to farmers driving their tractors down motorways or through London to deliberate slowdown or halt traffic just as much as it would apply to Just Stop Oil protestors.

IIRC the farmers took very considerable legal advice and cooperated with the police on the nature, size and structure of their protest.

So your comparison with Just Stop Oil isn't valid.

Hmmmm ....

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8edr43wg27o

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cr5629zjqq3o

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

Foxy said:

viewcode said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Student activists force RAF to close stalls at university job fairs
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/defence/article/student-activists-force-raf-to-close-stalls-at-university-job-fairs-dr9q2th6v (£££)

This is the problem with university free speech. How do universities guarantee it against this sort of mass protest?

Is that a free speech problem or a public order problem? The RAF were going about their lawful business having obtained the necessary consents and should be allowed to do so unimpeded.

Surely the protestors were the ones exercising free speech.

Free speech is the absence of a negative - i.e. it means you are not persecuted for making your point - not that you have the right to do it when and where wherever you like and disrupt others doing the same or going about their lawful business.

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jonathan said:

Mexicanpete said:

Nigelb said:

AnneJGP said:

Good morning, everybody.

It's a time of considerable turmoil and it seems to me that, after such a long time in government, the Conservatives should be focussing on what they truly believe. Sorting themselves out, as @Alanbrooke says.

And what would that be ?
You'd get very different answers from (say) TSE, HYUFD, Casino and PtP.

The last decade has fragmented their coalition - and some of those fragments may permanently be lost to them.

Suella was on LBC yesterday doubling down on going full frontal Reform with a view to either a coalition or tacit mutual benefit arrangements. Personally, I would have thought that peels off the left flank to the LDs.

Where do people like Cameron, Osborne or May go on that scenario. A new “Coalition” party would become their natural home.

This is classic 'centrist' establishment thinking.

People want immigration brought under control. End of.

But it's not end of, is it? They also want functioning public services, more housing, people to look after their elderly relatives and so on. So what does immigration control actually look like in those circumstances?

You just don't get it.

You never will.

I get that you do not want to engage with difficult conversations and would prefer everything to be black and white. I also get that black and white is a very compelling political argument. But it does not solve deep-seated economic challenges.

I engage in difficult conversations on here all the time, but you won't brook anything that goes against your world view - which is that you only want immigration to be about economic benefits.

No, I want immigration to be discussed honestly.

A substantial reduction to immigration levels will have an adverse effect on our economy in multiple ways. I don't think we can afford for that to happen given where our economy is currently.

Malmesbury said:

kinabalu said:

Selebian said:

viewcode said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Student activists force RAF to close stalls at university job fairs
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/defence/article/student-activists-force-raf-to-close-stalls-at-university-job-fairs-dr9q2th6v (£££)

This is the problem with university free speech. How do universities guarantee it against this sort of mass protest?

Is that a free speech problem or a public order problem? The RAF were going about their lawful business having obtained the necessary consents and should be allowed to do so unimpeded.

Yep, different things. Free speech - students should be completely free to protest outside the venue while not impeding anyone's access. I don't have the details of this story (no subscription) but if they forced closure of stalls then it seems a lot more than exercising a right to free speech.

It can be a fine line. Imagine a large and noisy group of people getting in your face as you make to enter something. They aren't physically stopping you but it's unpleasant and you think, "no, not worth it, I'll go do something else". So then whatever the event is is severely compromised.

The classic case of this is abortion clinics.

SouthamObserver said:

noneoftheabove said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

Foxy said:

viewcode said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Student activists force RAF to close stalls at university job fairs
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/defence/article/student-activists-force-raf-to-close-stalls-at-university-job-fairs-dr9q2th6v (£££)

This is the problem with university free speech. How do universities guarantee it against this sort of mass protest?

Is that a free speech problem or a public order problem? The RAF were going about their lawful business having obtained the necessary consents and should be allowed to do so unimpeded.

Surely the protestors were the ones exercising free speech.

Free speech is the absence of a negative - i.e. it means you are not persecuted for making your point - not that you have the right to do it when and where wherever you like and disrupt others doing the same or going about their lawful business.

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jonathan said:

Mexicanpete said:

Nigelb said:

AnneJGP said:

Good morning, everybody.

It's a time of considerable turmoil and it seems to me that, after such a long time in government, the Conservatives should be focussing on what they truly believe. Sorting themselves out, as @Alanbrooke says.

And what would that be ?
You'd get very different answers from (say) TSE, HYUFD, Casino and PtP.

The last decade has fragmented their coalition - and some of those fragments may permanently be lost to them.

Suella was on LBC yesterday doubling down on going full frontal Reform with a view to either a coalition or tacit mutual benefit arrangements. Personally, I would have thought that peels off the left flank to the LDs.

Where do people like Cameron, Osborne or May go on that scenario. A new “Coalition” party would become their natural home.

This is classic 'centrist' establishment thinking.

People want immigration brought under control. End of.

But it's not end of, is it? They also want functioning public services, more housing, people to look after their elderly relatives and so on. So what does immigration control actually look like in those circumstances?

You just don't get it.

You never will.

I get that you do not want to engage with difficult conversations and would prefer everything to be black and white. I also get that black and white is a very compelling political argument. But it does not solve deep-seated economic challenges.

I engage in difficult conversations on here all the time, but you won't brook anything that goes against your world view - which is that you only want immigration to be about economic benefits.

No, I want immigration to be discussed honestly.

A substantial reduction to immigration levels will have an adverse effect on our economy in multiple ways. I don't think we can afford for that to happen given where our economy is currently.

A substantial reduction from a 10 year average or 2 year average as those are very different?

Well, exactly. Immigration numbers are going to come down significantly over the next year. Is that enough? If not, why not and what will give?

Selebian said:

kinabalu said:

Selebian said:

viewcode said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Student activists force RAF to close stalls at university job fairs
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/defence/article/student-activists-force-raf-to-close-stalls-at-university-job-fairs-dr9q2th6v (£££)

This is the problem with university free speech. How do universities guarantee it against this sort of mass protest?

Is that a free speech problem or a public order problem? The RAF were going about their lawful business having obtained the necessary consents and should be allowed to do so unimpeded.

Yep, different things. Free speech - students should be completely free to protest outside the venue while not impeding anyone's access. I don't have the details of this story (no subscription) but if they forced closure of stalls then it seems a lot more than exercising a right to free speech.

It can be a fine line. Imagine a large and noisy group of people getting in your face as you make to enter something. They aren't physically stopping you but it's unpleasant and you think, "no, not worth it, I'll go do something else". So then whatever the event is is severely compromised.

It can. Here it would be the University's job to make sure that didn't happen, I think. Here's where you can stand (which should be near enough to have an impact, but not close enough to block, threaten or intimidate) here's where you have to keep free. Not an easy job necessarily, but it has to be done - and peacenik students should back it, because next time it might be a contingent of RAF veterans shutting down a CND* stall

*still a thing?

Carnyx said:

Also for @TSE

https://www.thenational.scot/news/24858178.holyrood-poll-predicts-major-win-snp---fractured-parliament/?ref=ebbn&nid=1457&u=f140ec39d500193051a33e140c12bd95&date=150125

https://www.thenational.scot/news/24858415.john-curtice-delivers-verdict-new-holyrood-2026-election-poll/

(sorry not to comment - am busy finishing something)

mwadams said:

Malmesbury said:

kinabalu said:

Selebian said:

viewcode said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Student activists force RAF to close stalls at university job fairs
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/defence/article/student-activists-force-raf-to-close-stalls-at-university-job-fairs-dr9q2th6v (£££)

This is the problem with university free speech. How do universities guarantee it against this sort of mass protest?

Is that a free speech problem or a public order problem? The RAF were going about their lawful business having obtained the necessary consents and should be allowed to do so unimpeded.

Yep, different things. Free speech - students should be completely free to protest outside the venue while not impeding anyone's access. I don't have the details of this story (no subscription) but if they forced closure of stalls then it seems a lot more than exercising a right to free speech.

It can be a fine line. Imagine a large and noisy group of people getting in your face as you make to enter something. They aren't physically stopping you but it's unpleasant and you think, "no, not worth it, I'll go do something else". So then whatever the event is is severely compromised.

The classic case of this is abortion clinics.

And a physical impediment isn't the only form of impediment - shouting threats and obscenities is only one step away from that and is surely covered by public order law. Silently standing with protest banners might still be intimidating but probably moves back into the realms of "you have to suck it up".

Malmesbury said:

mwadams said:

Malmesbury said:

kinabalu said:

Selebian said:

viewcode said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Student activists force RAF to close stalls at university job fairs
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/defence/article/student-activists-force-raf-to-close-stalls-at-university-job-fairs-dr9q2th6v (£££)

This is the problem with university free speech. How do universities guarantee it against this sort of mass protest?

Is that a free speech problem or a public order problem? The RAF were going about their lawful business having obtained the necessary consents and should be allowed to do so unimpeded.

Yep, different things. Free speech - students should be completely free to protest outside the venue while not impeding anyone's access. I don't have the details of this story (no subscription) but if they forced closure of stalls then it seems a lot more than exercising a right to free speech.

It can be a fine line. Imagine a large and noisy group of people getting in your face as you make to enter something. They aren't physically stopping you but it's unpleasant and you think, "no, not worth it, I'll go do something else". So then whatever the event is is severely compromised.

The classic case of this is abortion clinics.

And a physical impediment isn't the only form of impediment - shouting threats and obscenities is only one step away from that and is surely covered by public order law. Silently standing with protest banners might still be intimidating but probably moves back into the realms of "you have to suck it up".

There have been cases where silent protest with banners outside abortion clinics has been blocked by the courts. Because of implied intimidation.

Attempting to reduce this to a simple set of rules is impossible.

MattW said:

SouthamObserver said:

Malmesbury said:

SouthamObserver said:

MattW said:

Foxy said:

viewcode said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Student activists force RAF to close stalls at university job fairs
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/defence/article/student-activists-force-raf-to-close-stalls-at-university-job-fairs-dr9q2th6v (£££)

This is the problem with university free speech. How do universities guarantee it against this sort of mass protest?

Is that a free speech problem or a public order problem? The RAF were going about their lawful business having obtained the necessary consents and should be allowed to do so unimpeded.

Surely the protestors were the ones exercising free speech.

I draw the line where it involves impeding or preventing others from going about their lawful business.

At the very least the protestors are breaching the peace, though other offences could apply. I'd suggest a suitable remedy would be a night or two in a police cell and a conditional discharge by the Magistrate the next court day.

And that would apply to farmers driving their tractors down motorways or through London to deliberate slowdown or halt traffic just as much as it would apply to Just Stop Oil protestors.

IIRC the farmers took very considerable legal advice and cooperated with the police on the nature, size and structure of their protest.

So your comparison with Just Stop Oil isn't valid.

Hmmmm ....

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8edr43wg27o

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cr5629zjqq3o

Such a comparison surely is valid, with the note that the farmers were likely on the right side of the line.

Casino_Royale said:

noneoftheabove said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

Establishment centrists and populist insurgents are about equal, in terms of being self-serving and duplicitous, and selling snake oil.

But the former frequently give the impression that they place the interests of foreigners above the interests of their own people.

The default assumption is that Establishment Centrists must be the more pragmatic and moderate option. But, in recent years, they have taken dogmatic and 'extreme' positions against new nuclear power, the need for a strong defence, and put ideological commitments to free movement, hyper social liberalism and human rights over the pragmatic political and social consequences that causes on the ground.

That's why the noises about them being centrist and sensible don't always resonate.

There is definitely confusion about centrism and being moderate or for the status quo. I'm a radical centrist, I think we are on the wrong track and collectively as a nation deluded about our future, but think the solutions will be a mix of those from the left and right, and we should pick'n'mix what works best, for us, at the moment, from the widest range of policy options, whether mostly socialist or mostly capitalist.

Yes, I think centrism is just a framing of the argument to make one's own views seem like the choice of any sensible, reasonable person.

It probably only literally applies in the field of economics, but with a preference for higher spending, where possible, over lower taxes.

williamglenn said:

SouthamObserver said:

noneoftheabove said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

Foxy said:

viewcode said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Student activists force RAF to close stalls at university job fairs
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/defence/article/student-activists-force-raf-to-close-stalls-at-university-job-fairs-dr9q2th6v (£££)

This is the problem with university free speech. How do universities guarantee it against this sort of mass protest?

Is that a free speech problem or a public order problem? The RAF were going about their lawful business having obtained the necessary consents and should be allowed to do so unimpeded.

Surely the protestors were the ones exercising free speech.

Free speech is the absence of a negative - i.e. it means you are not persecuted for making your point - not that you have the right to do it when and where wherever you like and disrupt others doing the same or going about their lawful business.

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jonathan said:

Mexicanpete said:

Nigelb said:

AnneJGP said:

Good morning, everybody.

It's a time of considerable turmoil and it seems to me that, after such a long time in government, the Conservatives should be focussing on what they truly believe. Sorting themselves out, as @Alanbrooke says.

And what would that be ?
You'd get very different answers from (say) TSE, HYUFD, Casino and PtP.

The last decade has fragmented their coalition - and some of those fragments may permanently be lost to them.

Suella was on LBC yesterday doubling down on going full frontal Reform with a view to either a coalition or tacit mutual benefit arrangements. Personally, I would have thought that peels off the left flank to the LDs.

Where do people like Cameron, Osborne or May go on that scenario. A new “Coalition” party would become their natural home.

This is classic 'centrist' establishment thinking.

People want immigration brought under control. End of.

But it's not end of, is it? They also want functioning public services, more housing, people to look after their elderly relatives and so on. So what does immigration control actually look like in those circumstances?

You just don't get it.

You never will.

I get that you do not want to engage with difficult conversations and would prefer everything to be black and white. I also get that black and white is a very compelling political argument. But it does not solve deep-seated economic challenges.

I engage in difficult conversations on here all the time, but you won't brook anything that goes against your world view - which is that you only want immigration to be about economic benefits.

No, I want immigration to be discussed honestly.

A substantial reduction to immigration levels will have an adverse effect on our economy in multiple ways. I don't think we can afford for that to happen given where our economy is currently.

A substantial reduction from a 10 year average or 2 year average as those are very different?

Well, exactly. Immigration numbers are going to come down significantly over the next year. Is that enough? If not, why not and what will give?

Putting your two comments together, should the government be trying to increase immigration to boost the economy or should they be happy that immigration will come down?

SouthamObserver said:

williamglenn said:

SouthamObserver said:

noneoftheabove said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

Foxy said:

viewcode said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Student activists force RAF to close stalls at university job fairs
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/defence/article/student-activists-force-raf-to-close-stalls-at-university-job-fairs-dr9q2th6v (£££)

This is the problem with university free speech. How do universities guarantee it against this sort of mass protest?

Is that a free speech problem or a public order problem? The RAF were going about their lawful business having obtained the necessary consents and should be allowed to do so unimpeded.

Surely the protestors were the ones exercising free speech.

Free speech is the absence of a negative - i.e. it means you are not persecuted for making your point - not that you have the right to do it when and where wherever you like and disrupt others doing the same or going about their lawful business.

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jonathan said:

Mexicanpete said:

Nigelb said:

AnneJGP said:

Good morning, everybody.

It's a time of considerable turmoil and it seems to me that, after such a long time in government, the Conservatives should be focussing on what they truly believe. Sorting themselves out, as @Alanbrooke says.

And what would that be ?
You'd get very different answers from (say) TSE, HYUFD, Casino and PtP.

The last decade has fragmented their coalition - and some of those fragments may permanently be lost to them.

Suella was on LBC yesterday doubling down on going full frontal Reform with a view to either a coalition or tacit mutual benefit arrangements. Personally, I would have thought that peels off the left flank to the LDs.

Where do people like Cameron, Osborne or May go on that scenario. A new “Coalition” party would become their natural home.

This is classic 'centrist' establishment thinking.

People want immigration brought under control. End of.

But it's not end of, is it? They also want functioning public services, more housing, people to look after their elderly relatives and so on. So what does immigration control actually look like in those circumstances?

You just don't get it.

You never will.

I get that you do not want to engage with difficult conversations and would prefer everything to be black and white. I also get that black and white is a very compelling political argument. But it does not solve deep-seated economic challenges.

I engage in difficult conversations on here all the time, but you won't brook anything that goes against your world view - which is that you only want immigration to be about economic benefits.

No, I want immigration to be discussed honestly.

A substantial reduction to immigration levels will have an adverse effect on our economy in multiple ways. I don't think we can afford for that to happen given where our economy is currently.

A substantial reduction from a 10 year average or 2 year average as those are very different?

Well, exactly. Immigration numbers are going to come down significantly over the next year. Is that enough? If not, why not and what will give?

Putting your two comments together, should the government be trying to increase immigration to boost the economy or should they be happy that immigration will come down?

A healthy economy delivering sustainable growth and improvements to living standards is what I want. Given our ageing workforce, I do not see how that is delivered without a significant level of immigration. My lifestyle would be largely unaffected by a reduction of immigration to zero. But I think it would have a very quick, adverse effect on millions of others.

viewcode said:

Malmesbury said:

kinabalu said:

Selebian said:

viewcode said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Student activists force RAF to close stalls at university job fairs
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/defence/article/student-activists-force-raf-to-close-stalls-at-university-job-fairs-dr9q2th6v (£££)

This is the problem with university free speech. How do universities guarantee it against this sort of mass protest?

Is that a free speech problem or a public order problem? The RAF were going about their lawful business having obtained the necessary consents and should be allowed to do so unimpeded.

Yep, different things. Free speech - students should be completely free to protest outside the venue while not impeding anyone's access. I don't have the details of this story (no subscription) but if they forced closure of stalls then it seems a lot more than exercising a right to free speech.

It can be a fine line. Imagine a large and noisy group of people getting in your face as you make to enter something. They aren't physically stopping you but it's unpleasant and you think, "no, not worth it, I'll go do something else". So then whatever the event is is severely compromised.

The classic case of this is abortion clinics.

"But they're only praying! What have you got against praying, you bigot!"

williamglenn said:

SouthamObserver said:

noneoftheabove said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

Foxy said:

viewcode said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Student activists force RAF to close stalls at university job fairs
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/defence/article/student-activists-force-raf-to-close-stalls-at-university-job-fairs-dr9q2th6v (£££)

This is the problem with university free speech. How do universities guarantee it against this sort of mass protest?

Is that a free speech problem or a public order problem? The RAF were going about their lawful business having obtained the necessary consents and should be allowed to do so unimpeded.

Surely the protestors were the ones exercising free speech.

Free speech is the absence of a negative - i.e. it means you are not persecuted for making your point - not that you have the right to do it when and where wherever you like and disrupt others doing the same or going about their lawful business.

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jonathan said:

Mexicanpete said:

Nigelb said:

AnneJGP said:

Good morning, everybody.

It's a time of considerable turmoil and it seems to me that, after such a long time in government, the Conservatives should be focussing on what they truly believe. Sorting themselves out, as @Alanbrooke says.

And what would that be ?
You'd get very different answers from (say) TSE, HYUFD, Casino and PtP.

The last decade has fragmented their coalition - and some of those fragments may permanently be lost to them.

Suella was on LBC yesterday doubling down on going full frontal Reform with a view to either a coalition or tacit mutual benefit arrangements. Personally, I would have thought that peels off the left flank to the LDs.

Where do people like Cameron, Osborne or May go on that scenario. A new “Coalition” party would become their natural home.

This is classic 'centrist' establishment thinking.

People want immigration brought under control. End of.

But it's not end of, is it? They also want functioning public services, more housing, people to look after their elderly relatives and so on. So what does immigration control actually look like in those circumstances?

You just don't get it.

You never will.

I get that you do not want to engage with difficult conversations and would prefer everything to be black and white. I also get that black and white is a very compelling political argument. But it does not solve deep-seated economic challenges.

I engage in difficult conversations on here all the time, but you won't brook anything that goes against your world view - which is that you only want immigration to be about economic benefits.

No, I want immigration to be discussed honestly.

A substantial reduction to immigration levels will have an adverse effect on our economy in multiple ways. I don't think we can afford for that to happen given where our economy is currently.

A substantial reduction from a 10 year average or 2 year average as those are very different?

Well, exactly. Immigration numbers are going to come down significantly over the next year. Is that enough? If not, why not and what will give?

Putting your two comments together, should the government be trying to increase immigration to boost the economy or should they be happy that immigration will come down?

Malmesbury said:

mwadams said:

Malmesbury said:

mwadams said:

Malmesbury said:

Foxy said:

Sean_F said:

Malmesbury said:

Foxy said:

viewcode said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Student activists force RAF to close stalls at university job fairs
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/defence/article/student-activists-force-raf-to-close-stalls-at-university-job-fairs-dr9q2th6v (£££)

This is the problem with university free speech. How do universities guarantee it against this sort of mass protest?

Is that a free speech problem or a public order problem? The RAF were going about their lawful business having obtained the necessary consents and should be allowed to do so unimpeded.

Surely the protestors were the ones exercising free speech.

What would you feel if a bunch of Netanyahu supporters forced pro-palestinians to close their stall?

Would you be suggesting that was free speech?

The classic philosophical boundaries on free speech are the point where it shuts down the speech of others. That goes back to the ancient Greeks. At least in written form...

Yes, it comes down to “free speech for people I like.”

University authorities usually adopt the line of least resistance.

Exactly.

People have free speech to support the government and institutions, but are frowned upon when they express contrary opinions.

It's a bit like democracy. In that case the test is - If the Other Lot win the election, what happens?

1) Order the removal people round. Leave a note. Democracy
2) Order the army to shoot the Other Lot. Not-democracy.

For free speech - do the people I dislike get to speak?

And in what circumstances. I personally think the church is, on balance, a blight on the country. But I wouldn't support someone's right to "free speech" to stand in the porch of a church and harangue everyone on the way in and out about why they shouldn't believe this nonsense. Outside the church, fine, unless/until they cause an obstruction or similar.

Likewise, I think that this RAF situation is a public order problem. They can have a protest around the corner / outside the building as long as they don't impede people's lawful right to go about their business.

Similarly, I had no problem with animal rights protestors outside my favourite restaurant. I had to put up with fairly-loud protest which others moaned about but, hey, suck it up and eat your legal foie if that's ethically OK by you. On the other hand, when they started threatening staff and damaging property, that's that.

As the old, small "l" libertarian quip put it - "Your freedom to wave your fist stops where my nose begins."

The problem here is the "The hurtfulness of your existence" - to some people the existence of a counter argument if terrifying and painful. See religion. See also the cases where, in universities, the presence of Germaine Greer in a meeting room required safe spaces and counselling for opponents.

And of course, that libertarian quip is actually a grey area. Waving your fist right up to my nose is unacceptable if it feels to me like you might hit me - whatever you claim your intention was. Which is what slides towards what many would see as the overreactions in your later examples. But equally might be "straw that broke the camel's back" territory for others.

Which is why genuine libertarian philosophy has created a vast pile of learned argument on the nature of freedom and it's limits - chiefly with respect to the freedom of others.

Like everything else involving humans - it's complicated.

{A plucked chicken has entered the room}

TheScreamingEagles said:

So classless, what is it about Arsenal that turns nice people into wind up merchants?

Arsenal great Sol Campbell winds up Spurs fans and reopens old wounds in phone advert

Campbell changes from a white sweater to red and says ‘big moves pay off’ in advert timed to run before this week’s north London derby

Sol Campbell has poked fun at Tottenham Hotspur’s relative lack of trophies in a “tongue-in-cheek” viral new advert about his hugely controversial move to rivals Arsenal.

The Arsenal ‘Invincible’ moved from Spurs on a free transfer under the Bosman ruling in 2001 after his contract had run down. He had graduated through Tottenham’s youth system before winning two Premier League titles, two FA Cups and scoring in the Champions League final for his new club.

In an advert for Google’s Pixel phones, the now 50-year-old Campbell is initially pictured in a white jumper and says: ‘It’s that time of year again….” He then reveals a red sweater while adding: “A time when people start to wonder if the grass might be greener. Whether they should switch sides and change allegiances. Take it from me, big moves pay off.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2025/01/14/sol-campbell-advert-watch-arsenal-tottenham-abuse-transfer/

Malmesbury said:

MattW said:

SouthamObserver said:

Malmesbury said:

SouthamObserver said:

MattW said:

Foxy said:

viewcode said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Student activists force RAF to close stalls at university job fairs
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/defence/article/student-activists-force-raf-to-close-stalls-at-university-job-fairs-dr9q2th6v (£££)

This is the problem with university free speech. How do universities guarantee it against this sort of mass protest?

Is that a free speech problem or a public order problem? The RAF were going about their lawful business having obtained the necessary consents and should be allowed to do so unimpeded.

Surely the protestors were the ones exercising free speech.

I draw the line where it involves impeding or preventing others from going about their lawful business.

At the very least the protestors are breaching the peace, though other offences could apply. I'd suggest a suitable remedy would be a night or two in a police cell and a conditional discharge by the Magistrate the next court day.

And that would apply to farmers driving their tractors down motorways or through London to deliberate slowdown or halt traffic just as much as it would apply to Just Stop Oil protestors.

IIRC the farmers took very considerable legal advice and cooperated with the police on the nature, size and structure of their protest.

So your comparison with Just Stop Oil isn't valid.

Hmmmm ....

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8edr43wg27o

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cr5629zjqq3o

Such a comparison surely is valid, with the note that the farmers were likely on the right side of the line.

Many legal and arranged protests cause a "disruption". Otherwise it would be impossible to march through Central London, legally. For example.

SouthamObserver said:

tlg86 said:

SouthamObserver said:

williamglenn said:

SouthamObserver said:

noneoftheabove said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

Foxy said:

viewcode said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Student activists force RAF to close stalls at university job fairs
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/defence/article/student-activists-force-raf-to-close-stalls-at-university-job-fairs-dr9q2th6v (£££)

This is the problem with university free speech. How do universities guarantee it against this sort of mass protest?

Is that a free speech problem or a public order problem? The RAF were going about their lawful business having obtained the necessary consents and should be allowed to do so unimpeded.

Surely the protestors were the ones exercising free speech.

Free speech is the absence of a negative - i.e. it means you are not persecuted for making your point - not that you have the right to do it when and where wherever you like and disrupt others doing the same or going about their lawful business.

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jonathan said:

Mexicanpete said:

Nigelb said:

AnneJGP said:

Good morning, everybody.

It's a time of considerable turmoil and it seems to me that, after such a long time in government, the Conservatives should be focussing on what they truly believe. Sorting themselves out, as @Alanbrooke says.

And what would that be ?
You'd get very different answers from (say) TSE, HYUFD, Casino and PtP.

The last decade has fragmented their coalition - and some of those fragments may permanently be lost to them.

Suella was on LBC yesterday doubling down on going full frontal Reform with a view to either a coalition or tacit mutual benefit arrangements. Personally, I would have thought that peels off the left flank to the LDs.

Where do people like Cameron, Osborne or May go on that scenario. A new “Coalition” party would become their natural home.

This is classic 'centrist' establishment thinking.

People want immigration brought under control. End of.

But it's not end of, is it? They also want functioning public services, more housing, people to look after their elderly relatives and so on. So what does immigration control actually look like in those circumstances?

You just don't get it.

You never will.

I get that you do not want to engage with difficult conversations and would prefer everything to be black and white. I also get that black and white is a very compelling political argument. But it does not solve deep-seated economic challenges.

I engage in difficult conversations on here all the time, but you won't brook anything that goes against your world view - which is that you only want immigration to be about economic benefits.

No, I want immigration to be discussed honestly.

A substantial reduction to immigration levels will have an adverse effect on our economy in multiple ways. I don't think we can afford for that to happen given where our economy is currently.

A substantial reduction from a 10 year average or 2 year average as those are very different?

Well, exactly. Immigration numbers are going to come down significantly over the next year. Is that enough? If not, why not and what will give?

Putting your two comments together, should the government be trying to increase immigration to boost the economy or should they be happy that immigration will come down?

A healthy economy delivering sustainable growth and improvements to living standards is what I want. Given our ageing workforce, I do not see how that is delivered without a significant level of immigration. My lifestyle would be largely unaffected by a reduction of immigration to zero. But I think it would have a very quick, adverse effect on millions of others.

It's all a bit chicken and egg, but I think it's fair to say that immigration is adding to our aging population.

It's certainly helping our ageing population.

All I'm saying is that it's dishonest to pretend there are not significant downsides to major reductions in immigration. I would like to see politicians who want to do it anyway recognise this and justify it. They don't and they won't.

noneoftheabove said:

viewcode said:

Malmesbury said:

kinabalu said:

Selebian said:

viewcode said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Student activists force RAF to close stalls at university job fairs
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/defence/article/student-activists-force-raf-to-close-stalls-at-university-job-fairs-dr9q2th6v (£££)

This is the problem with university free speech. How do universities guarantee it against this sort of mass protest?

Is that a free speech problem or a public order problem? The RAF were going about their lawful business having obtained the necessary consents and should be allowed to do so unimpeded.

Yep, different things. Free speech - students should be completely free to protest outside the venue while not impeding anyone's access. I don't have the details of this story (no subscription) but if they forced closure of stalls then it seems a lot more than exercising a right to free speech.

It can be a fine line. Imagine a large and noisy group of people getting in your face as you make to enter something. They aren't physically stopping you but it's unpleasant and you think, "no, not worth it, I'll go do something else". So then whatever the event is is severely compromised.

The classic case of this is abortion clinics.

"But they're only praying! What have you got against praying, you bigot!"

If you can't pray nicely you can't pray at all.

PJH said:

williamglenn said:

SouthamObserver said:

noneoftheabove said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

Foxy said:

viewcode said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Student activists force RAF to close stalls at university job fairs
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/defence/article/student-activists-force-raf-to-close-stalls-at-university-job-fairs-dr9q2th6v (£££)

This is the problem with university free speech. How do universities guarantee it against this sort of mass protest?

Is that a free speech problem or a public order problem? The RAF were going about their lawful business having obtained the necessary consents and should be allowed to do so unimpeded.

Surely the protestors were the ones exercising free speech.

Free speech is the absence of a negative - i.e. it means you are not persecuted for making your point - not that you have the right to do it when and where wherever you like and disrupt others doing the same or going about their lawful business.

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jonathan said:

Mexicanpete said:

Nigelb said:

AnneJGP said:

Good morning, everybody.

It's a time of considerable turmoil and it seems to me that, after such a long time in government, the Conservatives should be focussing on what they truly believe. Sorting themselves out, as @Alanbrooke says.

And what would that be ?
You'd get very different answers from (say) TSE, HYUFD, Casino and PtP.

The last decade has fragmented their coalition - and some of those fragments may permanently be lost to them.

Suella was on LBC yesterday doubling down on going full frontal Reform with a view to either a coalition or tacit mutual benefit arrangements. Personally, I would have thought that peels off the left flank to the LDs.

Where do people like Cameron, Osborne or May go on that scenario. A new “Coalition” party would become their natural home.

This is classic 'centrist' establishment thinking.

People want immigration brought under control. End of.

But it's not end of, is it? They also want functioning public services, more housing, people to look after their elderly relatives and so on. So what does immigration control actually look like in those circumstances?

You just don't get it.

You never will.

I get that you do not want to engage with difficult conversations and would prefer everything to be black and white. I also get that black and white is a very compelling political argument. But it does not solve deep-seated economic challenges.

I engage in difficult conversations on here all the time, but you won't brook anything that goes against your world view - which is that you only want immigration to be about economic benefits.

No, I want immigration to be discussed honestly.

A substantial reduction to immigration levels will have an adverse effect on our economy in multiple ways. I don't think we can afford for that to happen given where our economy is currently.

A substantial reduction from a 10 year average or 2 year average as those are very different?

Well, exactly. Immigration numbers are going to come down significantly over the next year. Is that enough? If not, why not and what will give?

Putting your two comments together, should the government be trying to increase immigration to boost the economy or should they be happy that immigration will come down?

I wonder how the people who would currently support broadly a 'No Immigration' policy would be impacted by it, if it was actually implemented?

How many would benefit by wages rising to a decent level for all the minimum wage jobs that currently rely on immigrants to fill vacancies? A net positive for working people in the lower-paid end of the job market.

And how many would be squealing at the tax rises needed to pay for social care and health costs, or (alternatively) growth in NHS waiting lists and the inability to see a GP? Or services in general because wages have risen? I expect a lot of the 55+ cohort supporting Reform would be far from happy.

I expect the comfortably off middle classes could manage to find their way to the local takeaway once more instead of using Deliveroo...

Conclusion - Labour should adopt zero immigration as it will benefit their natural support and punish the Reform vote most. They won't though,

If Reform got in, it would kill them stone dead. If elected, they won't do it either.

noneoftheabove said:

MattW said:

noneoftheabove said:

MattW said:

carnforth said:

MattW said:

Noted in passing:

The chap from confused.com on R4 Today at around 06:25 noting that 20mph limits are making a contribution to reductions in car insurance premiums because they make our roads safer.

We'll get real data from places like Wales in the next year or two.

Though where should already be data in the record, from places like Portsmouth, Cambridge, Nottingham, and possibly Hull.

London and Birmingham may be supplying data in 2-5 years.

Aren't the countervailing trends raising our premiums (electric cars being less repairable and so on) much larger?

Picking this up from earlier.

Yes different factors affect insurance prices, but multivariable analysis and different data sets allow the impacts to be teased out.

The data is that there were major increases (31%) 2 years ago on average, and a fall back (~17%) last year. That is part frequency of claims, and part the cost of repair.

The speed limiter technology that has come in is interesting - we may get premiums related to agreeing to obey speed limits one level more than the 'black box monitoing' done previously.

If the data finds that those dogmatically driving at the speed limit are higher risk should they be charged more? I suspect they are higher risk than those who take a perhaps more flexible scenario dependent approach but obviously less risk than the boy racers at the extreme.

Perhaps rcs has insight?

I doubt whether the UK is comparable with the USA for a whole plethora of reasons.

True, a lot of our cars have steering wheels.

tlg86 said:

SouthamObserver said:

tlg86 said:

SouthamObserver said:

williamglenn said:

SouthamObserver said:

noneoftheabove said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

Foxy said:

viewcode said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Student activists force RAF to close stalls at university job fairs
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/defence/article/student-activists-force-raf-to-close-stalls-at-university-job-fairs-dr9q2th6v (£££)

This is the problem with university free speech. How do universities guarantee it against this sort of mass protest?

Is that a free speech problem or a public order problem? The RAF were going about their lawful business having obtained the necessary consents and should be allowed to do so unimpeded.

Surely the protestors were the ones exercising free speech.

Free speech is the absence of a negative - i.e. it means you are not persecuted for making your point - not that you have the right to do it when and where wherever you like and disrupt others doing the same or going about their lawful business.

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jonathan said:

Mexicanpete said:

Nigelb said:

AnneJGP said:

Good morning, everybody.

It's a time of considerable turmoil and it seems to me that, after such a long time in government, the Conservatives should be focussing on what they truly believe. Sorting themselves out, as @Alanbrooke says.

And what would that be ?
You'd get very different answers from (say) TSE, HYUFD, Casino and PtP.

The last decade has fragmented their coalition - and some of those fragments may permanently be lost to them.

Suella was on LBC yesterday doubling down on going full frontal Reform with a view to either a coalition or tacit mutual benefit arrangements. Personally, I would have thought that peels off the left flank to the LDs.

Where do people like Cameron, Osborne or May go on that scenario. A new “Coalition” party would become their natural home.

This is classic 'centrist' establishment thinking.

People want immigration brought under control. End of.

But it's not end of, is it? They also want functioning public services, more housing, people to look after their elderly relatives and so on. So what does immigration control actually look like in those circumstances?

You just don't get it.

You never will.

I get that you do not want to engage with difficult conversations and would prefer everything to be black and white. I also get that black and white is a very compelling political argument. But it does not solve deep-seated economic challenges.

I engage in difficult conversations on here all the time, but you won't brook anything that goes against your world view - which is that you only want immigration to be about economic benefits.

No, I want immigration to be discussed honestly.

A substantial reduction to immigration levels will have an adverse effect on our economy in multiple ways. I don't think we can afford for that to happen given where our economy is currently.

A substantial reduction from a 10 year average or 2 year average as those are very different?

Well, exactly. Immigration numbers are going to come down significantly over the next year. Is that enough? If not, why not and what will give?

Putting your two comments together, should the government be trying to increase immigration to boost the economy or should they be happy that immigration will come down?

A healthy economy delivering sustainable growth and improvements to living standards is what I want. Given our ageing workforce, I do not see how that is delivered without a significant level of immigration. My lifestyle would be largely unaffected by a reduction of immigration to zero. But I think it would have a very quick, adverse effect on millions of others.

It's all a bit chicken and egg, but I think it's fair to say that immigration is adding to our aging population.

It's certainly helping our ageing population.

All I'm saying is that it's dishonest to pretend there are not significant downsides to major reductions in immigration. I would like to see politicians who want to do it anyway recognise this and justify it. They don't and they won't.

And I want people to acknowledge that there are significant downsides to not having major reductions in immigration.

kinabalu said:

Selebian said:

kinabalu said:

Selebian said:

viewcode said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Student activists force RAF to close stalls at university job fairs
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/defence/article/student-activists-force-raf-to-close-stalls-at-university-job-fairs-dr9q2th6v (£££)

This is the problem with university free speech. How do universities guarantee it against this sort of mass protest?

Is that a free speech problem or a public order problem? The RAF were going about their lawful business having obtained the necessary consents and should be allowed to do so unimpeded.

Yep, different things. Free speech - students should be completely free to protest outside the venue while not impeding anyone's access. I don't have the details of this story (no subscription) but if they forced closure of stalls then it seems a lot more than exercising a right to free speech.

It can be a fine line. Imagine a large and noisy group of people getting in your face as you make to enter something. They aren't physically stopping you but it's unpleasant and you think, "no, not worth it, I'll go do something else". So then whatever the event is is severely compromised.

It can. Here it would be the University's job to make sure that didn't happen, I think. Here's where you can stand (which should be near enough to have an impact, but not close enough to block, threaten or intimidate) here's where you have to keep free. Not an easy job necessarily, but it has to be done - and peacenik students should back it, because next time it might be a contingent of RAF veterans shutting down a CND* stall

*still a thing?

Think so, but the glory days are long gone. I ought to join because I believe in the cause very strongly. Don't suppose I will though.

williamglenn said:

Foxy said:

Sean_F said:

Establishment centrists and populist insurgents are about equal, in terms of being self-serving and duplicitous, and selling snake oil.

But the former frequently give the impression that they place the interests of foreigners above the interests of their own people.

Populist insurgents are the ones following poodle like behind the interests of the American oligarchs.

Are tariffs and immigration restrictions in Musk’s interests?

BartholomewRoberts said:

Point of order there is a mistake in the thread header @TheScreamingEagles

Boris never promised low immigration.

Getting immigration down to the "tens of thousands" was a pledge made by Cameron and May in the 2010, 2015 and 2017 manifestos. It was categorically NOT in the 2019 mankfesto which dumped that policy.

Boris promised to take back control etc which was done. It was Cameron and May not Boris who pledged to cut immigration to the tens of thousands though, Boris didn't even retain that preexisting pledge.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Point of order there is a mistake in the thread header @TheScreamingEagles

Boris never promised low immigration.

Getting immigration down to the "tens of thousands" was a pledge made by Cameron and May in the 2010, 2015 and 2017 manifestos. It was categorically NOT in the 2019 mankfesto which dumped that policy.

Boris promised to take back control etc which was done. It was Cameron and May not Boris who pledged to cut immigration to the tens of thousands though, Boris didn't even retain that preexisting pledge.

Nigelb said:

In case you were wondering.

Yoon continued to invoke right to silence in afternoon questioning as well as morning one. His dinner menu was doenjang-jjigae, (fermented) soybean paste stew.
https://x.com/yejinjgim/status/1879479968817955059

Foxy said:

PJH said:

williamglenn said:

SouthamObserver said:

noneoftheabove said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

Foxy said:

viewcode said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Student activists force RAF to close stalls at university job fairs
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/defence/article/student-activists-force-raf-to-close-stalls-at-university-job-fairs-dr9q2th6v (£££)

This is the problem with university free speech. How do universities guarantee it against this sort of mass protest?

Is that a free speech problem or a public order problem? The RAF were going about their lawful business having obtained the necessary consents and should be allowed to do so unimpeded.

Surely the protestors were the ones exercising free speech.

Free speech is the absence of a negative - i.e. it means you are not persecuted for making your point - not that you have the right to do it when and where wherever you like and disrupt others doing the same or going about their lawful business.

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jonathan said:

Mexicanpete said:

Nigelb said:

AnneJGP said:

Good morning, everybody.

It's a time of considerable turmoil and it seems to me that, after such a long time in government, the Conservatives should be focussing on what they truly believe. Sorting themselves out, as @Alanbrooke says.

And what would that be ?
You'd get very different answers from (say) TSE, HYUFD, Casino and PtP.

The last decade has fragmented their coalition - and some of those fragments may permanently be lost to them.

Suella was on LBC yesterday doubling down on going full frontal Reform with a view to either a coalition or tacit mutual benefit arrangements. Personally, I would have thought that peels off the left flank to the LDs.

Where do people like Cameron, Osborne or May go on that scenario. A new “Coalition” party would become their natural home.

This is classic 'centrist' establishment thinking.

People want immigration brought under control. End of.

But it's not end of, is it? They also want functioning public services, more housing, people to look after their elderly relatives and so on. So what does immigration control actually look like in those circumstances?

You just don't get it.

You never will.

I get that you do not want to engage with difficult conversations and would prefer everything to be black and white. I also get that black and white is a very compelling political argument. But it does not solve deep-seated economic challenges.

I engage in difficult conversations on here all the time, but you won't brook anything that goes against your world view - which is that you only want immigration to be about economic benefits.

No, I want immigration to be discussed honestly.

A substantial reduction to immigration levels will have an adverse effect on our economy in multiple ways. I don't think we can afford for that to happen given where our economy is currently.

A substantial reduction from a 10 year average or 2 year average as those are very different?

Well, exactly. Immigration numbers are going to come down significantly over the next year. Is that enough? If not, why not and what will give?

Putting your two comments together, should the government be trying to increase immigration to boost the economy or should they be happy that immigration will come down?

I wonder how the people who would currently support broadly a 'No Immigration' policy would be impacted by it, if it was actually implemented?

How many would benefit by wages rising to a decent level for all the minimum wage jobs that currently rely on immigrants to fill vacancies? A net positive for working people in the lower-paid end of the job market.

And how many would be squealing at the tax rises needed to pay for social care and health costs, or (alternatively) growth in NHS waiting lists and the inability to see a GP? Or services in general because wages have risen? I expect a lot of the 55+ cohort supporting Reform would be far from happy.

I expect the comfortably off middle classes could manage to find their way to the local takeaway once more instead of using Deliveroo...

Conclusion - Labour should adopt zero immigration as it will benefit their natural support and punish the Reform vote most. They won't though,

If Reform got in, it would kill them stone dead. If elected, they won't do it either.

I think the drop in the 2025 immigration figures is going to shame the last Tory government by comparison. Reform will still shout that they are too high

noneoftheabove said:

MattW said:

noneoftheabove said:

MattW said:

carnforth said:

MattW said:

Noted in passing:

The chap from confused.com on R4 Today at around 06:25 noting that 20mph limits are making a contribution to reductions in car insurance premiums because they make our roads safer.

We'll get real data from places like Wales in the next year or two.

Though where should already be data in the record, from places like Portsmouth, Cambridge, Nottingham, and possibly Hull.

London and Birmingham may be supplying data in 2-5 years.

Aren't the countervailing trends raising our premiums (electric cars being less repairable and so on) much larger?

Picking this up from earlier.

Yes different factors affect insurance prices, but multivariable analysis and different data sets allow the impacts to be teased out.

The data is that there were major increases (31%) 2 years ago on average, and a fall back (~17%) last year. That is part frequency of claims, and part the cost of repair.

The speed limiter technology that has come in is interesting - we may get premiums related to agreeing to obey speed limits one level more than the 'black box monitoing' done previously.

If the data finds that those dogmatically driving at the speed limit are higher risk should they be charged more? I suspect they are higher risk than those who take a perhaps more flexible scenario dependent approach but obviously less risk than the boy racers at the extreme.

Perhaps rcs has insight?

I doubt whether the UK is comparable with the USA for a whole plethora of reasons.

True, a lot of our cars have steering wheels.

PJH said:

Foxy said:

PJH said:

williamglenn said:

SouthamObserver said:

noneoftheabove said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

Foxy said:

viewcode said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Student activists force RAF to close stalls at university job fairs
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/defence/article/student-activists-force-raf-to-close-stalls-at-university-job-fairs-dr9q2th6v (£££)

This is the problem with university free speech. How do universities guarantee it against this sort of mass protest?

Is that a free speech problem or a public order problem? The RAF were going about their lawful business having obtained the necessary consents and should be allowed to do so unimpeded.

Surely the protestors were the ones exercising free speech.

Free speech is the absence of a negative - i.e. it means you are not persecuted for making your point - not that you have the right to do it when and where wherever you like and disrupt others doing the same or going about their lawful business.

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jonathan said:

Mexicanpete said:

Nigelb said:

AnneJGP said:

Good morning, everybody.

It's a time of considerable turmoil and it seems to me that, after such a long time in government, the Conservatives should be focussing on what they truly believe. Sorting themselves out, as @Alanbrooke says.

And what would that be ?
You'd get very different answers from (say) TSE, HYUFD, Casino and PtP.

The last decade has fragmented their coalition - and some of those fragments may permanently be lost to them.

Suella was on LBC yesterday doubling down on going full frontal Reform with a view to either a coalition or tacit mutual benefit arrangements. Personally, I would have thought that peels off the left flank to the LDs.

Where do people like Cameron, Osborne or May go on that scenario. A new “Coalition” party would become their natural home.

This is classic 'centrist' establishment thinking.

People want immigration brought under control. End of.

But it's not end of, is it? They also want functioning public services, more housing, people to look after their elderly relatives and so on. So what does immigration control actually look like in those circumstances?

You just don't get it.

You never will.

I get that you do not want to engage with difficult conversations and would prefer everything to be black and white. I also get that black and white is a very compelling political argument. But it does not solve deep-seated economic challenges.

I engage in difficult conversations on here all the time, but you won't brook anything that goes against your world view - which is that you only want immigration to be about economic benefits.

No, I want immigration to be discussed honestly.

A substantial reduction to immigration levels will have an adverse effect on our economy in multiple ways. I don't think we can afford for that to happen given where our economy is currently.

A substantial reduction from a 10 year average or 2 year average as those are very different?

Well, exactly. Immigration numbers are going to come down significantly over the next year. Is that enough? If not, why not and what will give?

Putting your two comments together, should the government be trying to increase immigration to boost the economy or should they be happy that immigration will come down?

I wonder how the people who would currently support broadly a 'No Immigration' policy would be impacted by it, if it was actually implemented?

How many would benefit by wages rising to a decent level for all the minimum wage jobs that currently rely on immigrants to fill vacancies? A net positive for working people in the lower-paid end of the job market.

And how many would be squealing at the tax rises needed to pay for social care and health costs, or (alternatively) growth in NHS waiting lists and the inability to see a GP? Or services in general because wages have risen? I expect a lot of the 55+ cohort supporting Reform would be far from happy.

I expect the comfortably off middle classes could manage to find their way to the local takeaway once more instead of using Deliveroo...

Conclusion - Labour should adopt zero immigration as it will benefit their natural support and punish the Reform vote most. They won't though,

If Reform got in, it would kill them stone dead. If elected, they won't do it either.

I think the drop in the 2025 immigration figures is going to shame the last Tory government by comparison. Reform will still shout that they are too high

I suspect any immigration figure will be too high for Reform. That's partly why I was trying to imagine the impact of zero immigration. Curiously it is most against the interests of the people who bankroll Reform, and about half their support base. Which is why I think any commitments would be hastily forgotten if they ever did get to power.

OTOH it fits quite well with a left wing Workers First philosophy, if the left can get past zero immigration being racist (which technically it isn't).

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Good morning

I understand a more in common poll is out with conservative 1% ahead of both labour and reform who are tied at 24%

Effectively a three way tie but I do not have the poll

Big_G_NorthWales said:

This is the poll

https://x.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1879460213121790271?t=H-F6qDLJEZg0bIu4IHftLA&s=19

Carnyx said:

Looking in briefly.

Slab seem to have realised that cancelling the Edinburgh supercomputer on arrival in No 10, and then reinstating it elsewhere, doesn't look great to the locals as well as to the UK as a whole. Though Mr Murray may be speaking more for LondonHQ/UKG, being a Cabinet Minister.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/24858840.ian-murray-claims-edinburgh-supercomputer-project-paused-not-axed/?ref=ebbn&nid=1457&u=f140ec39d500193051a33e140c12bd95&date=150125

'Asked if Edinburgh was then still under consideration for building the supercomputer, Murray added: “Edinburgh is the AI capital of the world and has been since 1964, so I think Edinburgh is well placed.”'

Malmesbury said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

noneoftheabove said:

MattW said:

noneoftheabove said:

MattW said:

carnforth said:

MattW said:

Noted in passing:

The chap from confused.com on R4 Today at around 06:25 noting that 20mph limits are making a contribution to reductions in car insurance premiums because they make our roads safer.

We'll get real data from places like Wales in the next year or two.

Though where should already be data in the record, from places like Portsmouth, Cambridge, Nottingham, and possibly Hull.

London and Birmingham may be supplying data in 2-5 years.

Aren't the countervailing trends raising our premiums (electric cars being less repairable and so on) much larger?

Picking this up from earlier.

Yes different factors affect insurance prices, but multivariable analysis and different data sets allow the impacts to be teased out.

The data is that there were major increases (31%) 2 years ago on average, and a fall back (~17%) last year. That is part frequency of claims, and part the cost of repair.

The speed limiter technology that has come in is interesting - we may get premiums related to agreeing to obey speed limits one level more than the 'black box monitoing' done previously.

If the data finds that those dogmatically driving at the speed limit are higher risk should they be charged more? I suspect they are higher risk than those who take a perhaps more flexible scenario dependent approach but obviously less risk than the boy racers at the extreme.

Perhaps rcs has insight?

I doubt whether the UK is comparable with the USA for a whole plethora of reasons.

True, a lot of our cars have steering wheels.

Rising cost of repair is a large factor, and it is not just electric cars. A headlight that might have cost a few tenners to replace is £800 of LED trickery on a recent car, for instance. Reversing cameras, blind spot monitors, half an ipad replacing physical buttons are just some of the things driving up repair costs.

Then there is the increased width of modern cars, partly for safety reasons. Look at how thick a car door is now. We read in yesterday's news that Colchester is repainting its car parks for this reason, but it means less clearance when passing, and more low speed dings.

Parking spaces 'too narrow for modern vehicles'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gzppd0ejyo

And while 20mph zones mean less collisions, paradoxically lower speeds mean journeys take longer so there is more traffic at any one time which gives more scope for collisions.

Right to Repair should push the car side of things harder. Even Apple have moved on electronics, in that area.

Nigelb said:

Carnyx said:

Looking in briefly.

Slab seem to have realised that cancelling the Edinburgh supercomputer on arrival in No 10, and then reinstating it elsewhere, doesn't look great to the locals as well as to the UK as a whole. Though Mr Murray may be speaking more for LondonHQ/UKG, being a Cabinet Minister.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/24858840.ian-murray-claims-edinburgh-supercomputer-project-paused-not-axed/?ref=ebbn&nid=1457&u=f140ec39d500193051a33e140c12bd95&date=150125

'Asked if Edinburgh was then still under consideration for building the supercomputer, Murray added: “Edinburgh is the AI capital of the world and has been since 1964, so I think Edinburgh is well placed.”'

Not to disparage the technical and intellectual capital of Scotland's capital, but ??

Scott_xP said:

Mortimer said:

trade with the world, as that is growing, whilst trade with our economically weakening European neighbours diminishes.....

Bollocks